Moderated Global Warming Discussion

[aleCcowaN]

A few questions for the newcomers and THE old coot:

• During the last few years there were periods up to 20 months long when the sea level didn't change, but they are saying that ice sheets and mountain glaciers continued to melt and the oceans continued to store heat because of the inherent imbalanced energy budget of the planet. Are they lying and the planet is not warming? How is this possible, for Monckton's sake?
• If I could pour large volumes of Xe, H₂ and CH₄O into the atmosphere, would they be greenhouse gases? And if the volumes were small?
• Temperatures during February in Boondocks County, TN show a statistically significant trend to cooling during the period 1913-2013. Temperatures during Easter, same county, same period, show also a statistically significant trend to cooling. Which would be the more significant? Could you estimate a proportion? Suppose you make the proper calculations and you arrive to a number that shows the opposite of what you replied to the previous question (If you need to do some calculation, choose the first division of Tennessee), how would you explain it? When compared with the current climatic normals for Boondocks County, how well do both trends to predict the county's temperatures during 2014?
• The oceans have an uneven salinity and an average temperature that can be mathematically obtained. Suppose you could stir all the ocean water in the planet and make salinity absolutely even. Suppose that such fantastic undertaking takes one second and magically it doesn't imply any energy added to the ocean. Would the average temperature of the whole ocean change? Why?

 

[aleCcowaN]

Yay team.....closing coal plants and opening new nukes



more

http://www.newscientist.com/article...lding-first-nuclear-reactors-in-30-years.html

Great news, indeed

no matter "it's too early to herald a US nuclear renaissance" as they say, it's a beginning.

 

[Belz...]

It could be bad or it could be not so bad. What matters is that we'll adapt to it, like we always have.

Yeah, but what about other species ?

 

[Belz...]

what concencus were you talking about then? you two were talking about scientific concencus, then you said if i always would believe in the concencus, that implied to me you meant the scientific concencus, which concencus were you talking about if not the scientific?

*Consensus. The way you write it it's pronounced "consenkus".

 

[aleCcowaN]

It could be bad or it could be not so bad. What matters is that we'll adapt to it, like we always have.

We could close all the schools around the world, ban education and we'll adapt. Wait a hundred years and you'll see a planet with a humongous bunch of human beings well adapted. No doubt. And , what does it mean?

Yours is just a hollow assertion. One chosen by its apparent rhetorical effect and not for its intrinsic value and soundness.

 

[DC]

*Consensus. The way you write it it's pronounced "consenkus".

Keiner mag Klugscheisser

but thanks my spellcheck at work is on German

 

[DC]

we should not Forget that most People get their science from the media.
most People never read scientific publications. they hear on the News channel or read in the newspaper about what science discovered. and we all know how good a Job the Mainstream media does in accurately Report science. especially on the Topic of climate Change. many outlets let it look as if there indeed is a debate in science between alarmists and Deniers.
so ist not suprising that many People are confused. and do not think too much of sciience as a whole. because you hear so many different stories in the media.

maybe we should not be to harsch with People expressing doubt on AGW

then mix in a hypocritical fat rich politican that makes a movie and asks us to Change our way of life, while he keeps jetting around the globe and stretchlimos.....
no wonder People get confused.

 

[aleCcowaN]

we should not Forget that most People get their science from the media.
most People never read scientific publications. they hear on the News channel or read in the newspaper about what science discovered. and we all know how good a Job the Mainstream media does in accurately Report science. especially on the Topic of climate Change. many outlets let it look as if there indeed is a debate in science between alarmists and Deniers.
so ist not suprising that many People are confused. and do not think too much of sciience as a whole. because you hear so many different stories in the media.

maybe we should not be to harsch with People expressing doubt on AGW

[You are capitalizing nouns like in German]

Well, I don't think I should be less harsh with a person that being a corndog vendor tries to diagnose me some disease, recommends to me a surgical procedure and tries to perform it by himself.

People are obligated to protect the whole world from the consequences of their ignorance. People who decide that acquiring knowledge is too much complicated but they can obtain pleasure and an illusion of power for elevating their unsubstantiated opinions to the category of truth should be given orientation, not placid acceptance.

then mix in a hypocritical fat rich politican that makes a movie and asks us to Change our way of life, while he keeps jetting around the globe and stretchlimos.....
no wonder People get confused.

A little bit of Stockholm syndrome?

 

[quarky]

This thread is almost too big to follow; three new pages in a day. It's become work.
Allow me a synopsis:

There doesn't seem to be much disagreement that added GHGs tend to inhibit the re-radition of heat away from the planet.
There isn't much disagreement that melting polar ice reduces reflectivity of solar radiation. Most agree about the methane releases from melting perma-frost.
These factors seem like math; not much to argue...

So, is the argument that these changes are not caused by us, and our use of fossil fuels?
Is the argument that these changes are relatively insignificant? That we can adapt to them, as we always have? That in some cases, the changes might be beneficial?

Much as I can't imagine the point of the debate, I do wish it was less hostile and personal. It feels to me, that one's need to label others as either A or B, tends to retard the educational process.

If I was trying to learn math, for instance, would my initial ignorance on the subject dump me into a math-denialist camp? The subject is too heated. It's probably heating the invisible spirit realm.

 

[r-j]

People are confused. and do not think too much of sciience as a whole. because you hear so many different stories in the media.

You are just making stuff up. On TV, except for FOX, the story is always global warming, dire times ahead, great threat, everything is attributed to global warming. There is no confusion. If you watch FOX, well there's your problem right there. And it's not "sciience" people are confused about.

For example, in regards to the great "coming Ice Age" era

That's a myth. A single much publicised and discussed newspaper article gave unwarranted publicity to what was already a minority view among climate scientists.

There's no confusion among people who are educated, and old enough to know exactly why that is some sort of insane revisionist propaganda. It's quite likely one of the top five reasons people distrust you, the climate alarmists. You may very well be right about the future (it's very possible), but trying to change the past is a very bad idea. Being an insulting tool about it is much worse. The news media isn't promoting this propaganda, it's the online pundits. And forums like this one.

Well you did seem to endorse the 70s cooling myth,

Again, describing historic events as "a myth" makes you look like a religion. Trying to explain away facts, actual historic events and a real period in time, it makes you look like a kook. I am not kidding. It's also why blogs that say incredibly stupid things like that can't be trusted.

Global cooling in the 70's is another denialist myth. There was no such thing.

And there is the essence of the global warming cult. That alone, none of the other stupid things, that alone makes you lose all credibility. It's terrible terrible PR for your movement.

If you actually mean "that there was no consensus among climate scientists about climate continuing to cool in the seventies", then say that. It probably is true, as there certainly was division among the climatologists of the time. All 5 of them. (that is joke)

But do not try to tell anyone "Global cooling in the 70's is another denialist myth. There was no such thing.". People will read that and you have no credibility after that. None. You might as well say there was no little ice age. After such wrong, nobody will even listen to you, except the already converted faithful.

The extreme global cooling, and especially the effect on the US, is the very reason climate became important, and funding for climate research exists as it does. Fears about climate change, really big climate change, started with the drastic cooling. Not warming.

That is a fact.

Not that it will make the least bit of difference to the faithful.

 

[r-j]

This thread is almost too big to follow; three new pages in a day. It's become work.

I hear you quarky.

Even with the ignoring of the usual suspects, the new people (hi there!) I felt I had to read. It's alost all politics and socialism and opinion and frankly that side of it bores me to tears. I also feel nothing I say about it will matter a bit.

It's the blatant anti-science parts that get me motivated to respond. and your quite reasonable lament about the amount of new material.

 

[Pixel42]

There's no confusion among people who are educated, and old enough to know exactly why that is some sort of insane revisionist propaganda.

I am 59 and well remember watching the Horizon programme about the possibility of an imminent ice age that was made in the 70s, and taking it seriously.

I am not saying that it's a myth that there was press and TV coverage about the threat of an imminent ice age in the 70s. I am saying it's a myth that the majority of scientists were predicting in the 70s that the world would cool, let alone that they were doing so with the same confidence with which they are now saying that it is warming and will continue to do so.

 

[DC]

I hear you quarky.

Even with the ignoring of the usual suspects, the new people (hi there!) I felt I had to read. It's alost all politics and socialism and opinion and frankly that side of it bores me to tears. I also feel nothing I say about it will matter a bit.

It's the blatant anti-science parts that get me motivated to respond. and your quite reasonable lament about the amount of new material.

can you point out anything anti science being postet here ?

 

[r-j]

I am not saying that it's a myth that there was press and TV coverage about the threat of an imminent ice age in the 70s. I am saying it's a myth that the majority of scientists were predicting in the 70s that the world would cool, let alone that they were doing so with the same confidence with which they are now saying that it is warming and will continue to do so.

Much better. And quite possibly accurate, but that doesn't matter. The reality was the colder winters, and extreme winter events, the sea ice increase, the economic disasters, and the very real fear the change would continue, and get worse, that is all hard fact.

It was what led the US to fund climate research in a huge way. The satellite measuring arctic ice was a direct result of the winters of 77 and 78. The people who run the world were very concerned about what was happening. It was also why the global warming alarmists and proponents of global warming from the 30s on were dismissed out of hand.

(they may very well end up being right, Ironic)

Imagine being the lone climate scientists in the early seventies trying to warn everyone about global warming. or the small group. They were laughed at. Mocked, Called names and people said to ignore them.


Oh.

Damn it.

Wait. I know just what that's like.



Many people think the cooling ended in 79, but it didn't. Some of the worst cold was in the 80s.

 

[DC]

Much better. And quite possibly accurate, but that doesn't matter. The reality was the colder winters, and extreme winter events, the sea ice increase, the economic disasters, and the very real fear the change would continue, and get worse, that is all hard fact.

It was what led the US to fund climate research in a huge way. The satellite measuring arctic ice was a direct result of the winters of 77 and 78. The people who run the world were very concerned about what was happening. It was also why the global warming alarmists and proponents of global warming from the 30s on were dismissed out of hand.

(they may very well end up being right, Ironic)

Imagine being the lone climate scientists in the early seventies trying to warn everyone about global warming. or the small group. They were laughed at. Mocked, Called names and people said to ignore them.


Oh.

Damn it.

Wait. I know just what that's like.



Many people think the cooling ended in 79, but it didn't. Some of the worst cold was in the 80s.

despite global dimming, most scientist predicted warming do to CO2....

even back then. just because a few newsoutlets made sensational stories about it doesn't mean there was scientific concencus or that the newsarticles making a sensation of it reportet the science of the time correctly.

http://journals.ametsoc.org/doi/pdf/10.1175/2008BAMS2370.1

 

[Pixel42]

The reality was the colder winters, and extreme winter events, the sea ice increase, the economic disasters, and the very real fear the change would continue, and get worse, that is all hard fact.

Which goes to show how easily you can be misled if you just look at small areas and short lived weather phenomena instead of at the big picture.

 

[r-j]

Which goes to show how easily you can be misled if you just look at small areas and short lived weather phenomena instead of at the big picture.

We probably agree on that. The difference might be, is that I see the global warming alarmists cult not looking at the bigger picture. The small, but incredibly vocal, fringe cult of doom over climate change must make real climate researchers cringe. I know they make climate history experts shake their heads in despair.

 

[greybeard]

Much better. And quite possibly accurate, but that doesn't matter. The reality was the colder winters, and extreme winter events, the sea ice increase, the economic disasters, and the very real fear the change would continue, and get worse, that is all hard fact.

It was what led the US to fund climate research in a huge way. The satellite measuring arctic ice was a direct result of the winters of 77 and 78. The people who run the world were very concerned about what was happening. It was also why the global warming alarmists and proponents of global warming from the 30s on were dismissed out of hand.

(they may very well end up being right, Ironic)

Imagine being the lone climate scientists in the early seventies trying to warn everyone about global warming. or the small group. They were laughed at. Mocked, Called names and people said to ignore them.


Oh.

Damn it.

Wait. I know just what that's like.



Many people think the cooling ended in 79, but it didn't. Some of the worst cold was in the 80s.

DC beat me to posting this link but I will post it again anyway.
http://journals.ametsoc.org/doi/pdf/10.1175/2008BAMS2370.1

Quote:-
There was no scientific consensus in the 1970s that the Earth was headed into an
imminent ice age. Indeed, the possibility of anthropogenic warming dominated
the peer-reviewed literature even then.

Perhaps you can show us the proof that this is wrong?

 

[DC]

We probably agree on that. The difference might be, is that I see the global warming alarmists cult not looking at the bigger picture. The small, but incredibly vocal, fringe cult of doom over climate change must make real climate researchers cringe. I know they make climate history experts shake their heads in despair.

said the guy that cherry picked a few states to show how winter are geting colder LOL.

most climatologists do agree with the concencus position.
do you have a few examples of paleoclimatologists that take another position on AGW? you know those that you say are shaking their heads.

 

[r-j]

so in other words, you have found nothing anti science to link to? why?

Almost everything I object to here is anti-science. The constant smearing and insults, that is the opposite of science. The "opinion and anecdotes as facts", the refusal to give a straight honest answer, the strawmen arguments, the appeals to authorities, the dishonest re-stating of somebody, rather than quoting them, there is anti-science here on every page.

The leading questions, the moved goalposts, it goes on and on. The fallacies are thick, and the irony of it constantly missed by the most toxic commenters.

Your post I quoted, it's a good example of the anti-science that is a constant.