Moderated Global Warming Discussion

[CapelDodger]

No, in fact everyone is losing. The facts are unstoppable, as is the warming. By the time that even the lobbying money can't make politicians deny reality it will be to late to do anything but half-arsed mitigation.

I think we're already in the stage of catch-up adaptation (mostly in the shape of yet more engineered waterways) and still falling behind.

The deniers will crawl back under their rocks, some will say they never denied anything, and that the blame is on the scientists for not being convincing enough.

I wonder if they've really made a difference to what has happened. The lack of progress at Climate Conferences isn't really down to the clown-parade, it's just been standard diplomacy between nation-states looking to their own (perceived) best interests.

The existing international order is simply incapable of responding to an issue like AGW. It seemed to be able to at Montreal but that was on a very small scale, a strut in the great globalised edifice. Fossil-fuels are the main load-bearing element.

At the end of the day millions will die, more millions will starve, and even more millions will be displaced. We are the lucky ones, because we live in countries that will be able to handle the consequences. Most won't be so lucky.

Absolutely true.

To me personally is left the satisfaction of at least working in search of mitigation solutions, and the small satisfaction that comes from the "I told you so".

The latter part of that I can take satisfaction from. Otherwise I've just tried not to be a bigger part of the problem than I need to be. Well, not much bigger: I'm only human.

 

[r-j]

What was stated -

... 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.

But rather than respond to those specific and easy to understand points

despite global dimming, most scientist predicted warming do to CO2....
http://journals.ametsoc.org/doi/pdf/10.1175/2008BAMS2370.1

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?

Have you got anything to counter the article DC and I linked to r-j.

It seems to show the above statement is totally wrong.

The lack of comprehension is becoming onerous.

I said that calling historical facts a "myth" makes you look bad. The issue of what the experts believed isn't the same thing.

In regards to that, even if all the scientists in the world said an ice age was coming, using that as an argument to show all the climate scientists now are wrong isn't valid. It is a bad argument.

Most people who remember the hype and fear over the climate getting colder (it certainly was) might think it does, but it's still a bad argument.

 

[r-j]

The UK/NE US having colder, snowier winters has been linked to the melting Arctic.

While the Arctic region has been warming strongly in recent decades, anomalously large snowfall in recent winters has affected large parts of North America, Europe, and east Asia. Here we demonstrate that the decrease in autumn Arctic sea ice area is linked to changes in the winter Northern Hemisphere atmospheric circulation that have some resemblance to the negative phase of the winter Arctic oscillation. However, the atmospheric circulation change linked to the reduction of sea ice shows much broader meridional meanders in midlatitudes and clearly different interannual variability than the classical Arctic oscillation. This circulation change results in more frequent episodes of blocking patterns that lead to increased cold surges over large parts of northern continents. Moreover, the increase in atmospheric water vapor content in the Arctic region during late autumn and winter driven locally by the reduction of sea ice provides enhanced moisture sources, supporting increased heavy snowfall in Europe during early winter and the northeastern and midwestern United States during winter. We conclude that the recent decline of Arctic sea ice has played a critical role in recent cold and snowy winters.

March 10, the colder and snowier winters mentioned, in regards to the hot summer down under.

"anomalously large snowfall in recent winters has affected large parts of North America, Europe, and east Asia"

Despite the anti-science some have adopted, where they claim that warmer winters lead to more snowfall, in fact the snow is associated with cold, not warm. As we are seeing even now, when it's unusually cold, there is more snow. Early snow, late snow, lots of snow. Record amounts of snow, which ironically is happening even as I type this.

It's not snowing because it's warmer. As we saw last year in the US, when it's warmer in the winter, there is much less snow.

 

[jimbob]

March 10, the colder and snowier winters mentioned, in regards to the hot summer down under.

"anomalously large snowfall in recent winters has affected large parts of North America, Europe, and east Asia"

Despite the anti-science some have adopted, where they claim that warmer winters lead to more snowfall, in fact the snow is associated with cold, not warm. As we are seeing even now, when it's unusually cold, there is more snow. Early snow, late snow, lots of snow. Record amounts of snow, which ironically is happening even as I type this.

It's not snowing because it's warmer. As we saw last year in the US, when it's warmer in the winter, there is much less snow.

And that is locally cooler winters, not globally warmer. Looking at the map, you can see that the Arctic has been significantly warmer.

If you are saying that winters are getting colder locally, then I'd have an open mind - for the UK and Central/Western Europe, the winters are getting more variable, with warmer periods (Strawberries in Vienna on Christmas day for the first time in 800 years a couple of years ago, and frosts generally starting later in the UK) as well as colder periods.

 

[macdoc]

R-j misfires again

Despite the anti-science some have adopted, where they claim that warmer winters lead to more snowfall, in fact the snow is associated with cold, not warm. As we are seeing even now, when it's unusually cold, there is more snow.

This is where you simply display your ignorance of physical processes.

Snow fall is variable by the amount of moisture in the air.....not how cold it is. There is more snow in the middle of the Antarctic desert recently not because it is colder (it's not ) but because there is more moisture in the atmosphere due to warming oceans and the ability of the atmosphere to hold more moisture load.

AGW produces more moisture in the atmosphere. Warmer oceans emit more water vapour.
When that hits continental cold cells which have been stalling out due to the warmer Arctic ocean....THEN it snows.....not because is it colder but because it is wetter.

In fact snow cover in areas has been declining much to farmers chagrin but snow storm intensity has been rising ( intensity of rain events also has been rising even tho frequency is down )

Warm enough to snow? Climate Change and Blizzards - Shorelines ...
Mar 27, 2013 – Warmer winters equal more moisture. More moisture equals more intense snowstorms. But there's still the issue of less snow overall. That is a ...

http://sercblog.si.edu/?p=3482

snip

Snowstorms occupy a narrow zone on the thermometer: To produce snow, the temperature has to be below freezing (32 °F). But the air also has to be warm enough to hold water—generally somewhere in the 20s. Monster snowstorms are much less likely to form with temperatures in the teens or lower. There isn’t enough moisture in the air to create snow in the first place.

This means that just a small upward nudge in temperature can turn a dry cold front into a blizzard. For each degree Celsius the temperature rises, the air is able to hold about 7 percent more water. And in the Northeast, winter temperatures are rising faster than summer temperatures. Since 1970 average winter temperatures went up 2°C (about 4°F)—twice as much as the average throughout the entire year, according to the U.S. Global Change Research Program. And they’re projected to rise another 2°C before the end of the century.

Learn at least some climate and weather basics before you trot out your flawed arguments.

 

[greybeard]

Whatever it is IT'S NOT A CONSPIRACY, and what is so hard of a concept for you to grasp that they may have gotten into the field to promote a "save the planet" ideology and once they are in it need to keep food on their table?

I'm not changing any stance, you don't expect me to include every detail in every post, do you?

If the climate scientists are working together to distort the evidence for financial gain then that is a conspiracy. Another poster said you had just
changed your mind because of the evidence presented to you based on your later post when you said "They're simply following their beliefs and think it's noble". If you have indeed changed your mind because you realise the evidence doesn't stack up then that would indeed be admirable. Unfortunately you already seem to have forgotten that conversion.
Why am I now expecting a post saying that scientists can be both deliberately taking a false position for monetary gain and also follow their beliefs and think it's noble at the same time? Even a fellow denialist poster here could see the two positions are not compatible and gave you a positive motive for it.

 

[Pixel42]

There's a lot to take in so it's going to take a while.

Have you read the Royal Society summary yet? It's only about a dozen pages. Here's the link again:

http://royalsociety.org/policy/publications/2010/climate-change-summary-science/

Climate change continues to be a subject of intense public and political debate. Because of the level of interest in the topic the Royal Society has produced a new guide to the science of climate change. The guide summarises the current scientific evidence on climate change and its drivers, highlighting the areas where the science is well established, where there is still some debate, and where substantial uncertainties remain.

 

[greybeard]

The lack of comprehension is becoming onerous.

I said that calling historical facts a "myth" makes you look bad. The issue of what the experts believed isn't the same thing.

In regards to that, even if all the scientists in the world said an ice age was coming, using that as an argument to show all the climate scientists now are wrong isn't valid. It is a bad argument.

Most people who remember the hype and fear over the climate getting colder (it certainly was) might think it does, but it's still a bad argument.

So if the majority of climate scientists in the seventies were saying that AGW was happening and some people were arguing something else then how is that any different to today? I fail to see how that supports your argument although like most others I am having great diificulty seeing what your stance is on global warming anyway. You just seem to want to muddy the waters and go off on tangents.

 

[Mikemcc]

This is silly without the sites you are claiming to base you opinion on. The IPCC report is hardly alarmist, it is rather dull and boring in fact.

Start here:
http://www.ipcc.ch/publications_and..._first_assessment_1990_wg1.shtml#.UV4zwZPvsfU

They could be criticised for down-playing some aspects! For instance sea-level rise. AR4 deliberately ignored Greenland melt-water because there was insufficeint substantiated evidence at the time of writing. Rather than make a guesstimate, they just ignored it then. Everybody has been caught out by the pace of arctic ice-loss]

 

[Dancing David]

AS you could not reverse the consensus on AGW without proving what WAS causing the warming, your refutation fails.

This shows you know zero about science and only have political rhetoric, data talks ******** walks.

Why was cold fusion investigated by hundreds of labs after Pons and Fleishman made the announcement? Why are ulcers treated with antibiotics?


All you have is some political agenda , take it to the Politics forum.

 

[Dancing David]

So you can't refute it but you'll slyly try to pervert the question. Climate CHANGE research seeks only to prove the climate is changing, and has only been funded because of scare tactics. You cannot prove this is not the case.

Sorry Newbie, the burden rests on the claimant.

You need to prove it is only funded because of scare tactics.

 

[Dancing David]

When one wants to attempt to discredit an issue he opposes, the easiest way is to call it "conspiracy theory".


Either that or understanding individuals with similar ideologies doing similar things is not a conspiracy is above your head?

And if you've got to put words in my mouth, as bolded above... back to kindergarten with you.

Then maybe you shouldn't suggest conspiracy theories.

 

[Dancing David]

Perhaps, but I do try to get the most accurate information I can. I'm not married to either viewpoint right now. I just can't help but have this nagging suspicion that this is going to be one of those things like Global Cooling in the 70's.

Global Cooling, and exactly how many climate scientists held that POV, give data and context.

Or are you arguing that sensationalist stories in magazine from the story of one or two researchers makes a scientific consensus?

 

[Dancing David]

I would like to make it clear that I do not dispute that the earth has gotten warmer only that I have no clear idea about the cause. As far as I'm concerned the jury is still out. .

And the source for your jury is?

Where are you getting your data?

Have you read this?
http://www.ipcc.ch/publications_and..._first_assessment_1990_wg1.shtml#.UV7EJaKG1Z4

 

[Dancing David]

He didn't modify anything. Rather, alarmists such as yourself like to strengthen their cause similar to how Christians used to go on witch hunts, so you like to draw the "us vs them" lines to rally more to your cause.

 

[Dancing David]

That sounds to me more like an argument against religion.

Data and evidence? Or just mindless robot political rhetoric.

Where is the data and evidence to counter the data and evidence that supports AGW?

 

[Dancing David]

This.

I don't really get all of this hate coming from people like macdoc who hold the status quo as an unquestionable dogmatic truth.

And the evidence there was ever a consensus on Global Cooling is?

 

[r-j]

This "Ice Age is a myth" seems to be coming from the skepticalscience blog. It has a whole list of fallacies in which it describes all evidence and objections to a doomsday scenario as "myths".

It's called "Most used myths", which is is about as anti-science as it gets in the doom-o-sphere (dumbosphere/blogosphere).

For example http://www.skepticalscience.com/ice-age-predictions-in-1970s.htm

The argument (myth) is presented as "Ice age predicted in the 70s", and the counter you are told to use against this is The vast majority of climate papers in the 1970s predicted warming. It very well may be the majority of papers predicted warming, that isn't the problem. The failing is obvious if you look at the opposite.

If the opposite was true, and the majority predicted an ice age, that has nothing to do with either the cooling then, or what science can tell us now. Just as if the majority predicted warming then has nothing to do with what happened. This is all about belief, about faith. Faith in experts, faith in the predictions, faith strong enough to make everything else fall by the wayside.

If you really believe, truly believe, and have faith that man made global warming is going to destroy all that is good, destroy not only civilization, but most of the species on the planet, if you are convinced of that, there will be no stopping you in your efforts to save the world. You will have the zeal and strength of a man trying to save his drowning child, the fervor of a newly transformed Saul, the righteousness of ,,,

Sorry. None of that deals with the science, even if it does expose my skeptical views on anyone preaching to me.

As for the Ice Age "myth", I would again wager no evidence will sway the believer of skepticalscience. That crew clearly didn't do their homework on the ice age scare. They all seem very young and dumb.

 

[batvette]

Before wasting any further time on BV I suggest a google search on

batvette climate denier

Save your effort for someone who is an honest inquirer.

this is one of many



http://www.tvclip.biz/video/6JzK2mtqNdI/climate-change-deniers-will-be-marginalized.html

and many more....all you do is give him a venue for his nonsense..

get the whole enchilada here...

Nothing I haven't been arguing here. What are you implying with that "honest enquirer" remark? You didn't change my mind so that makes me dishonest? No it means you're wrong.

So it's rather interesting you seem more interested in discrediting my person than you are in addressing this FACT:

During the years since the implementation of the Kyoto Protocol, not only has Global GGE risen, so has the rate of their increase.
And the only thing on the table is more of the same.

Yet you don't seem at all concerned about that, only trying to put labels on people who point out the fallacy of these policies. Don't you care about the planet? Or are you just looking for cheap political capital?

 

[batvette]

Norway and Sweden have both high regulation and very very successful economies.
Sweden is dedicated to and on it's way to carbon neutral by 2050.

How splendid. When Norway and Sweden get their own planet with its own climate, your point will be something I don't feel the need to poop on.

China has stiffer automotive standards than North America amongst other initiatives.

I'd love to see the documentation for this claim.