Global warming discussion IV

[Reality Check]

If major politicians can deny global warming altogether now, why wouldn't they say "4 is fine" later?

AFAIK Most major politicians such as the current leaders of countries do not deny global warming altogether. So the question is moot.
A few minor politicians do deny global warming altogether. More minor politicians deny that we are a primary clause of global warming.

 

[hgus]

I’m not sure you are reading those calls to action correctly. We are still below the danger threshold, but the longer we wait the more rapidly we need to cut CO2 emissions and the more painful it becomes.

I read the reports as follows; No matter if we achieve 2 degrees or not (I clearly do not believe we will) we have to try our god damn best! The sooner we start to act and the sooner we can stop the warming the better!

 

[Belz...]

No I do not think winters will ever disappear. I do think they will become warmer on average though.

Do you think you'd notice a 0.5 degree average increase? Do you think you'd notice more frequent and intense polar vortices, which would actually make things colder, despite being caused by higher global temperatures?

But why do you think I would harbour such a daft idea and why 2003?

It was hyperbole.

My point was about the credibility of climate reports. I become sceptical when the same "we need to act now or else" is used about 18 years later to achieve the same result, 2 degrees.

As others have said, 2 degrees is incredibly optimistic. Also, you seem to understimate the effect of a 2 degree increase in temperature over the entire volume of the atmosphere.

I do believe the science is good but that, understandable, the political pressure is very high.

Political pressure to what? The political pressure should be to ignore the results because it would cost too much and that would be unpopular -- wait! That's exactly what happened!

 

[hgus]

AFAIK Most major politicians such as the current leaders of countries do not deny global warming altogether. So the question is moot.
A few minor politicians do deny global warming altogether. More minor politicians deny that we are a primary clause of global warming.

I am sorry I meant to say AGW not global warming altogether! But I still think you dismiss my point to lighly.

From the top of my mind I get these examples. They are a minority but hardly minor.

From the USA

The next Republican presidential candidate. They are all sceptics from what I can see.
Senator Inhofe, chairman of the Senate committee on the environment and public works
The US Senate who elected the clown above

The rest

The former Australian PM.
Vladimir Putin

 

[Reality Check]

From the top of my mind I get these examples. They are a minority but hardly minor.

If a skeptical Republican presidential candidate gets elected then they will be a major politician. It may be interesting to see if they still express skepticism about AGW or whether it was just an election ploy.

Senator Inhofe is only a "major" politician in US politics and one committee, not world politics.

Which former Australian PM?
Tony Abbott, Kevin Rudd and Julia Gillard did not deny AGW.

Vladimir Putin is an AGW denier.

 

[hgus]

Do you think you'd notice a 0.5 degree average increase? Do you think you'd notice more frequent and intense polar vortices, which would actually make things colder, despite being caused by higher global temperatures?

Oh I think I already do. I live in the west coast of Sweden. We define a white winter as 6 weeks of snow cover. Those winters are becoming noticeable rarer. Lack of reliable snow made me give up on buying new skis a long time ago. I agree on the principle of the vortices but we always had some really cold winters so I do not think I would notice them personally.

As others have said, 2 degrees is incredibly optimistic. Also, you seem to understimate the effect of a 2 degree increase in temperature over the entire volume of the atmosphere.

I certainly hope I am not underestimate the effect of 2 degrees, because my outlook is rather bleak. I see a rising sea, drought, water scarcity and a mass extinction of species. I also see tipping points with unknown trigger points, they are hopefully far above 2 degrees but we do not know for sure. And of course more warming is worse.

Political pressure to what? The political pressure should be to ignore the results because it would cost too much and that would be unpopular -- wait! That's exactly what happened!

I believe that the political pressure is mostly to avoid a to radical conclusion, just as you said. And under no circumstances must the conclusions give a to downbeat prediction about our possibilities to stay under 2 degrees. 2 degrees has after all been the main goal since at least ICCP report 2 in 1995, and failure or admitting to failure is not good politics.

 

[Belz...]

Oh I think I already do. I live in the west coast of Sweden. We define a white winter as 6 weeks of snow cover. Those winters are becoming noticeable rarer. Lack of reliable snow made me give up on buying new skis a long time ago. I agree on the principle of the vortices but we always had some really cold winters so I do not think I would notice them personally.



I certainly hope I am not underestimate the effect of 2 degrees, because my outlook is rather bleak. I see a rising sea, drought, water scarcity and a mass extinction of species. I also see tipping points with unknown trigger points, they are hopefully far above 2 degrees but we do not know for sure. And of course more warming is worse.



I believe that the political pressure is mostly to avoid a to radical conclusion, just as you said. And under no circumstances must the conclusions give a to downbeat prediction about our possibilities to stay under 2 degrees. 2 degrees has after all been the main goal since at least ICCP report 2 in 1995, and failure or admitting to failure is not good politics.

Then I don't get the comment I originally responded to, sorry.

 

[hgus]

If a skeptical Republican presidential candidate gets elected then they will be a major politician. It may be interesting to see if they still express skepticism about AGW or whether it was just an election ploy.

Senator Inhofe is only a "major" politician in US politics and one committee, not world politics.

Which former Australian PM?
Tony Abbott, Kevin Rudd and Julia Gillard did not deny AGW.

Vladimir Putin is an AGW denier.

The US is still The essential country. So all politicians that can effects its national politic is important in my opinion.

I was referring to Tony Abbott.

RC you have forced me think again about AGW denial in international politics. I am sure there is a lot of "closet sceptics" in many countries. But only in two countries that matter can I identify it as an open and powerful force. Putin and Russia is one and the US right is the other. I think I read somewhere on the net that the US is getting less sceptical about AGW and that even a majority of Republicans believed in AGW. So hopefully the Snowballers of the world is in decline.

 

[hgus]

Why? Did you expect winter to dissapear worldwide in 2003?

No I do not think winters will ever disappear. I do think they will become warmer on average though. But why do you think I would harbour such a daft idea and why 2003?

SNIP POSTS

Then I don't get the comment I originally responded to, sorry.

I found your first question to aggressive to my taste and rather insulting. So I responded with a literal non-answer. Winters can never disappear, no matter how warm they get.

I hope that clears that up.

 

[Reality Check]

I was referring to Tony Abbott.

A 2014 Guardian news report based mostly on a 2009 book, a remark at a 2009 dinner and a is not a good indication of someone's opinion in 2014. Tony Abbott's statements since 2009 make it clear that he believes in AGW. What he does not believe in is carbon pricing to address the issue.
The news report misreports a Washington Post interview. These are the actual questions and replies about climate change: Lally Weymouth: An interview with Australia Prime Minister Tony Abbott

Since you want to abolish the carbon tax — does that mean you are skeptical about climate change?

I’m not one of those people who runs around and says every time there’s a fire or a flood, that proves climate change is getting worse. Australia has had fires and floods since the beginning of time. We’ve had much bigger floods and fires than the ones we’ve recently experienced. You can hardly say they were the result of anthropic global warming.

So do you believe in climate change or are you skeptical?

This argument has become far too theological for anyone’s good. I accept that climate change is a reality. And I support policies that will be effective in reducing emissions, but I do think there is too much climate-change alarmism.

Abbott is badly stating valid climate science
* a single fire or flood is not evidence of climate change. A trend over decades is evidence of climate change.
* Fires or floods before AGW are not evidence of AGW. His statement does however reflect a climate skeptic myth of "it happened before and so is not AGW".

 

[Jules Galen]

If some scientist were capable of creating a computer program that accurately predicted overall Northern Hemispheric Temps - and that had man-made CO2 concentrations as one of its primary variables, then I would believe in Anthropogenic Global Warming.

Until then, I just believe that the Earth is warming.

 

[macdoc]

You are just completely and willfully out of touch.... takes a honest person to admit they are wrong.

 

[Belz...]

I found your first question to aggressive to my taste and rather insulting. So I responded with a literal non-answer. Winters can never disappear, no matter how warm they get.

I hope that clears that up.

No, this:

"It will be hard and it will require immediate action. But it is still possible, but only just!" Isn't that what all those climate reports have been saying since at least the turn of the century? It is starting to sound a bit ... strained.

Also: grow a thicker skin.

 

[Pixel42]

NOAA's State of the Climate report for October.

The combined average temperature over global land and ocean surfaces for October 2015 was the highest for October in the 136-year period of record, at 0.98°C (1.76°F) above the 20th century average of 14.0°C (57.1°F). This marked the sixth consecutive month a monthly global temperature record has been broken and was also the greatest departure from average for any month in the 1630 months of recordkeeping, surpassing the previous record high departure set just last month by 0.13°F (0.07°C). The October temperature is currently increasing at an average rate of 0.06°C (0.11°F) per decade.

The first 10 months of 2015 comprised the warmest such period on record across the world's land and ocean surfaces, at 0.86°C (1.55°F) above the 20th century average, surpassing the previous record of 2014 by 0.12°C (0.22°F). This margin is larger than the uncertainty associated with the dataset. To date, eight months this year have been record warm for their respective months. January was the second warmest January on record and April third warmest.

 

[hgus]

Also: grow a thicker skin.

Will do Captain. As they say. "When in Rome..." Or put another way:

„Im Deutschen lügt man, wenn man höflich ist.“

Johann Wolfgang von Goethe (Werk: Faust II)

 

[aleCcowaN]

Yes there is no need for hopelessness as we have The Heartland Institute – known globally as the leading think tank debunking global warming alarmism and junk science.

Heartland Institute Leads Contingent of Climate Realists to Paris for UN’s COP 21 Conference

[qimg]https://lh3.googleusercontent.com/-xAdiohdkcU4/VjpSKNYP9SI/AAAAAAACa8Q/639el4qIzpM/s720-Ic42/monckton1.png[/qimg]

First of all, the customary



If those "specialists" are going to bring figures like that one from WhatsUpYourButt, they are going to be asked to clean the toilets, and that only if they're lucky.

You "Haig et al" continues to succeed in showing the only formation you have on the subject is a seminar about Dale Carnegie's. I'm sure with your genius you'll be able to spot the blunder in that graphic: Here you have a simplified version of it.

Tell me "Haig", what do the almost vertical lines show? are temperatures going up, down or nowhere?

Of course Dale Carnegie prepares you to say things like "pine boxes are for corpses; mahogany is for the loved ones" and make money. That's your realm and all your colourful phrases -usually devoid of content- go that way.

I haven't read the posts following yours, but I suppose somebody already grilled you about mixing the mean of hundreds of values of a derivative with its "trend" on the same decimal point basis (0.00 and r2=0.000 -right values-, didn't you realize the stupid piece of tosh you were parroting here?)

"Haig", you have to wash your face and resize your trousers if you want to continue to post here and have us anything but laughing.

 

[Trakar]

Will do Captain. As they say. "When in Rome..." Or put another way:

„Im Deutschen lügt man, wenn man höflich ist.“

Johann Wolfgang von Goethe (Werk: Faust II)

LOL, I don't know about lying, but I generally get more suspicious the more formally polite the response!

((especially when talking to such as Mephistopheles))

 

[Sceptic-PK]

A 2014 Guardian news report based mostly on a 2009 book, a remark at a 2009 dinner and a is not a good indication of someone's opinion in 2014. Tony Abbott's statements since 2009 make it clear that he believes in AGW. What he does not believe in is carbon pricing to address the issue.
The news report misreports a Washington Post interview. These are the actual questions and replies about climate change: Lally Weymouth: An interview with Australia Prime Minister Tony Abbott

Abbott is badly stating valid climate science
* a single fire or flood is not evidence of climate change. A trend over decades is evidence of climate change.
* Fires or floods before AGW are not evidence of AGW. His statement does however reflect a climate skeptic myth of "it happened before and so is not AGW".

This is only relevant if we take him at his word (which I don't). I wouldn't be at all surprised that off the record Tony is firmly in the denier camp. He didn't deny the scientific consensus on AGW because he knew it made him look like a clown to the electorate.

He knifed Turnbull due to the ETS agreement, monstered the ALP on the carbon tax, got it repealed, created the nonsensical "Direct Action" plan, appointed a full on "AGW is an NWO conspiracy" nutcase as his business adviser, did his best to destroy renewables, and managed to find $4M in a cut-costs budget to fund some Euro climate contrarian.

Nothing that Tony did during office indicated he accepted that AGW was a real thing.

 

[macdoc]

I agree - he, like Harper in Canada, gutted environmental science support and was in the pocket of the terribly biased Murdoch clowns that run the media.

They are both gone now tho the Libs are still in power in Aus....the Cons are a smelly bad odour in Canada rapidly dispersing.

 

[Reality Check]

This is only relevant if we take him at his word (which I don't). I wouldn't be at all surprised that off the record Tony is firmly in the denier camp. ...

So you will judge a person by what you think they say in private, rather than what they say publicly, Sceptic-PK?
As far as we know, Tony Abbott's only objection to AGW is how to stop AGW. He did not (and may still not) believe in carbon pricing. He did believe in his "direct action" plan of government incentives to reduce GHG emissions and tried to get it implemented. Trying to implement a plan (even if not a good plan) to reduce AGW is not the act of an AGW denier !

Business advisors are not science advisors. A person using a business advisor who believes X does not mean that they believe X (replace X with conspiracy theories, homeopathy, religions, etc..).

Tony Abbott

Prior to becoming Opposition Leader, Abbott initially supported proposals by Liberal leaders Howard and Turnbull to introduce floating prices to reduce carbon emissions, but also expressed some doubts as to the science and economics underlying such initiatives. In 2009, Abbott announced his opposition to Turnbull's support for the Rudd Government's Emissions Trading Scheme proposal, and successfully challenged Turnbull for the Liberal leadership, chiefly over this issue. As Opposition Leader, Abbott declared that he accepted that climate change was real and that humans were having an impact on it, but rejected carbon pricing as a means to address the issue, proposing instead to match the Labor government's 5% emissions reduction target through implementation of a "direct action" climate plan, involving financial incentives for emissions reductions by industry, and support for carbon storage in soils and expanded forests.