Moderated Global Warming Discussion

[Trakar]

Nope, because the consequences of their actions can't be expressed while they are alive, so there isn't any fire to be put out. see?

No, I do not. The reasoning is not apparent, and the support does not appear sound.

Perhaps 150-200 years from now if sea levels have risen and all the other predictions hold true, people could gather and piss on their graves.

And what purpose would this serve?

But to say,"let their houses burn" makes no sense.

The idea that those who deny reality and forestall actions designed to help prevent disaster and damages to all should be forced to pay a penalty as consequence for their choices and decisions, is an attractive if uncompassionate resolution.

We can't stop climate change, not in the short term

Since many of the impacts are already occurring and the momentum of the climate system is as large as it is, even if we could cease all fossil fuel emissions today and embark on CO2 capture and sequestration program capable of reducing atmospheric CO2 back to the 1960's level of ~310ppm (which according to the paleo-climate record is probably the highest level sustainable without dramatic climate impact) it would probably take a century or more to realize. Action now will slow the steadily accumulating and increasing impacts we are already experiencing and can prevent the worst of the future impacts from occurring.

The full effects won't be hitting us within 50 years, so no revenge to be gotten

So if I were to infect large numbers of people with HIV, I shouldn't be held accountable for that action until the full impact of my action is realized?

Climate change is not a bomb with a lit fuse. We can't keep on keeping on without any effects until the spark hits the blasting cap. The effects of climate change are with us now, and will keep growing and magnifying with each passing decade and will continue to do so for centuries after we finally stop adding our contributions to the problem.

They are just scientists with dissenting opinions.

For some few, this is quite true, and I agree with you that for those very few, exposure and ridicule along the lines of the general treatment currently heaped upon the other irrational dissenters of mainstream science with regards to "ufology," psychic surgery, homeopathic dynamisation, alchemy, or "truther" engineers. The rest seem to be confusing personal political druthers with scientific understanding, with deliberateness.

 

[Trakar]

http://resources3.news.com.au/images/2012/03/23/1226308/638647-120324-lake-cathie.jpg

"Oh Noes! That ocean will rise 16" by 2050 (maybe), but, geezers, fear not, the welfare state will protect you by driving you from your homes!"

http://www.theaustralian.com.au/new...te-change-threat/story-e6frg6nf-1226308725029

http://www.chathamemergency.org/images/storm surge 2.png

You don't have to move those without the sense to move themselves, insurance will gradually become unaffordable and value will gradually disappear on such properties.

http://www.nccoastalmanagement.net/Hazards/slr.html

 

[a_unique_person]

Depends, if Mann's found guilty and there's finally disclosure things might change considerably.

Guilty of what? Being a scientist doing research.

 

[BravesFan]

No, I do not. The reasoning is not apparent, and the support does not appear sound.



And what purpose would this serve?



The idea that those who deny reality and forestall actions designed to help prevent disaster and damages to all should be forced to pay a penalty as consequence for their choices and decisions, is an attractive if uncompassionate resolution.



Since many of the impacts are already occurring and the momentum of the climate system is as large as it is, even if we could cease all fossil fuel emissions today and embark on CO2 capture and sequestration program capable of reducing atmospheric CO2 back to the 1960's level of ~310ppm (which according to the paleo-climate record is probably the highest level sustainable without dramatic climate impact) it would probably take a century or more to realize. Action now will slow the steadily accumulating and increasing impacts we are already experiencing and can prevent the worst of the future impacts from occurring.



So if I were to infect large numbers of people with HIV, I shouldn't be held accountable for that action until the full impact of my action is realized?

Climate change is not a bomb with a lit fuse. We can't keep on keeping on without any effects until the spark hits the blasting cap. The effects of climate change are with us now, and will keep growing and magnifying with each passing decade and will continue to do so for centuries after we finally stop adding our contributions to the problem.



For some few, this is quite true, and I agree with you that for those very few, exposure and ridicule along the lines of the general treatment currently heaped upon the other irrational dissenters of mainstream science with regards to "ufology," psychic surgery, homeopathic dynamisation, alchemy, or "truther" engineers. The rest seem to be confusing personal political druthers with scientific understanding, with deliberateness.

For any of your assertions to be true, you must be a fortune teller. Even climate change scientists don't claim to "know" what the results of all this will be. So , you are willing to seek some sort of crazy retribution on people who dare differ with your religion (and yes they way you rant about it it's become a religion for you) based on the estimates of scientists? What if they were wrong about the repercussions? That would be embarrassing eh?

 

[fuelair]

Top ten warmest years in the instrumental record, in descending order

2005

2010

1998

2003

2002

2006

2009

2007

2004

2001

And, if 2012 continues as it has in many areas it may go to the top next.

 

[CapelDodger]

FURCIFUR and WESTWALL are thoughtful sceptics who have studied these matters longer than I have. I would be grateful for their opinions about GATA, Global (monthly) Average Temperature Anomaly, including any reasons they might have for finding this or any other series more relevant than the five “raw” data series used by Foster and Rahmstorf. Do we have thirty years of data on GATA? I discuss these matters on post 4830,page 121. (Like all my posts on all Randi forums it met with universal indifference). I am not a trained scientist, so I need things in baby-talk

I don't think the GATA exists except as a Lindzen soundbite in the polemical op-ed. He does, indeed, draw a straight line from what is clearly an outlier on the warm side ('97-98) to what isn't an outlier at the other end, despite 2011 being a sustained La Nina year. 2005 and 2010 are as warm as the original outlier but aren't obvious outliers themselves. I agree that he's not so scientifically illiterate as to derive "no warming" from that, but of course he is principally a polemicist, not a scientist.

The 2000's were the Golden Decade (technically a long decade, from 1997 to 2011 ) of denialism and they're milking it for all it's worth while they can. Lindzen knows that it's all over, with ENSO Neutral (Es Nada) conditions, and there'll almost certainly be a sustained El Nino in the next few years (it's overdue). Deniers won't get many more chances to shout "no warming!".

All those solemn declarations that we've already entered a long-term cooling phase will, I suspect, have no ill effect on the reputations of the deniers who've made them - the subject will simply never be raised again in polite society. I'm pretty sure Lindzen never made that mistake; he's not nearly so stupid.

The likelihood of another La Nina dominated decade are slim to none, but even if it happens it's worth noting that 2011 was the warmest La Nina year yet. ENSO can't mask the AGW effect any longer.

 

[Trakar]

And, if 2012 continues as it has in many areas it may go to the top next.

2011 is just off the list at #11

 

[CapelDodger]

Depends, if Mann's found guilty and there's finally disclosure things might change considerably.

Change in what way? What do you expect to be found when they toss Mann's cell? Something that will bring down all the predictions made by climatologists, oeanographers, meteorologists, glaciologists and biologists over the last few decades? Including the ones which are already happening - will they go away?

Not rumours, the science.

You complain about the rumours and then you say this. Your thinking is not terribly connected, or it's very poorly expressed, or both.

Science predicts that there will be Hadley Cell expansion with warming, and it is happening. Science predicts that this will bring more arid conditions to sub-tropical regions and that is happening. Science predicts more extreme weather events, and you'll have heard talk of those recently, I'm sure.

The odd thing (to me) is that you find none of this in any way alarming, and yet you consider the prediction of them to be alarmism. The train of thought there eludes me.

To simplify communication, could you (or Westwall) give an example of an alarming scientific prediction? Then we'd have something concrete to discuss.

 

[BravesFan]

I have a real problem with how they calculate these temperatures though. Stated in the article i read (which gave the exact same years as the warmest) They use an avg. of temperatures from 1951-1980 as a baseline to measure all these temperatures.

There is no mention of any of the 1951-1980 temperatures as being listable individually.

That would skew any results towards the now by the nature of the measurement technique eh?

 

[Trakar]

For any of your assertions to be true, you must be a fortune teller. Even climate change scientists don't claim to "know" what the results of all this will be. So , you are willing to seek some sort of crazy retribution on people who dare differ with your religion (and yes they way you rant about it it's become a religion for you) based on the estimates of scientists? What if they were wrong about the repercussions? That would be embarrassing eh?

Your comments directed at me, personally, are offtopic and irrelevent to the discussion at hand. I have stated my position and provided reasoned response to the situation under discussion, to which you seem only able to offer personal attack and insult.

Climate science offers us clear projections, based upon the paleoclimate record of previous eras in which our climate was driven to warming episodes by excessive amounts of CO2. The only significant differences between those earlier times and the current epoch is that the changes are occurring much, much more quickly. The only questions left in climate change aren't related to how much things will change if we keep on doing as we are doing, but rather how much things will change if we undertake varying degrees of addressment to reduce or limit what we are currently doing.

The Long Thaw: How Humans Are Changing the Next 100,000 Years of Earth's Climate - http://press.princeton.edu/titles/8719.html

The Societal Relevance of Paleoenvironmental Research - http://pages-142.unibe.ch/download/PAGES Paleoclimate Book/C. chapter1.pdf

Global climate evolution during the last deglaciation - http://ic.ucsc.edu/~acr/ocea285/articles/Clarketal2012.pdf

The Copenhagen Diagnosis - http://eprints.ifm-geomar.de/11839/2/Copenhagen_Diagnosis_LOW.pdf

 

[Furcifer]

Guilty of what? Being a scientist doing research.

Well "guilty" isn't the right word. If the court forces UVA to disclose the emails it could lead to him being charged with defrauding the tax payers. The case against him was dismissed due to some poor wording by the GA and SCOTUS saying commonwealth institutions aren't "people" and therefore not subject to the same FOI requests.

 

[Furcifer]

Mann has been found innocent. But i guess the deniers see that just as evidence of the huge conspiracy they believe in.

lol, no he hasn't. He's just successfully blocked any attempt to have his emails "the evidence" made public.

While the warmists claim he's been "vindicated" they've also started a legal defense fund for him. The "vindicated" don't need lawyers where I'm from.

 

[Furcifer]

A "blog," certainly,...a "pseudoscience" source, not that I've seen any compelling support of, please reference or present such support.

Pseudoscience - Pseudoscience is a claim, belief, or practice which is presented as scientific, but does not adhere to a valid scientific method, lacks supporting evidence or plausibility, cannot be reliably tested, or otherwise lacks scientific status. Pseudoscience is often characterized by the use of vague, exaggerated or unprovable claims, an over-reliance on confirmation rather than rigorous attempts at refutation, a lack of openness to evaluation by other experts, and a general absence of systematic processes to rationally develop theories.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pseudoscience

Exactly, and socalledskepticalscience.com and realcrapclimate.com have been shown time and time again to be pseudoscientific.

I really don't care to argue this any further. If they're legit then just cite the papers and journals they sourced.

 

[Furcifer]

Guilty of what?

http://cen.acs.org/articles/90/web/2012/03/Virginia-Court-Dismisses-Climate-Change.html

Fraud. The ATI case and the one in BC may make the emails public. If the emails show he set out to manipulate data in order to secure funding he may face fraud charges.

I don't understand why this wasn't mediated? I can understand not wanting your personal emails made public, but at the same time if you don't have anything to hide why not just show your hand? Release the emails to a third party with no interest in the case and let them decide.

 

[balrog666]

Science predicts that there will be Hadley Cell expansion with warming, and it is happening. Science predicts that this will bring more arid conditions to sub-tropical regions and that is happening. Science predicts more extreme weather events, and you'll have heard talk of those recently, I'm sure.

Ooooh, catastrophe imminent! So ...

Show us what the computer models predict differently if we all agree to give away trillions of taxpayer dollars to third world countries via the GCGW-12 accords!

Show us what the computer models predict differently if we get every single person on the planet to recycle!

Show us what the computer models predict differently if we all agree to use only so-called "green" energy sources!

Show us what the computer models predict differently if we all drive Chevy Volts and agree to forgo heating our houses in the winter and air conditioning them in the summer!


Come on, show us how well we will do at averting the imminent catastrophe with all of the silly solutions suggested by the AGW alarmists!!


Oh, wait, you can't? Then why do you think all those incredibly silly ideas are "solutions"? Is it that "Anthropogenic Global Warming" "Climate Change" isn't the problem you are tying to solve?

 

[Furcifer]

If you insist upon speaking for me, please attempt accurate portrayals of my considerations and expressions.

Of course, in comparison to a willingness to misportray and mispresention of the science, misrepresetation of my remarks and considerations is a minor transgression.

The quote was taken from the link you posted almost verbatim. If you disagree with the articles you post it would be in everyone's interest for you to do so at the time of posting. It keeps the goal posts from moving.

 

[Trakar]

I don't think the GATA exists except as a Lindzen soundbite in the polemical op-ed. He does, indeed, draw a straight line from what is clearly an outlier on the warm side ('97-98) to what isn't an outlier at the other end, despite 2011 being a sustained La Nina year. 2005 and 2010 are as warm as the original outlier but aren't obvious outliers themselves...

Slight quibble

2005 was absolute warmest with combined Global anomaly - 0.6183
2010 comes in second with - 0.6171
1998 runs third with - 0.5984

admittedly it's only a difference of a few hundredths of a degree, but no sense in feeding the tropes.

 

[Furcifer]

Please reference and cite the specific statements of mine which you feel are contradicted by information or inferences from this article.




The only argument I've ever made is that the correlation between greenhouse gas emissions and economic growth are tied to the use of fossil fuels as a principle and primary energy source. Reduce or replace the fossil fuels with energy sources that don't emit greenhouse gasses and the correlation almost entirely disappears. If you have any evidence that I have argued or stated otherwise please present that evidence.

As long as you admit it now I have no problem with that. I'm only interested in making progress.

 

[Furcifer]

I'm afraid what you quoted was 100% accurate, in spite you not liking that so vehemently, to say it mildly.

Just provide the post numbers, Furcifer, one for each one of those three times, or the groups of posts if otherwise fragmented, so we can finally address the supposed inanities of GW according to you and a very small group.

Well here's a more recent one:

Cap and trade, carbon credits, solar, nuclear, wind, geothermal, ethanol, biomass etc. etc.

Here's a nice compiled list of 100 Things Blamed on Global Warming.

Of those try and find published peer reviewed science that has conclusively determined anthropogenic climate change is responsible. Feel free to RealCrapClimate.com, I'm sure this is right up their alley.

Post 4800 is another. I posted one more then a year ago that I can't find. As Capel alluded to mhaze posted one as well, possibly 2 years ago.

They weren't addressed then and I doubt if they will now. Trakar made the most valiant attempt of all and tried to address 1. His suggestions for the origins of the claim were totally unsubstantiated but plausible.

 

[Furcifer]

FURCIFUR and WESTWALL are thoughtful sceptics who have studied these matters longer than I have. I would be grateful for their opinions about GATA, Global (monthly) Average Temperature Anomaly, including any reasons they might have for finding this or any other series more relevant than the five “raw” data series used by Foster and Rahmstorf. Do we have thirty years of data on GATA? I discuss these matters on post 4830,page 121. (Like all my posts on all Randi forums it met with universal indifference). I am not a trained scientist, so I need things in baby-talk

I don't believe I've read the article you're refering to from Lindzen. If I've read Capel's response correctly he's taken 1997, a hot year and 2012, then averaged them out and noted there isn't much warming at all. I assume his reasoning for this is because this is the time where we've had the proper instruments and taken particular notice of the global average temperature.
I didn't read the article you posted yet, but let me read it and try to find out what Lindzen has wrote and get back to you.
(the GATA goes back to 1880)