Moderated Global Warming Discussion

[Hallo Alfie]

What do you see in this cited post that makes you qualify it as "alarmist?"

The enlarged bolded part, his summary and years of posts spreading the same unmitigated nonsense:

Defintion "Alarmist" : A person who needlessly alarms or attempts to alarm others, as by inventing or spreading false or exaggerated rumors of impending danger or catastrophe.

The sky is always falling for Mac.

I see nothing false, invented, exaggerated or needless in the posts and statements of Macdoc.

Then you have a skotoma.

 

[Furcifer]

Once it achieves equilibrium, it is no longer a warming world. As stated, in a warming world, as the planet warms in adjustment toward equilibrium - my statements do not seem to require correction nor adjustment.

Hence the parentheses. I'm not sure the timespans can be compared though, weather events happen in moments, maybe days at most, global warming is over decades, centuries even. Relatively speaking weather happens in the blink of an eye so it doesn't really experience being out of equilibrium.
I've never fully understood the justification for the claim that global warming will produce more extreme weather events more frequently. Aside from "well that's what the models say" it doesn't make all that much sense. The basic thermodynamic principle is "more energy means more extremes". The weather doesn't really work that way, otherwise is would be much more predictable. After every storm there would be a period of calm as the energy built up until finally another event took place. Instead there are random events at random intervals that allow for small events and create big ones.

 

[Cuddles]

Speak to the Mods about the horrid automatic software that puts headlines in large fonts

There is no such software. Presumably you're using the editor in WYSIWYG mode, which means the formatting in copied text is kept exactly as it was wherever you copied it from. If you don't want it to do that, click the "switch editor mode" button in the top right of reply box, which will keep all copied text as plain text and display all BBcode tags.

 

[DC]

What do you see in this cited post that makes you qualify it as "alarmist?"

The enlarged bolded part, his summary and years of posts spreading the same unmitigated nonsense:

Defintion "Alarmist" : A person who needlessly alarms or attempts to alarm others, as by inventing or spreading false or exaggerated rumors of impending danger or catastrophe.

The sky is always falling for Mac.

I see nothing false, invented, exaggerated or needless in the posts and statements of Macdoc.

Then you have a skotoma.

So you cannot explain why you claim alarmism.... very telling.

btw, how do you know there is no need for alarm?

 

[Reality Check]

Why do you think alarmism is contingent on it not being scientific? That never really occurred to me.

Because that is a major property of alarmists and deniers - their ignoring of the scientific evidence.
Any one who cites scientific evidence to support their position is a skeptic.

The percentage increase is linear. Otherwise it wouldn't be 1% (or 0.5%) each year. So that increase is linear, the increase from that increase isn't linear, obviously.

The CO2 concentration measured at Mauna Loa is non-linear.
The best fit for it seems to be quadratic (x = a + by + cy²).
A % increase per year is an exponential increase in the concentration.

If that's the purpose of the study. Otherwise they just use the 1%.

No - some older outdated models (as noted in previous posts) use a exponential increase in CO2.
Modern models do not. See: A better method is to model the amount of CO2 under various scenarios as done in several papers and summarized by the IPCC AR4 report.

If it were only that simple.

It is really, really simple: Replace gas guzzlers in cab fleets with electric cars and CO2 emission by those cars will decrease.

You ignored:
It is possible that your speculation that all of the CO2 saved (over decades?) of running these electric cars will somehow be overwhelmed by

• The CO2 cost of the components (assuming that they actually come from China) in the new cars.
• The extra CO2 cost of junking the cars (compared to ordinary cars) at the end of their life.

Now do you have any evidence for this or is this just personal speculation?

 

[metamars]

Climate skepticism scientists funded by ExxonMobil?

From PopularTechnology.net

In an article titled, "Analysing the ‘900 papers supporting climate scepticism’: 9 out of top 10 authors linked to ExxonMobil" from the environmental activist website The Carbon Brief, former Greenpeace "researcher" Christian Hunt failed to do basic research. He made no attempt to contact the scientists he unjustly attacked and instead used biased and corrupt websites like DeSmogBlog to smear them as "linked to" [funded by] ExxonMobil.

I wonder when we can expect retractions from The Carbon Brief, as well as everybody who quoted them?

 

[macdoc]

The enlarged bolded part,

annoy the Union of Concerned Scientists with your complaints - the only one that altered the headline was you.

his summary

would you care to elaborate ... my position is very clear.

It's warming
We're responsible.
There are consequences - some are arriving now.

Exactly what is "alarmist" to you?.....or do you prefer not taking responsibility and keeping your head buried as to consequences.?

and years of posts spreading the same unmitigated nonsense

care to show a single post of "unmitigated nonsense" beyond your own.
My posts are supported both by main stream climate science and basic knowledge of atmospheric physics, with reference material to back my position.

Yours are opEds of your own fabrication and pseudopsych babble without a shred of science value nor ANY reference material to support the climate change denial crap you dish out..

This IS a science forum.....not one of your political polemic garbage bins you like to frequent.

 

[Mikemcc]

Hence the parentheses. I'm not sure the timespans can be compared though, weather events happen in moments, maybe days at most, global warming is over decades, centuries even. Relatively speaking weather happens in the blink of an eye so it doesn't really experience being out of equilibrium.
I've never fully understood the justification for the claim that global warming will produce more extreme weather events more frequently. Aside from "well that's what the models say" it doesn't make all that much sense. The basic thermodynamic principle is "more energy means more extremes". The weather doesn't really work that way, otherwise is would be much more predictable. After every storm there would be a period of calm as the energy built up until finally another event took place. Instead there are random events at random intervals that allow for small events and create big ones.

It's because a shift in the mean temperature shifts the bell curve representing the probability of different aspects of the weather. Hence we are seeing more heatwaves as an example. Some aspects have local factors that complicate matters - such as Arctic blocking highs causing unusual cold snaps in Europe and the US.

 

[AlBell]

Post 2346 is just one amongs many:
This in enlarged bolded font was the giveaway.

Global Warming Blamed for Heavy Snowstorms, Record Floods

What do you see in this cited post that makes you qualify it as "alarmist?"

Defintion "Alarmist" : A person who needlessly alarms or attempts to alarm others, as by inventing or spreading false or exaggerated rumors of impending danger or catastrophe.

I see nothing false, invented, exaggerated or needless in the posts and statements of Macdoc.

Oh, now you are saying you do have actual scientific analyses that demonstrate with some level of reliability that "global warming" is the culprit.

If not, "alarmism" seems the correct label.

 

[Trakar]

Hence the parentheses. I'm not sure the timespans can be compared though, weather events happen in moments, maybe days at most, global warming is over decades, centuries even. Relatively speaking weather happens in the blink of an eye so it doesn't really experience being out of equilibrium.
I've never fully understood the justification for the claim that global warming will produce more extreme weather events more frequently. Aside from "well that's what the models say" it doesn't make all that much sense. The basic thermodynamic principle is "more energy means more extremes". The weather doesn't really work that way, otherwise is would be much more predictable. After every storm there would be a period of calm as the energy built up until finally another event took place. Instead there are random events at random intervals that allow for small events and create big ones.

While this might make some sense if weather involved only static air in isolated cells, weather does not take place in isolated patches, rather it is a fluid/dynamic process created as air masses of low and high pressure move across the face of the planet, accumulating and dispersing energy. Storms occur at the boundaries of these shifting air masses. The boundary that stimulated storm creation moves with the mass that it is associated with. Weather is not random, it does have chaotic properties (meaning that small alterations can have big and dramatically different impacts and influences), but it is not arbitrary or without direct cause and effect considerations. While climate and weather are not the same thing at all, it does help to have a pretty good fundemental grasp of what all is actually involved in weather to help one understand both the differences and similarities of the two areas of understanding.

 

[Trakar]

What do you see in this cited post that makes you qualify it as "alarmist?"

The enlarged bolded part, his summary and years of posts spreading the same unmitigated nonsense:

Defintion "Alarmist" : A person who needlessly alarms or attempts to alarm others, as by inventing or spreading false or exaggerated rumors of impending danger or catastrophe.

The sky is always falling for Mac.



Then you have a skotoma.

Insulting me, for what appear to be your own biases and misunderstandings, does not support nor further your arguments.

Macdoc supports his posts and assertions (for the most part) with legitimate and published science, though he does tend to quote many of the popsci and climate blogs, I have seen nothing that is improper or out of line with mainstream scientific understandings and considerations. I have seen him post no "rumors" (exaggerated or otherwise). Sounding an alarm about a legitimate and impending catastrophe is not "alarmism" it is simply an intelligent and appreciated public service. Unless you have some examples of untrue, grossly exaggerated, or unsupported by science statements that Macdoc has made with regards to AGW, then you probably owe him and the board an apology for the name-calling and false accusations.

 

[macdoc]

Oh, now you are saying you do have actual scientific analyses that demonstrate with some level of reliability that "global warming" is the culprit.

Yes lots...

 

[Furcifer]

Because that is a major property of alarmists and deniers - their ignoring of the scientific evidence.
Any one who cites scientific evidence to support their position is a skeptic.

Cherry picking scientific evidence is not skeptical.

A % increase per year is an exponential increase in the concentration.

And as the percentage increase it's linear.

No - some older outdated models (as noted in previous posts) use a exponential increase in CO2.
Modern models do not. See: A better method is to model the amount of CO2 under various scenarios as done in several papers and summarized by the IPCC AR4 report.

Yes, because it's not necessarily "the best way" of doing it. However, if the efforts we're taking end up maintaining the increase at 1% per year, like it has been for quite some time, it might in fact be "the best way".

It is really, really simple: Replace gas guzzlers in cab fleets with electric cars and CO2 emission by those cars will decrease.

Correct. That doesn't mean the net effect will be a decrease in CO2 emissions.

You ignored:
It is possible that your speculation that all of the CO2 saved (over decades?) of running these electric cars will somehow be overwhelmed by

• The CO2 cost of the components (assuming that they actually come from China) in the new cars.
• The extra CO2 cost of junking the cars (compared to ordinary cars) at the end of their life.

Now do you have any evidence for this or is this just personal speculation?

Yes, it's speculation. But what you don't seem to understand is that it's no more speculative than saying replacing the cars will result in a reduction of CO2 emissions. All things being equal they will most likely have a net positive effect, however hardly ever are all things equal.
This is the same short sighted thinking that hurt us coming out of the 70's. There was an energy crisis so they improved fuel economy. Problem solved.
Well not actually because while they improved fuel economy they also increased the size of vehicles, so the net result wasn't really an improvement.
Any "solution" that doesn't result in behavioral changes isn't always a solution. Electric cars aren't free from carbon emissions. There is carbon in all the plastic, there is carbon in all the steel and there is carbon in the batteries in the form of electricity.
Now I haven't looked at the problem in (where was it New Zealand?) but how do you know that the money spent on cabs wouldn't have been better spent on hybrid buses and improving transit infrastructure? How do you know electric cars wouldn't have been better replaced with diesel Smart vehicles or hybrids? How do you know if they're really reducing CO2 and not just shifting it around?
You don't know, you're just speculating based on the fact that you can't see the carbon coming out of the tail pipe on an electric vehicles. Me I'm just speculating based on what I've seen historically and how short sighted we really are when it comes to these things. If it doesn't change human behaviour it tends to be considerably less effective as a solution.
There are so many examples historically. The use of pesticides and DDT comes to mind. DDT was a short sighted solution because of what it did to the environment, but more importantly I think is that it allowed people to think they can only eat "perfect" fruits and vegetables. DDT was a missed opportunity IMO because at that time they could have just outlawed the use of pesticides altogether. If people would just accept that fruit isn't perfect and insects are a natural part of the process where we would be now? Think of all the fossil fuels that could have been saved over the years, all the ground water that wouldn't be polluted, if instead of looking for another pesticide we had just learned to live with small and inconsequential defects in our produce.
But that might be a topic for another thread. I'm just saying you need to look at a slightly bigger picture and not just the "mpg" sticker in the window.

 

[Furcifer]

While this might make some sense if weather involved only static air in isolated cells, weather does not take place in isolated patches, rather it is a fluid/dynamic process created as air masses of low and high pressure move across the face of the planet, accumulating and dispersing energy. Storms occur at the boundaries of these shifting air masses. The boundary that stimulated storm creation moves with the mass that it is associated with. Weather is not random, it does have chaotic properties (meaning that small alterations can have big and dramatically different impacts and influences), but it is not arbitrary or without direct cause and effect considerations. While climate and weather are not the same thing at all, it does help to have a pretty good fundemental grasp of what all is actually involved in weather to help one understand both the differences and similarities of the two areas of understanding.

You're avoiding the question; how does a relative shift in the gradient account for "larger" and "more frequent" storms and weather events.

You were the one that tried to relate the weather to climate here. You said the climate change would result in a change to the weather and that it would be more intense and more frequent. Now that you've been asked to explain how you know this you're going to back peddle and say that there's a difference and not the same thing at all?

 

[Reality Check]

Cherry picking scientific evidence is not skeptical.

Who (except you) mentioned cherry picking?

And as the percentage increase it's linear.

And you are still wrong:

• The increase in CO2 is non-linear. ANy high school student can see that just usung a ruler.
• The % increase per year is not linear because the best fis is quadratic.

Yes, because it's not necessarily "the best way" of doing it. However, if the efforts we're taking end up maintaining the increase at 1% per year, like it has been for quite some time, it might in fact be "the best way".

No idea what you are talking about.
There is no "best way " in A better method is to model the amount of CO2 under various scenarios as done in several papers and summarized by the IPCC AR4 report.

The fact is that assuming a 1% increase in CO2 per year is the worst way. It ignores the real world, i.e. that the increas in CO2 over the last 30 years was not exponential (a % increase per year). Talking about a "1% per year" is wrong at best and delusional at worst.

Correct. That doesn't mean the net effect will be a decrease in CO2 emissions.

Who said it would or would not?

Yes, it's speculation. But what you don't seem to understand is that it's no more speculative than saying replacing the cars will result in a reduction of CO2 emissions.

I did a quick search for the footprints of electric cars and found one paper:
Contribution of Li-Ion Batteries to the Environmental Impact of Electric Vehicles
This conculdes that it is the operation phase of the batteries that dominates the environmental impact.
I do not have access to the full paper and so do not know how much of that impact is CO2, but there is an interview with an author of the paper Dominic Notter

I can't tell you how green it is, because it did not compare different batteries, but I can tell you that the battery car is greener than the internal combustion engine car. If you look at climate change, it is most interesting for most people nowadays: The battery electric car is 30 to 40 percent greener than the standard car.

So now the reduction of CO2 emission by electric vehicles is less speculative than them increasing CO2 emissions.

 

[Mikemcc]

You're avoiding the question; how does a relative shift in the gradient account for "larger" and "more frequent" storms and weather events.
You were the one that tried to relate the weather to climate here. You said the climate change would result in a change to the weather and that it would be more intense and more frequent. Now that you've been asked to explain how you know this you're going to back peddle and say that there's a difference and not the same thing at all?

My bold

Answered in post #2407

If, as an example, you are looking for the probability of a temperature at a particular point to exceed 30 deg C. The area under the bell curve to the right of the 30 deg C point, represents the probability that it will exceed that value. If the mean is shifted by (again, just an example) 0.5 deg C, then it shifts the bell curve to the right and the area under the curve where T>30 deg C increases, the probability is higher. That's just really basic (and glossed over) statistics. The actual values for the mean, standard deviation, etc are dependent on the location. The curve (and how it changes over time) is climate, the data points making up the curve is weather.

 

[macdoc]

He answered it perfectly....as per usual you don't understand the answer.

Weather is not random, it does have chaotic properties (meaning that small alterations can have big and dramatically different impacts and influences), but it is not arbitrary or without direct cause and effect considerations.

Let's take a real world example.
Gulf air that is warmer than in the past on a consistent basis meets cold continental highs that are trapped by the warmer than normal Arctic resulting in cooler than normal interior of the continents.

The resulting high gradients produced by the clash of air masses results in increased chance of tornados and increased chance of higher energy tornados.

Which is occurring right now.

The clearer link however is to hydrology where warmer air and ocean means more water vapour.

Once again that in combination with the Arctic Dipole weather pattern means increased risk of severe flood events from both higher snow packs and increased spring rains. Again.....present conditions.
Are they unique conditions - no ....will they happen more often due to AGW, yes.

Basic easy physics for all except those in wilful denial of reality. NASA looking at the climatology rather than the meteorology nailed it.

Published Wednesday September 22, 2010

Scientist: Flooding unlikely to recede

By Nancy Gaarder

WORLD-HERALD STAFF WRITER

RED OAK, Iowa — Scarred by more than its share of devastating floods, Iowa has undertaken an ambitious effort to prod communities and the agriculture sector to undertake sometimes costly efforts to lessen the flood threat.

The first step — understanding the worsening flood problem in Iowa — has yielded discouraging news.

“What you’ve seen in the recent past is what you are going to get,” climate scientist Chris Anderson told about 20 southwest Iowa residents and officials attending a seminar here Tuesday.

Research in Iowa has found that annual rain and snowfall have increased, heavier rains are falling more frequently, the soil is getting saturated more often and stream flows are up from 20 percent to 50 percent since the 1940s.
Adding to the problem is development in urban areas and degrading soil quality in rural areas, which are accelerating runoff.

In 2008, floods caused $8 billion to $10 billion in damage in Iowa. Damage from flooding in 2010 is still being tabulated. At Iowa State University alone, flooding caused an estimated $40 million to $50 million in damage this year.

Anderson said the wetter weather that is leading to increased flooding is due to global changes in climate.

As oceans warm, they release massive amounts of water into the atmosphere, and that fuels rain and snow. In addition to more rain and snow and higher stream flows, Iowa can also expect a rise in periods without rain, he said.

http://www.dtnprogressivefarmer.com...&blogEntryId=8a82c0bc2a8c8730012b3ef81a4f08a0

Farmers indeed have ever reason to be "alarmed" ....and that was last year.

 

[Trakar]

...The CO2 concentration measured at Mauna Loa is non-linear.
The best fit for it seems to be quadratic (x = a + by + cy²).
A % increase per year is an exponential increase in the concentration.

No - some older outdated models (as noted in previous posts) use a exponential increase in CO2.
Modern models do not. See: A better method is to model the amount of CO2 under various scenarios as done in several papers and summarized by the IPCC AR4 report...

The issue isn't bedded yet, but "at the least, 'exponential'," seems a pretty good estimate from my perspective. Here is a more recent paper that seems to make a decent case and seems pretty definitive in ruling out a linear rate of increase

"Evidence for super-exponentially accelerating atmospheric carbon dioxide growth" - http://arxiv.org/PS_cache/arxiv/pdf/1101/1101.2832v3.pdf

excerpt from conclusion-
...Overall, the evidence presented here does not augur well for the future.
 1) The human population is still growing at a non-sustainable rate and
there is no sign the population will stabilize anytime soon. Many argue
that economic developments and education of women will lead to a de-
crease growth rate and an eventual stabilization of human population.
This is not yet observed in the population dynamics, when integrated
worldwide. Let us hope that the stabilization of the human popula-
tion will occur endogenously by self-regulation, rather than by more
stringent nite carrying capacity constraints that can be expected to
lead to severe strains on a signicant fraction of the population.
 2) Notwithstanding a lot of discussions, international meetings, preva-
lence in the media, atmospheric CO2 content growth continues un-
abated with a clear faster-than-exponential behavior. On the face of
this evidence using data until 2009, stabilizing atmospheric carbon
dioxide emissions at levels reached in 1990 for instance seems very
ambitious, if not utterly unrealistic. We are not pessimistic. We think
that only evidence-based decision making can lead to progress. The
present evidence gives some measure of the enormous challenges to
control our CO2 emissions to acceptable levels....

36.2exp[0.693(T-1958)/32.5] looks like an interesting non-linear equation.

 

[Trakar]

From PopularTechnology.net


I wonder when we can expect retractions from The Carbon Brief, as well as everybody who quoted them?

Personally, since this is a moderated thread on an ostensibly Science & Technology board, I'd prefer to stay focussed on the science and technologies of AGW and coping with AGW, but since this has been made into a forum wide dumping ground for all aspects of AGW, I suppose some discussion of other aspects is to be expected, that said:

You are apparently citing a blog which cites a different blog referring to yet other blogs/agenda-driven rhetoric echo-chambers, and supposedly someone (or several) made some error or mistake in a post and then referes back to a post on the originally cited blog in some perversely circular fashion. It is more than a bit confusing and one of the reasons I don't much read, nor care for, blogs,...too much like the grade school games of grapevine which I never particularly cared for when I was a child, much less in the midst of my seventh decade.

Please clarify exactly who said what, and why you feel that they are incorrect, preferrably without links or references to blogs, and with links to evidences that support your understandings and considerations.

As for holding or expecting bloggers to be accountable, might as well expect barroom conversations to be based on solid reference and cited evidence,...it'd be nice, but don't hold your breath.

Cited Blog article - http://www.populartechnology.net/2011/05/are-skeptical-scientists-funded-by.html

Which refers to this blog article - http://www.carbonbrief.org/blog/2011/04/900-papers-supporting-climate-scepticism-exxon-links

which is apparently talking about this blog/misinformation opinion article - http://www.thegwpf.org/science-news...m-of-qman-madeq-global-warming-agw-alarm.html

Which finally refers back to this posting on the originally cited blog - http://www.populartechnology.net/2009/10/peer-reviewed-papers-supporting.html

 

[Trakar]

You're avoiding the question; how does a relative shift in the gradient account for "larger" and "more frequent" storms and weather events.

In what system of discourse is answering your question with explanations and mainstream references considered "avoiding the question?" I did answer your question, if you feel that there is more information that you require to properly understand and integrate the responses I have given you please follow-up with more directed questioning and I will be happy to share my understandings and considerations, that is how rational discussion and discourse proceed.