Moderated Global Warming Discussion

[Reality Check]

*sigh

I gave it to you in the question, 0.5% increase every year.

*sigh
Then you can calculate it.

 

[Reality Check]

I don't disagree with you here. This was just to show that it wasn't "plucked out of the air". It's in many papers and referenced in many articles. It's a response to a ridiculous statement.

It is refered to in some papers that are using outdated models before it became obvious that the increase in CO2 is not linear.
In fact the people using a linear increase were being quite lazy. It is more reasonable to assume a non-linear increase on CO2 emissions because it is driven by economics.

 

[Reality Check]

No, the percentage increase is linear, the ppm increase isn't.

Yes the percentage increase is roughly linear for these 10 years.
It is also different from the first 10 years of the data (do the math!)
Thus the percentage increase is nonlinear over the 30 years of data.

True, but I'm talking about the percentage increase every year. It's linear. That's all there is too it.
[/quiote]
It is roughly linear over these 10 years. It is nonlinear over 30 years. That is all there is to it.

The percentage increase is linear.
Do I really need to make the graph or do you understand that the increase has been linear? Just a yes or no answer will suffice.

Yes - do what I said is impossible and that a teenager with a ruler can see is impossible: Draw a graph with a straight line through the Mauna Loa data that lies within the annual variations of the data.

The fact is that this impossible . This means that the percentage increase at the start of the data is different from the percentage increase at the end of the data (it in fact increases).

That means that the increase in ppm has not been linear. You cannot fit a staright line to the data.

Your "percentage increases" have been average increases and nothing to do with whether the trend in the CO2 concentration is linear or not.

 

[BeAChooser]

http://hotair.com/archives/2011/05/...ic-global-warming-agw-based-on-false-science/

Former “alarmist” scientist says Anthropogenic Global Warming (AGW) based in false science

May 15, 2011

David Evans is a scientist. He has also worked in the heart of the AGW machine. He consulted full-time for the Australian Greenhouse Office (now the Department of Climate Change) from 1999 to 2005, and part-time 2008 to 2010, modeling Australia’s carbon in plants, debris, mulch, soils, and forestry and agricultural products. He has six university degrees, including a PhD in Electrical Engineering from Stanford University. The other day he said:

The debate about global warming has reached ridiculous proportions and is full of micro-thin half-truths and misunderstandings. I am a scientist who was on the carbon gravy train, understands the evidence, was once an alarmist, but am now a skeptic.

… snip …

While you’re listening to the CEOs of American oil companies being grilled by Congress today, remember all of this. They’re going to try to punish an industry that is vital to our economy and national security, and much of the desire to do that is based on this false “science” that has been ginned up by government itself as an excuse to control more of our energy sector, raise untold revenues for its use and to pick winners and losers. All based on something which is, according to Evans and other scientists, now demonstrably false.

 

[Reality Check]

The similarities suggest you favour alarmist views rather than skeptical.

What similarities with what?
What is the criteria for an alarmist view?

The skeptical view is that you look at the papers and data. In this case I look at the Mauna Loa data and see a clearly nonlinear increase in CO2 concentration. I look for an analysis of the data and find one that also shows a non-linear trend.

Er, no, the CO2 mixes into the atmosphere immediately. There's no temporary sequestration.

Er, yes the CO2 mixes into the atmosphere immediately. There is though temporary sequestration because things on Earth sequester CO2, e.g. forests and oceans.

It might be a better analogy for the climate but it says nothing about the fact that we can't properly measure if we're slowing down or not. Just imagine the windows are a really dark tint and you can't see.

We can properly measure if our CO2 emissions are slowing down or not by the simple procedure of summing up the amount of CO2 that we are emittting, e.g. N power plants of type Y have a measured emission of CO2.
We can properly measure if our CO2 emissions are slowing down or not by measuring the amount of CO2 in the atmosphere. The puzzle her eis why the Mauna Loa (and other obervations) do not seem to show any effect fornm the existing measures. Like I said there could be c few resons, e.g.

• The measures effects are not big enough to show up in the measurements.
• There is a time lag before they could show up.

Incorrect, there faith in what's being done is effective.
...

Incorrect. I have no faith iin what's being done is effective.
From what I can see it has been ineffective (see the Mauna Loa data).
I have a trust in basic common sense, e.g. that people spending money to reduce CO2 emissions would not spend it if it did not reduce CO2 emissions. For example where I live several of the cab companies have swapped from petrol to electric cars. So for some strange reason I think that the cabs are emitting less CO2.
Maybe you think that the are emitting more ?

Yes and no. Yes because physics tells us, no because this is a global problem. It's very simple when you think about it. If reducing CO2 in Canada means shutting down coal fired plants costing each person $2000 and all that coal gets shipped to the US to be burned anyways the net effect is $2000 out of my pocket.

That is not the point. I have no interest in your personal finances.

The science is that CO2 is the primary driver of global warming. Thus it is physically obvious that reducing CO2 will reduce global warming.

Nope, see above.

Nope, see above.

No, the only solution is the second one.

No, the only cheap solution is the second one.
The first one is just as correct but more expensive.

 

[Furcifer]

FWIW, I do not think you are a denier. More of a devil's advocate type.

But the public opinion polls shows a grossly misinformed public. http://people-press.org/2009/10/22/fewer-americans-see-solid-evidence-of-global-warming/

Perhaps, overstatements by alarmists would account for the bottom half of the poll (how serious a problem is warming), but I would suggest that anti-science propaganda better explains the top part of the poll (is warming happening).

To be fair I haven't seen you pulling alarm bells either. I usually stay away from "you're an alarmist" accusations and instead identify things I consider "alarmist". It's just the internet...

The public is still more on the money when it comes to global warming than say aliens or ghosts. I hate relying on "the public" to see where we're at, they seem really stupid as a collective. More reason perhaps not to scare them and start a stampede. Or scare them into disbelief like a deer in the headlights, scared to move in any direction.

 

[Furcifer]

I've already posted a link (twice) that shows that it isn't. It's doubled since the 1960s.

Yah except 2011-30 isn't 1960. When all else fails move the goal posts.

There was a more gradual increase up to the 40's, then a little steeper one until the late 70's and then a steeper one that's been fairly steady over the last 30 years.

Post WWII and what, the explosion in growth in Asia? Something like that.

 

[Furcifer]

*sigh
Then you can calculate it.

*sigh

I did (estimated based on the exponential decrease from 1%), but the alarmists didn't like the answer so I said fine, you calculate it.

Obviously that reality doesn't fit with someone's agenda so they don't want to know the real answer and they just "deny" it. It's easier to deny something when you don't know the answer right?

 

[Furcifer]

What similarities with what?
What is the criteria for an alarmist view?

That sentence isn't that cryptic and your first language is English so I'm pretty sure this is rhetorical.

The skeptical view is that you look at the papers and data. In this case I look at the Mauna Loa data and see a clearly nonlinear increase in CO2 concentration. I look for an analysis of the data and find one that also shows a non-linear trend.

But a linear percentage increase. It suggest some exponential growth is driving the increase, possibly population.

Er, yes the CO2 mixes into the atmosphere immediately. There is though temporary sequestration because things on Earth sequester CO2, e.g. forests and oceans.

No, that would require some oscillation in the Earth's biomass. Since the Earth is saturated in CO2 what your suggesting shouldn't happen.

We can properly measure if our CO2 emissions are slowing down or not by the simple procedure of summing up the amount of CO2 that we are emittting, e.g. N power plants of type Y have a measured emission of CO2.

That doesn't happen because the information is private. The article was cited (I believe by tshaitanaku) showing the discrepancy in measurements and the problem with how it's calculated.

We can properly measure if our CO2 emissions are slowing down or not by measuring the amount of CO2 in the atmosphere. The puzzle her eis why the Mauna Loa (and other obervations) do not seem to show any effect fornm the existing measures. Like I said there could be c few resons, e.g.

• The measures effects are not big enough to show up in the measurements.
• There is a time lag before they could show up.

Well like I said, I think the steady percentage increase is reflecting those measures, but I don't know.

Incorrect. I have no faith iin what's being done is effective.
From what I can see it has been ineffective (see the Mauna Loa data).
I have a trust in basic common sense, e.g. that people spending money to reduce CO2 emissions would not spend it if it did not reduce CO2 emissions. For example where I live several of the cab companies have swapped from petrol to electric cars. So for some strange reason I think that the cabs are emitting less CO2.
Maybe you think that the are emitting more ?

It's hard to say, maybe the cabs aren't, but maybe the owners are. Maybe instead of getting a newer car with better fuel efficiency the opted to spend a little more on an electric cab and an older car. Just as an example, I cited the test study where they swapped out all the light bulbs for CFL's and the usage went up. Maybe it was wrong maybe they missed something who knows, all I'm saying is what should have been a very obvious benefit didn't manifest itself like it should have.

That is not the point. I have no interest in your personal finances. [/quotes]

Sorry those weren't personal finances, they were your tax dollars.

The science is that CO2 is the primary driver of global warming. Thus it is physically obvious that reducing CO2 will reduce global warming.

Yes, if we actually reduce CO2. This isn't a simple system and saying we decreased in one area doesn't mean it happened across the board or across the world.

No, the only cheap solution is the second one.
The first one is just as correct but more expensive.

No, this is a market driven system and the only correct one is financially responsible. Otherwise it's just taking from somewhere else, redistributing so to speak. It's of no net benefit.

 

[mhaze]

Bahahahaha I can't believe you think that he thinks this when he is clearly criticizing other people for thinking that.

....

Here is Chompie at his finest:

the issue was do you support our policy but you don't want people to think about the issue that's the whole point of good propaganda, you want to create a slogan that nobody is gonna be against and I suppose everybody will be for because nobody knows what it means because it doesn't mean anything, but it's crucial value is it diverts your attention from a question that does mean something.

His own words. He's a propagandist. Nothing more needs be said, except that in his beliefs and in the issues that he uses propaganda for, he's just a far left whackjob.

You may believe in the things he supports, and therefore support his propaganda, and his lying. That's understandable, (for those who have no ethics or principles).

Except that in their beliefs, they are often wrong, as strong in hubris as lacking in morals, and in fact having poor understanding of many factors related to the schemes which they advocate, which of course often profit them.

 

[Joey McGee]

Here is Chompie at his finest:

the issue was do you support our policy but you don't want people to think about the issue that's the whole point of good propaganda, you want to create a slogan that nobody is gonna be against and I suppose everybody will be for because nobody knows what it means because it doesn't mean anything, but it's crucial value is it diverts your attention from a question that does mean something.

His own words. He's a propagandist. Nothing more needs be said, except that in his beliefs and in the issues that he uses propaganda for, he's just a far left whackjob.

You may believe in the things he supports, and therefore support his propaganda, and his lying. That's understandable, (for those who have no ethics or principles).

Except that in their beliefs, they are often wrong, as strong in hubris as lacking in morals, and in fact having poor understanding of many factors related to the schemes which they advocate, which of course often profit them.

A guy writes an essay criticizing propaganda and someone interprets it as supporting propaganda. Hilarious. That's part of a book, "Media Control, Second Edition: The Spectacular Achievements of Propaganda" which I'm sure you believe is a textbook on how to use propaganda and not a book about exposing it. lol

 

[lomiller]

http://hotair.com/archives/2011/05/...ic-global-warming-agw-based-on-false-science/

So, someone claims to have “changed sides” but no one ever heard of him before he took his current stance and the “evidence” that supposedly prompted him to change his mind turns out to be complete false. Not exactly convincing...

http://scienceblogs.com/deltoid/2008/07/the_australians_war_on_science_16.php

 

[mhaze]

A guy writes an essay criticizing propaganda and someone interprets it as supporting propaganda. Hilarious. That's part of a book, "Media Control, Second Edition: The Spectacular Achievements of Propaganda" which I'm sure you believe is a textbook on how to use propaganda and not a book about exposing it. lol

No one has said that Chomsky did not present technical analysis of propaganda. So did Edward Bernays, in his 1928 classic work "Propaganda", which became the basis for both Fascist and US propaganda during WWII. I don't know offhand if Bernays was politically aligned, however....

Chomsky is quite proud to be an avowed radical leftist. He believes in the merits of propaganda for "democracies", to move them in the "proper" direction. He would disapprove of your trying to soft pedal his radical ideas.

I'm sure you can find areas where he is critical of the use of propaganda. Any alleged use of it by those not in his little far left whackjob agenda driven clique. Anything by George Bush, of course.

 

[Trakar]

Interesting that you'd note this problem, but use it in an apology for the IPCC.

"Government approved science" might just not be science at all.

Had that occurred to you?

I fully agree, if you start a movement to remove the politics from the IPCC and turn it all over to the scientists I would gladly lend my voice and efforts in support of that effort.

 

[Trakar]

So, someone claims to have “changed sides” but no one ever heard of him before he took his current stance and the “evidence” that supposedly prompted him to change his mind turns out to be complete false. Not exactly convincing...

http://scienceblogs.com/deltoid/2008/07/the_australians_war_on_science_16.php

Hey at least he finally found a way to sell some books, seems no one was interested by his attempt at a mathematics tome.

 

[Furcifer]

yeah its all a big sinister conspiracy.

No, bias isn't indicative of conspiracy. Just because there are more Lakers fans in LA than there are in Detroit doesn't mean they're conspiring.

It's possible all the actively publishing scientists are that much more informed than everyone else so they know more and agree with the ACC tenets. It's also possible they've signed of on their part in AR4 and have no other choice but to agree. It's also possible they see it as their bread and butter and don't want to "rock the vote" so to speak.

I find it funny that suddenly 33% isn't significant when you adamant that a 15% difference was. On one hand 1 behaviour out of 8 was a really big deal, now some 400 out of 1300 should be disregarded. As usual your double standards are showing.

 

[Reality Check]

That sentence isn't that cryptic and your first language is English so I'm pretty sure this is rhetorical.

No it is not rhetorical.
What is the criteria that you use to determine whether a poster is an alarmist?
Are these criteria the things that you tink I have "similarities with?
Otherwise: What similarities with what?

No, that would require some oscillation in the Earth's biomass. Since the Earth is saturated in CO2 what your suggesting shouldn't happen.

No, that would requite that the Earth's biomass and oceans contain CO2. They do. There is no saturation, e.g. the amount of CO2 oceans can contain depends on their temperature and global temperatures have changed over the 30 years of CO2 data.

It's hard to say, maybe the cabs aren't, but maybe the owners are. Maybe instead of getting a newer car with better fuel efficiency the opted to spend a little more on an electric cab and an older car.

They replaced their entire fleet with electric cars. No "older cars" are involved.

Sorry those weren't personal finances, they were your tax dollars.

No they were no my tax dollars.

Yes, if we actually reduce CO2. This isn't a simple system and saying we decreased in one area doesn't mean it happened across the board or across the world.

Yes.

No, this is a market driven system and the only correct one is financially responsible. Otherwise it's just taking from somewhere else, redistributing so to speak. It's of no net benefit.

It is of net nenefit: It reduces CO2. That is the benefit we are talking about.

There may be local financial benefits, e.g. The economic impacts of carbon pricing at Skeptical Science mentions the 10 US states in the Regional Greenhouse Gas Initiative which "found that by investing carbon funds in energy efficiency and renewable energy programs, the states achieved $3–4 savings for every dollar invested.".
The conclusion of this review of the studies of the impact on the US economy is

To summarize, most of these economic analyses agree that a carbon pricing policy will reduce US GDP by less than 1% over the next 10–40 years as compared to an unrealistically optimistic BAU scenario in which climate change does not impact the economy. The analyses also concluded that the evaluated policies would reduce the federal deficit. Gas prices would rise somewhere between 3% and 12% over the next 20 years compared to BAU. Although energy prices would rise modestly, energy costs would be offset through increased efficiency. Total household costs would rise somewhere in the ballpark of 75 cents per person per week. Studies which conclude costs will be significantly higher either make unrealistic assumptions or only consider half of the picture.

 

[Reality Check]

*sigh

I did (estimated based on the exponential decrease from 1%), but the alarmists didn't like the answer so I said fine, you calculate it.

*sigh
Where?
What objections were raised and by who?
How did you determine that they were alarmists?

But more seriously: Why are you ignoring the actual scientific predictions of the future CO2 concentrations?

 

[macdoc]

3b as most market uber alle ideologues are, is still in favour of using the atmosphere as a free sewer and ignoring knock on costs downstream.

 

[Furcifer]

No it is not rhetorical.
What is the criteria that you use to determine whether a poster is an alarmist?
Are these criteria the things that you tink I have "similarities with?
Otherwise: What similarities with what?

I don't have a criteria, I just point out what I feel is alarmist as it is posted. I really don't know if people are really alarmist or if they're just rehashing stuff they pick up on the internet.

No, that would requite that the Earth's biomass and oceans contain CO2. They do. There is no saturation, e.g. the amount of CO2 oceans can contain depends on their temperature and global temperatures have changed over the 30 years of CO2 data.

So you're saying the oceans aren't warming, sometimes they cool and that's why they may be releasing CO2 that was emitted 2 or 3 years ago? I'm trying to make sense of this but I'm not sure it does.
Biomass is saturated, it can't hold any more than it already does. So are you trying to say the amount of biomass is growing and shrinking each year?

Don't get me wrong, you may be right, it just doesn't seem to make sense as you've put it.

They replaced their entire fleet with electric cars. No "older cars" are involved.

I really don't think you know what the drivers had in their car hole.

No they were no my tax dollars.

*sigh it was my example and it was your tax dollars.