Global warming

[Harpoon]

Classic piece of misdirection and a false dichotomy. Whatever you want to call CO2, it's doing what it does in several ways. Selenium can be good for you, too much and it's bad for you. It's not an either or.

I haven't had the time or inclination to read the viscount's entire, tiddy list debunking him who should not be named, but since most of what I read and hear through the media is misdirection and false dichotomies, I'll concur by default.

But words have meanings. Carbon dioxide is not a toxin, poison or hazardous substance. When you speak of it as if it were, you arm those of differing opinions, and that's not helpful to the goal.

Salt is necessary to life. Too much of it, you're mummified. Water is fundamental; too much and you're carp food. Blankets also are necessary (at this latitude and altitude); too much and you'll overheat and maybe suffocate.

Handling CO2, and as you know it has many industrial uses, does not require hazarous material practices. Living near an emission source does not endanger your health -- as for other substances in the emission: that may be a different matter.

But our societal carbon emissions must be regulated. There are a myriad-and-a-half reasons why we will benefit from reducing use and eventually getting off fossil fuels, and AGW appears it can be the cause to stimulate broad-based, grass-roots actions.

Let's keep it accurate, however. I know it's nice to fudge facts just a little to improve the argument. After all it could win ya an Oscar or some dynamite other prize (Sorry, CD, it just haaad to come out! ).

 

[a_unique_person]

I haven't had the time or inclination to read the viscount's entire, tiddy list debunking him who should not be named, but since most of what I read and hear through the media is misdirection and false dichotomies, I'll concur by default.

But words have meanings. Carbon dioxide is not a toxin, poison or hazardous substance. When you speak of it as if it were, you arm those of differing opinions, and that's not helpful to the goal.

Salt is necessary to life. Too much of it, you're mummified. Water is fundamental; too much and you're carp food. Blankets also are necessary (at this latitude and altitude); too much and you'll overheat and maybe suffocate.

Handling CO2, and as you know it has many industrial uses, does not require hazarous material practices. Living near an emission source does not endanger your health -- as for other substances in the emission: that may be a different matter.

But our societal carbon emissions must be regulated. There are a myriad-and-a-half reasons why we will benefit from reducing use and eventually getting off fossil fuels, and AGW appears it can be the cause to stimulate broad-based, grass-roots actions.

Let's keep it accurate, however. I know it's nice to fudge facts just a little to improve the argument. After all it could win ya an Oscar or some dynamite other prize (Sorry, CD, it just haaad to come out! ).

Dictionary definition

pollution noun the adverse effect on the natural environment, including human, animal or plant life, of a harmful substance that does not occur naturally, eg industrial and radioactive waste, or the concentration to harmful levels of a naturally occurring substance, eg nitrates. See also air pollution, water pollution.

Sounds fair enough to me. A level of a naturally occuring substance can be very harmful. Eg, breathing pure CO2.

 

[a_unique_person]

Why dealing with global warming won't actually cost us so much money.

http://www.theage.com.au/news/opinion/ross-gittins/2007/12/18/1197740268980.html

It is an exaggeration that our exports will be hurt by emissions cuts.
YOU get the feeling that Kevin Rudd, while terribly proud of having ratified the Kyoto Protocol, is just a little bit wary of breaking the news about what reducing climate change will actually involve in terms of cost to wallets and purses. This may explain why in Bali he was so coy about his attitude towards the target of cutting greenhouse gas emissions by 25% to 40% by 2020.
Rudd doesn't have to make up his mind about that until he receives the report and recommendations of Professor Ross Garnaut in the middle of next year.
The politically attuned know it hasn't yet dawned on many people that doing something about climate change involves more than signing international agreements and will increase the prices we pay for electricity, gas and petrol.
The politically attuned also say the cost of reducing emissions will be high. Fortunately, the best evidence suggests that the cost is quite manageable.
The widespread fear that the economic cost of limiting climate change will be prohibitive or will demand tough changes in people's lifestyles arises partly from well-meaning misapprehension, but also from the misrepresentations of the global-warming sceptics.
It's easily done. Say I produce a study that estimates that limiting emissions will have a cost of 3% gross domestic product or, in today's dollars, about $35 billion. Sounds pretty expensive, eh?
But it's not as bad as it's made to sound. The first thing I omitted to tell you was that the 3% loss was a cumulative loss that takes 20 or 30 years to build up. The loss averages just 0.1% of GDP a year.
The other thing I omitted to say was that it's not an absolute loss, just an opportunity cost. That is, it's not that GDP will fall by 0.1% a year, but that it will grow by 0.1% a year less than it otherwise would.
To put it another way, the economy will keep growing quite strongly despite our efforts to reduce emissions. The most recent study, conducted for the Climate Institute by the Centre of Policy Studies at Monash University and others, finds that achieving a reduction in emissions of 20% by 2020 and 60% or more by 2050 would involve economic growth averaging 2.8% a year rather than 2.9%. This is broadly in line with what other studies have found.

So what is all the fuss about. It appears to be the fear the a few greenie extremists will be seen to have won.

 

[mhaze]

Strawman argument; has no relation to actual economic studies, whether Stern Nordhaus, Lomborg, Klaus, etc.

Example: Just for Kyoto, Norway jacked up every household's utility bill by $466 USD.

 

[Lucifuge Rofocale]

And Tsonis and all and ... I can't really be bothered. I'm more interested in why 180-odd countries signed-up to taking AGW serously at Bali, despite Lucifage Rocifale's spoon-fed science and the esteemed Monckton. It's all out there in the public arena, after all. They must have heard about it, yet remain unpersuaded.

It should worry you .... if a country signs a treaty to reduce emissions, then it's likely that they don't reduce at all:
http://www.americanthinker.com/blog/2007/12/kyoto_schmyoto.html

[FONT=times new roman,times]One would think that countries that committed to the Kyoto treaty are doing a better job of curtailing carbon emissions. One would also think that the United States, the only country that does not even intend to ratify, keeps on emitting carbon dioxide at growth levels much higher than those who signed.[/FONT]

[FONT=times new roman,times]And one would be wrong.[/FONT]

[FONT=times new roman,times]The Kyoto treaty was agreed upon in late 1997 and countries started signing and ratifying it in 1998[/FONT][FONT=times new roman,times]. A list of countries and their carbon dioxide emissions due to consumption of fossil fuels is available from the U.S. government[/FONT][FONT=times new roman,times]. If we look at that data and compare 2004 (latest year for which data is available) to 1997 (last year before the Kyoto treaty was signed), we find the following.[/FONT]

• [FONT=times new roman,times]Emissions worldwide increased 18.0%.[/FONT]
• [FONT=times new roman,times]Emissions from countries that signed the treaty increased 21.1%.[/FONT]
• [FONT=times new roman,times]Emissions from non-signers increased 10.0%.[/FONT]
• [FONT=times new roman,times]Emissions from the U.S. increased 6.6%.[/FONT]

Also, it's not a big surprise that those countries signed.....scientific views where censored:
http://caosblog.com/6710

(CHICAGO, Illinois - December 5, 2007) — The United Nations has rejected all attempts by a group of dissenting scientists seeking to present information at the climate change conference taking place in Bali, Indonesia.
​

They’ve been doing this all along. This is about shutting out opinions that don’t agree with the direction they’re headed in like a runaway train.

The International Climate Science Coalition (ICSC) has been denied the opportunity to present at panel discussions, side events, and exhibits; its members were denied press credentials. The group consists of distinguished scientists from Africa, Australia, India, New Zealand, the United Kingdom, and the United States.
The scientists, citing pivotal evidence on climate change published in peer-reviewed journals, have expressed their opposition to the UN’s alarmist theory of anthropogenic global warming. As the debate on man-made global warming has been heating up, the UN has tried to freeze out the scientists and new evidence, summarily dismissing them with the claim “the science is settled.”
​

But I'm glad that you implicitly admit that from a scientific point of view you are off-base and have to take refuge in fallacies like Appeal To Widespread Belief (Bandwagon Argument, Peer Pressure, Appeal to Common Practice): http://www.don-lindsay-archive.org/skeptic/arguments.html#bandwagon

 

[fsol]

It should worry you .... if a country signs a treaty to reduce emissions, then it's likely that they don't reduce at all:
http://www.americanthinker.com/blog/2007/12/kyoto_schmyoto.html

Kyoto entered into force in February 2005. Not surprisingly the EU-ETS also started in 2005.

Also, it's not a big surprise that those countries signed.....scientific views where censored:
http://caosblog.com/6710
http://caosblog.com/6710

http://caosblog.com/6710

I see your blog and raise you one of these...

http://oversight.house.gov/documents/20071210101633.pdf

Who are the ICSC anyway? Did we ever figure that out?

But I'm glad that you implicitly admit that from a scientific point of view you are off-base and have to take refuge in fallacies like Appeal To Widespread Belief (Bandwagon Argument, Peer Pressure, Appeal to Common Practice): http://www.don-lindsay-archive.org/skeptic/arguments.html#bandwagon

 

[fsol]

I'm reminded here of one of AUP's best comebacks, which I shall quote hoping you get the irony (my intent), and not the affront (unclear which way he meant it)-

"Feeling lucky, punk?"

Uncertainty is well discussed in the paper, and spun out of context in RC. I have no problem with the handling of uncertainty vs. range or the choice of the standard deviation definition. Do you?

The paper asserts that their own way is better than the method that everyone else seems to use. I see no reason to take them at their word. I haven't seen people pointing to commentaries on the papers concerned pointing out the errors of their statistical analysis. I wonder if there will be a commentary published for this paper.

As for the choice of RAOBCORE v.12 vs. v1.4? Beats me. We can just let Douglass et al. explain that. No doubt there is a good reason. If it does not surface in a few days I'll email them.

The issue here, as noted elsewhere, is that by not acknowledging, or discussing the existence of v1.3 and v1.4 they greatly play down the variability of the observational data. They go so far in their paper to say

There is an enormous ongoing effort to find errors
in the observations that would reduce the disagreement
with the models. Here, the task is daunting since
the various datasets are independently constructed and
one needs to find something wrong with each one
of them. In regard to the observations, Thorne et al.
(2005b) say ‘. . .As a community we must assume that
the latest dataset versions are the best estimates based
upon investigators’ knowledge and experience using the
data’. We agree: the values given are the values we
should use.

They then decide (for some reason) to not use the values given. I find it odd.

You've read the paper, then you understand that Douglass et al. discusses this very issue. Is there a point in quoting from the paper to refute the point made poorly by RC? IF RC makes a point that is already discussed in the paper it's somewhat moot, isn't it?

If they discuss something and people aren't satisfied with their explanation/reasoning then the point is far from moot. If that were the case then this and the other AGW threads wouldn't exist. From the small amount that I have contributed to them it seems that most of the skeptics arguments are already discussed in the IPCC and so would be by your reasoning moot.

RC rushes out this poorly spun "Rebuttal" (but no one would sign their name to it)

Well it's signed "group." Gavin seems to have no problem with explaining the reasoning behind it in the comments.

RC won't link to the actual article (give the audience predigested pap, not real food).

Pap -
1. A soft food for infants, made of bread boiled or softtened in milk or water. 2. Nourishment or support from official patronage; as, treasury pap. [Colloq. & Contemptuous]
​

Gee, I don't know. "Pap" fits pretty well.

The thread has moved on I realise. We can kick this around a bit more if you want, but I think we are unlikely to get beyond "he said, she said" and I have better things to do at this time of year.

 

[mhaze]

Quote:
Also, it's not a big surprise that those countries signed.....scientific views where censored:
http://caosblog.com/6710
​

I see your blog and raise you one of these...

http://oversight.house.gov/documents/20071210101633.pdf

Can we stifle more alarmist links between GW and hurricanes, eg, katrina?

And some more wild Hansen comments?

 

[CapelDodger]

[URL]http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/imagehosting/thum_1422447696b440b688.png[/URL]

Can we stifle more alarmist links between GW and hurricanes, eg, katrina?

From the Conclusion

"The White House was particularly active in stifling discussions of the link between increased hurricane intensity and global warming."

Is stifling discussion something you advocate?

And some more wild Hansen comments?

"The White House also sought to minimize the significance and certainty of climate change by extensively editing government climate change reports."

Government climate change reports. Not statements by Hansen. Is this something you advocate? Partisan political interference in taxpayer-funded science?

I'm sure you'll agree the White House hasn't been interfering for the benefit of the AGW argument, but even in the US it's not been very effective in the public mind. And elsewhere even less so, of course. Any thoughts on why that is?

 

[CapelDodger]

It should worry you .... if a country signs a treaty to reduce emissions, then it's likely that they don't reduce at all:
http://www.americanthinker.com/blog/2007/12/kyoto_schmyoto.html

What should worry me? Do I look worried? I've never given the impression that I expect this rigmarole to achieve anything. I said the same about Kyoto at the time. "Oh Lord, make me chaste, but not yet!". Don't worry about it, nothing's going to happen.

What should perhaps concern you is that what seems to you persuasive - nay, unequivocal - evidence against the very existence of AGW has does not appear so to the movers and shakers in the world. Your opinion remains very much a minority one. And it's not as if this is secret knowledge you're privy to.

Also, it's not a big surprise that those countries signed.....scientific views where censored:
http://caosblog.com/6710

You seem to labouring under the misapprehension that Bali wasn't the climax of a long diplomatic and political process, during which all those "distinguished dissenting scientists" will have had plenty of opportunity to present their arguments, and will have presented them. More than a few at Senator Inhofe's invitation, I wouldn't be surprised. Their published papers will have been freely available, of course. So this is just whining, frankly.

What is this ICSC you mention? Is it new? Did they have the funding available to attend Bali? The hotel and restaurant prices were astronomical, there were journalists living on sandwiches posted to them daily. I doubt this was a serious effort, just something to sustain contrarians.

But I'm glad that you implicitly admit that from a scientific point of view you are off-base and have to take refuge in fallacies like Appeal To Widespread Belief (Bandwagon Argument, Peer Pressure, Appeal to Common Practice): http://www.don-lindsay-archive.org/skeptic/arguments.html#bandwagon

Maybe you should start wondering why your neck of the woods has become increasingly marginalised over the decades. 180-odd governments agreed that AGW is a crtical issue that needs to be addressed (not quite yet, of course, but soon). Because of peer-pressure? Where does Common Practice come into it? The signing at Bali was an uncommon event. You don't get that sort of thing every year. Geneva Conventions, Test-Ban Treaty, the CFC thing (Montreal?). Not much else springs to mind.

It often turns out that a shrinking minority turns out to be flat wrong.

How's McIntyre's African project getting on? You brought it up some time ago on the back of his triumphant retrospective cooling of the lower-48, and reported an imminent and significant announcement. Any further news on that?

 

[CapelDodger]

A 2006 study by a team of scientists led by Petr Chylek of Los Alamos National Laboratory, Space and Remote Sensing Sciences found the rate of warming in 1920-1930 was about 50% higher than that in 1995-2005, suggesting carbon dioxide ‘could not be the cause’ of warming. (LINK)

Wow. And nobody else noticed, not even back in the 20's and 30's.

Carbon dioxide , you say, ‘could not be the cause’ of warming.

“We find that the current Greenland warming is not unprecedented in recent Greenland history ..."

Current Greenland warming . Not global warming, the rate of which is concerning people across said globe, but Greenland warming. Not surprising few people noticed.

So when you say carbon dioxide "could not be the cause" of warming you mean of that warming. In Greenland. Then. CO2 could very well be the cause of this warming, couldn't it?


Back in the late 20's and 30's there was something known as "The Dust-Bowl" in the US - upwind of Greenland. So yeah, there could well have been another reason for Greenland's warming during that period. Dust, like soot, does get about, and it does make a difference when it settles on ice or snow.


So what's causing this warming? No Dust-Bowl going on, Clean Air Acts in operation, the Sun's doing nothing much. Step forward : AGW by CO2.

eta : use a civilised font, please.

 

[fsol]

Via Tim Lambert I give you the ICSC!

http://www.climatescienceinternational.org/

http://scienceblogs.com/deltoid/2007/12/you_too_can_be_a_distinguished.php

 

[Harpoon]

Sounds fair enough to me. A level of a naturally occuring substance can be very harmful. Eg, breathing pure CO2.

Breathing concentrations of CO2 isn't the damaging factor; it the lack of oxygen. But I agree with your quote and your understanding of it.

When defining CO2 pollution, specifically, I would add only a few amendments: A level of a naturally occuring, harmless, non-toxic substance can be very harmful.

It's possible to communicate the threat we believe CO2 accumulations to be, without inaccurately redefining its physical properties.

 

[CapelDodger]

Via Tim Lambert I give you the ICSC!

http://www.climatescienceinternational.org/

http://scienceblogs.com/deltoid/2007/12/you_too_can_be_a_distinguished.php

No surprises there then. And no surprise it didn't come from anyone that introduced the ICSC. Perhaps they were afraid to look. It's all getting pretty desperate over there, isn't it?

I reckon the tipping-point was Crichton; Bellamy and more recently Monckton demonstrate, to my mind, a distinct downward trend. At least Chrichton was well-known outside the ever-tighter contrarian spiral. Bellamy had at least been on TV.

Monckton? Who saw that coming ?

 

[a_unique_person]

Via Tim Lambert I give you the ICSC!

http://www.climatescienceinternational.org/

http://scienceblogs.com/deltoid/2007/12/you_too_can_be_a_distinguished.php

To determine a temperature baseline for predicting response to solar cycles 24 and 25 (we’re currently in 23), Archibald takes a startling approach. Instead of using world-wide temperature data, only data from the US mainland is used. Additionally, Archibald decided that only data from rural meteorological stations should be used to avoid the urban heat island effect. Fair enough, you may say. But the catch is, he chose just 5 stations out of the hundreds and hundreds available! Not only did he only choose 5, all 5 were within several hundred miles of each other in South Eastern USA!

Go Archibald. Go E&E.

I'll just wait for climateaudit to comment on this one.....

I'll just sit here and tap my foot for a while......


.....


...


tap, tap, tap....

 

[CapelDodger]

Go Archibald. Go E&E..

It's pathetically obvious that the posters who introduced the ICSC didn't have a clue what it was. They were referred to it by trusted sources, and it makes the noises they want to hear. It sounds impressive enough, I guess, to the easily impressed.

 

[CapelDodger]

But words have meanings. Carbon dioxide is not a toxin, poison or hazardous substance.

The point is that Monckton introduced the idea that CO2 as a toxin has anything to do with the subject. He brings it in to knock it down. A classic strawman. misdirection, and generally what you'd expect from a fart like Monckton.

When you speak of it as if it were, you arm those of differing opinions, and that's not helpful to the goal.

You misinterpreted aup, I think. Too much CO2 is harmful by another mechanism than poison. Nobody before Monckton suggested anything different. So why did he? We know why : misdirection to a strawman.

 

[mhaze]

Originally Posted by fsol
Via Tim Lambert I give you the ICSC!
http://www.climatescienceinternational.org/
​

I'll just wait for climateaudit to comment on this one.....
I'll just sit here and tap my foot for a while......
.....
...
tap, tap, tap....

Via ICSC I give you the following compilation of articles critical of IPCC!

(To read must tap foot and think at same time)

 

[CapelDodger]

Via ICSC I give you the following compilation of articles critical of IPCC!

(To read must tap foot and think at same time)

To post someone else's compilation requires no thought at all, and to bring up the ICSC at this juncture is nothing short of thick-headed.

Do you, mhaze, have anything to say about anything? Anything at all? Anything defending the ICSC as remotely credible would be too much to ask, so I don't ask it. I merely ask for something that you actually have to say for yourself.

It goes wthout saying that I'll be disappointed by anything that involves Al Gore, and mockery might well ensue. Nobody wants that.

 

[a_unique_person]

Via ICSC I give you the following compilation of articles critical of IPCC!

(To read must tap foot and think at same time)

That whould be "Doctor" John McLean, would it. Reminds me of that Mel Brooks sketch.