Merged Global Warming Discussion II: Heated Conversation

[Arnold Martin]

So NASA and NOAA are in the business of issuing "warmist propaganda"? Perhaps then you can answer the question I posed in post #2060 and which I repeated in post #2082. I'll repeat once more (the third time's the charm?); perhaps then you or another naysayer can chime in with an answer.


Here is my question for those who wish to assert climate change/global warming is not being driven primarily by humanity's carbon emissions: How do you explain away the great amount of scientific evidence (some of which has been directly cited in this thread)?

Are all the scientists and climatologists from around the world presenting evidence in favour of AGW simply wrong? Or are they deliberately presenting false evidence? If so, for what purpose? Seems to me AGW naysayers have but two choices: (1) Claim all the decades of published evidence indicating AGW is simply wrong, in which case they have to explain how all those researchers got it wrong and continue to get it wrong; or (2) assert it is some sort of global organized conspiracy to present false or misleading evidence for the purposes of... well, doing something nefarious one presumes.

So which is it going to be?

(highlighted above) .... NO .... generally there is no harm intended or purposely done by climatologists .... but it is not that simple

The policy makers (politicians) use the information to radically change and control the energy consumption of the world.

To that end they propose HUGE TAXES as though that alone will cool the planet.

 

[Reality Check]

...To that end they propose HUGE TAXES as though that alone will cool the planet.

So Arnold Martin, policy makers (politicians) read the information produced by scientist and see that if AGW continues people will die.
What have you against HUGE TAXES that will reduce carbon output to the extent that AGW stops so that peoples lives (and livelihoods) will be saved?

P.S. We should not be interested that much in cooling the planet - stopping AGW will be enough.

And why are you ignoring the other side of the equation - the HUGE BENEFITS that carbon taxes bring?
The economic impacts of carbon pricing

Climate economics research shows that in reality, we are harming the economy by failing to implement CO2 limits.

The intermediate version talks about real world examples:
The economic impacts of carbon pricing

Economic assessments of proposed policy to put a price on carbon emissions are in widespread agreement that the net economic impact will be minor. The costs over the next several decades center around $100 per average family, or about 75 cents per person per week, and a GDP reduction of less than 1%. Moreover, the benefits outweigh the costs several times over, as real-world examples illustrate.

 

[lomiller]

Which part(s)?

There are no "short pauses". The appearance of such is just the influence of randomness around the trend. You get the same thing if you created a synthetic data set by taking a know trend then creating a normal distribution of points above and below it.

Climate data probably clusters a bit more because there are some longer term patterns like PDO that cause decades to be a bit above or a bit below trend.

 

[macdoc]

Norway has had a carbon tax since 1990...they seem to have done rather well by it.

All Norwegians become crown millionaires, in oil saving landmark
BY ALISTER DOYLE
OSLO Wed Jan 8, 2014 12:25pm EST

http://www.reuters.com/article/2014/01/08/us-norway-millionaires-idUSBREA0710U20140108

Perhaps Canada should take some notes.

I don;t quite get why paying through the nose to coal baron, oil shieks and the likes of Exxon and BP is preferable to a clear planet with equitable wealth and dispersed energy sources.

 

[Red Baron Farms]

(highlighted above) .... NO .... generally there is no harm intended or purposely done by climatologists .... but it is not that simple

The policy makers (politicians) use the information to radically change and control the energy consumption of the world.

To that end they propose HUGE TAXES as though that alone will cool the planet.

I don't know that is true Arnold. At least not as a blanket statement. In California they have regulated Carbon Cap and Trade, but here in Oklahoma we have a voluntary program. The program is government run, but not regulatory enforced. It is more of a partnership between industry and government.

So the way politicians react to the science can most certainly vary. However, it really doesn't change the scientific basis for AGW in either case.

 

[uke2se]

(highlighted above) .... NO .... generally there is no harm intended or purposely done by climatologists .... but it is not that simple

The policy makers (politicians) use the information to radically change and control the energy consumption of the world.

To that end they propose HUGE TAXES as though that alone will cool the planet.

This doesn't make any sense. The question was if the scientists where wrong or not. Not whether politicians created policies after getting informed by the scientists.

If you do not think the scientists are wrong - as your post here would indicate - why have you spend an inordinate amount of time in this thread denying what the scientists are saying? If the scientists are right, why is it a bad thing that politicians act on their findings?

 

[Iamme]

How do you explain the fact that 8 of the last 10 years have been the warmest on record?

You`ll need to actually give (a) reason/s, rather than assumptions. If this was the religion forum you`d get jumped on for this. Right? (the...how ELSE do you explain?...argument) Just saying.

 

[uke2se]

You`ll need to actually give (a) reason/s, rather than assumptions. If this was the religion forum you`d get jumped on for this. Right? (the...how ELSE do you explain?...argument) Just saying.

What?

 

[Iamme]

Referencing a post from the future, are we ?

The very next one, in fact. Let's see what it'll be !

Whoopsie. Post # 2201 it was supposed to be. Not futuristic post #2212.

 

[Reality Check]

In California they have regulated Carbon Cap and Trade, but here in Oklahoma we have a voluntary program.

Hi Red Baron Farms, you may also be interested in the Regional Greenhouse Gas Initiative implemented in Connecticut, Delaware, Maine, Maryland, Massachusetts, New Hampshire, New Jersey, New York, Rhode Island, and Vermont.
A study found that by investing carbon funds in energy efficiency and renewable energy programs, the states achieved $3–4 savings for every dollar invested (PDF).

 

[macdoc]

Iamme what are you on about you are are making zero sense.

 

[Iamme]

The carbon in the CO2 coming out of the front end of a horse comes from the food it eats combining with the oxygen it breaths in, it is carbon neutral with respect to carbon already in the environment. Carbon in the CO2 coming out the tailpipe of a car comes from oil that was sequestered away from the environment, adding to the total carbon in the environment. Now if you can point out horses that dig their way down into the ground to suck up that delicious, thick carbon juice, you may have an analogy that works in comparison.

Coincidently, i just got back from google, reading the same info.
But then i started reading about *cows* and all THEIR emissions, on websites describing this, and a forum.
Anyone?; all the talk here seems to center around CO2. But what about methane?
Or is that sort of swept under the rug figuring there`s not much we can do about those emissions?
How Stuff Works says methane gas is 23 times more potent as a contributor to global warming than CO2, just to mention one thing.

 

[Iamme]

Iamme what are you on about you are are making zero sense.

Specifically the reply to Belz?, or is there something else?
Maybe my problem is from NOT being on anything.
My best thinking days was when i smoked like a chimney and drank like a fish.

 

[Trakar]

Coincidently, i just got back from google, reading the same info.
But then i started reading about *cows* and all THEIR emissions, on websites describing this, and a forum.
Anyone?; all the talk here seems to center around CO2. But what about methane?
Or is that sort of swept under the rug figuring there`s not much we can do about those emissions?
How Stuff Works says methane gas is 23 times more potent as a contributor to global warming than CO2, just to mention one thing.

True, and in low level emissions of methane it is fairly rapidly decomposed into CO2, and H2O vapor (CH₄ + 2O₂ -----> CO₂ + 2H₂O) so even after it breaks down we get more GHGs. Methane really only becomes a serious problem when its emissions are at a rate which overwhelms the local decomposition and large amounts of it escape into higher, oxygen depleted levels of the atmosphere where it can accumulate and form a semi-stable GHG layer. This is only really a concern with massive abrupt events such as a thermally induced phase-state change in large but relatively shallow clathrate deposits. Normal, bacterial and animal, methane emissions are generally decomposed in fairly short time frames (within a decade) leaving carbon-neutral/environmental CO2 and H2O. So, methane is definitely a known problem it is just that man-made/influences releasing methane are relatively small (in fact, our draining of wetlands and swamps actually reduces many major natural sources of methane). Our garbage dumps probably release as much or more methane each year as our cattle herds. Overall, however, it isn't as big an issue, because currently, all of the methane emissions (both natural and man-made) are at such a minor level, they don't get as much focus except for their "tipping point" potential with the clathrates mentioned earlier.

Not to imply that there are no issues or concerns, but rather that CO2 is a larger and more serious concern at this time.

 

[Red Baron Farms]

Coincidently, i just got back from google, reading the same info.
But then i started reading about *cows* and all THEIR emissions, on websites describing this, and a forum.
Anyone?; all the talk here seems to center around CO2. But what about methane?
Or is that sort of swept under the rug figuring there`s not much we can do about those emissions?
How Stuff Works says methane gas is 23 times more potent as a contributor to global warming than CO2, just to mention one thing.

1) Methane oxidizes in the atmosphere and has a short term effect, but doesn't last.
2) Decomposing vegetative material produces methane whether it is eaten by a herbivore or not.
3) Healthy soil has large numbers of a whole class of prokaryotes (bacteria) that are able to metabolize methane as a food source called Methanotrophs.
4) Methane is a much more powerful greenhouse gas, but the quantity in the atmosphere is far less.

There are two issues with methane. Most important to global warming would be releases from currently frozen pockets of methane in the ocean. Another issue is when cows (and other livestock) are fed in stockyards (CAFOs) far from the biome that can use bacteria to break it down. Oxidation will still happen, though it takes longer.

So really once again, the issue isn't the cows. The issue is the current industrial agricultural model that was built before we humans had a good grasp of the ecosystem services provided by the symbiotic relationship of plants, soil and animals.

“As the small trickle of results grows into an avalanche — as is now happening overseas — it will soon be realized that the animal is our farming partner and no practice and no knowledge which ignores this fact will contribute anything to human welfare or indeed will have any chance either of usefulness or of survival.” Sir Albert Howard, Father of Organic Agriculture

 

[r-j]

It's one of those humor laden situations when somebody says "It's really hot, I told you there was global warming!" and everybody nods their heads and wrings the hands. Then somebody in the middle of a most unusual blizzard mocks that oh so common habit by saying, "It's really cold, I told you there was no global warming", and everyone loses their mind.

What he’s proving is that you can’t use anecdotal evidence to prove either warming or cooling because examples of both are always present someplace in the world.

Yes, most everyone knows this, which is exactly why it's so odious when anyone does it, like using one month and saying "The HOTTEST November ever!" when we don't even have records going back a hundred years in most locations around the world, much less ocean data. If they said "November was a tiny tiny bit warmer than the years we have good data for" it is scientific, but it's not that alarming. When "HOTTEST NOVEMBER EVER!" is trotted out in the midst of a discussion that is arguing over climate, it reeks of emotion, not the long cool view of science.

What's even more important than the month of November, is how does that fit with the theory? Let's say there is a clear trend that globally November has been getting warmer and warmer, and you want to blame CO2 levels for this. How do you convince the scientific mind that CO2 is the cause? Everyone knows the climate changes, and always has. Claiming it is a direct result of CO2 (rather than any other cause) is the burden. You don't get to say "it's hotter and there is more CO2 so it has to be true". That isn't science.

Jumping right from that claim to "you must do something about it now before it's too late and we are doomed", there is the really big flop. What is the proof that human beings are the cause?

The proof that the world is warming comes from datasets like this one from the GISS group at NASA.

And there is the other big mistake, assuming that because the planet itself is changing, mankind is directly responsible for these changes. It's one thing to claim the earth has warmed since the little ice age, quite another to claim it is directly and with out any doubt all because of humanity. Certainly it's likely our kind has changed the world, it would be foolish to say otherwise. It's how, and how much, and how it happens that is the meat on the table the dogs are fighting about. They are not fighting to determine that there is a table and scraps to fight over.

That one group of hungry beasts claim the fight is over, we won, before the fight even gets going, isn't going to stop the other side from fighting. No matter how much belief is involved. It's going to have to be scientific, not emotion and fear, and certainly not anger and threats, that will make a difference.

http://data.giss.nasa.gov/gistemp/

http://data.giss.nasa.gov/gistemp/tabledata_v3/GLB.Ts+dSST.txt

The GISS data is revealing, even with it's extreme limitations on past data. (the oceans, the arctic, Antarctica, Africa, Asia, large parts of South America, gaps in coverage)

Even so we certainly know that some parts of the planet have warmed, as well as cooled. That isn't the argument, at least not in this forum. It's how much, why, how, and what AGW theory says about it. At it's core is the theory, because with out a theory, it's just "planet warming" = "people did it".

How do you tell the difference between climate change, and AGW? For example, using the GISS data, from 1880-1940 November trended .47 C warmer. was that climate change? Or was it human caused warming? How can you know?

From 1940-1980 November trended .05 warmer. Human caused? Or the planet doing what it does? Do we even know if that is accurate? Are the trends accurate?

1880-1980 .41 C warmer.
1880-2013 .73 C warmer

At what point do you start blaming CO2 for the warming? And how can you prove this? Those are critical questions for the AGW promoter. As well as the skeptics.

What is the scientific theory that allows us to know if it's a change in greenhouse gases, or something else causing the changes? That is absolutely vital to know. It's at the core of the dispute.

Which is why it's so astounding to hear claims like

Everyone notes that I stated the fact in the real world: there is no such thing as your "Theory of Global Warming" as you have actually shown with your searches.

It appears because people like you trot it out. It doesn't appear in the scientific literature.

There is no such thing as a Theory of Global Warming, the expectation that there would be indicates a profound misunderstanding of the nature of climate science.

All those are from people who seem angry that I don't agree with them about AGW, or global warming. Which clearly means to them, "human caused planet warming up".

While this was pretty much completely ignored a year ago, like winter, it certainly isn't going away.

 

[DC]

It's one of those humor laden situations when somebody says "It's really hot, I told you there was global warming!" and everybody nods their heads and wrings the hands. Then somebody in the middle of a most unusual blizzard mocks that oh so common habit by saying, "It's really cold, I told you there was no global warming", and everyone loses their mind.
Yes, most everyone knows this, which is exactly why it's so odious when anyone does it, like using one month and saying "The HOTTEST November ever!" when we don't even have records going back a hundred years in most locations around the world, much less ocean data. If they said "November was a tiny tiny bit warmer than the years we have good data for" it is scientific, but it's not that alarming. When "HOTTEST NOVEMBER EVER!" is trotted out in the midst of a discussion that is arguing over climate, it reeks of emotion, not the long cool view of science.

What's even more important than the month of November, is how does that fit with the theory? Let's say there is a clear trend that globally November has been getting warmer and warmer, and you want to blame CO2 levels for this. How do you convince the scientific mind that CO2 is the cause? Everyone knows the climate changes, and always has. Claiming it is a direct result of CO2 (rather than any other cause) is the burden. You don't get to say "it's hotter and there is more CO2 so it has to be true". That isn't science.

Jumping right from that claim to "you must do something about it now before it's too late and we are doomed", there is the really big flop. What is the proof that human beings are the cause?
And there is the other big mistake, assuming that because the planet itself is changing, mankind is directly responsible for these changes. It's one thing to claim the earth has warmed since the little ice age, quite another to claim it is directly and with out any doubt all because of humanity. Certainly it's likely our kind has changed the world, it would be foolish to say otherwise. It's how, and how much, and how it happens that is the meat on the table the dogs are fighting about. They are not fighting to determine that there is a table and scraps to fight over.

That one group of hungry beasts claim the fight is over, we won, before the fight even gets going, isn't going to stop the other side from fighting. No matter how much belief is involved. It's going to have to be scientific, not emotion and fear, and certainly not anger and threats, that will make a difference.
The GISS data is revealing, even with it's extreme limitations on past data. (the oceans, the arctic, Antarctica, Africa, Asia, large parts of South America, gaps in coverage)

Even so we certainly know that some parts of the planet have warmed, as well as cooled. That isn't the argument, at least not in this forum. It's how much, why, how, and what AGW theory says about it. At it's core is the theory, because with out a theory, it's just "planet warming" = "people did it".

How do you tell the difference between climate change, and AGW? For example, using the GISS data, from 1880-1940 November trended .47 C warmer. was that climate change? Or was it human caused warming? How can you know?

From 1940-1980 November trended .05 warmer. Human caused? Or the planet doing what it does? Do we even know if that is accurate? Are the trends accurate?

1880-1980 .41 C warmer.
1880-2013 .73 C warmer

At what point do you start blaming CO2 for the warming? And how can you prove this? Those are critical questions for the AGW promoter. As well as the skeptics.

What is the scientific theory that allows us to know if it's a change in greenhouse gases, or something else causing the changes? That is absolutely vital to know. It's at the core of the dispute.

Which is why it's so astounding to hear claims like
All those are from people who seem angry that I don't agree with them about AGW, or global warming. Which clearly means to them, "human caused planet warming up".

While this was pretty much completely ignored a year ago, like winter, it certainly isn't going away.

for someone talking so much about science, you ask strange questions, questions that have been answered by science decades ago.....

you choose to ignore them or do you honestly not know how we found out ist Human activity that is causing global warming? noone can be that ignorant.... how come you are?

warmest November on record IS SCIENTIFIC. face it.

 

[Trakar]

...Which is why it's so astounding to hear claims like
All those are from people who seem angry that I don't agree with them about AGW, or global warming. Which clearly means to them, "human caused planet warming up"...

You hooked yourself up in semantic knots last year with this mess and many of us tried to straighten you out on this, and now you (unsurprisingly) return once again to your distortions and confusions this year.

There are many scientific theories, understandings and concepts relating to climate change/global warming. There is no one, overarching "Theory of Global Warming." The forest that you seem to be missing while hunting for a tree called the Theory of Global Warming, are the AGW theories of Climate Change. As a group of theories about climate change, the common theme of the AGW theories of climate change maintain that human activities impact, influence and can even be a forcing agency with respect to climate change.

There are AGW theories dealing with agricultural/land-use practices, various emission/pollution practices and even various surface alteration/albedo changing practices both intentional and incidental. The distortion and confusion comes in when you say you want to talk about "the Theory of Global Warming," or "the Theory of AGW." One of the primary AGW theories of climate change is that the CO2 emissions from the long-term, large-scale human combustion of fossil fuels brings enough carbon into the active planetary carbon-cycle to generate climatic change forcings.

Hopefully, there will be no need to re-explain this issue each and every year at this time.

 

[macdoc]

r-j

I don't agree with them about AGW, or global warming. Which clearly means to them, "human caused planet warming up"

Trakar

You hooked yourself up in semantic knots last year with this mess and many of us tried to straighten you out on this, and now you (unsurprisingly) return once again to your distortions and confusions this year.

Hopefully, there will be no need to re-explain this issue each and every year at this time.

Put up or shut up r-j...if you have an robust alternative theory to AGW complete with the physics and the evidence...then post here.Otherwise you've had all the evidence for the mainstream view and from evidence of your nonsensical posts have not absorbed an iota of understanding of climate physics.

That you don't "agree" means absolutely nothing nor does anyone care at this point given the amount of noise.

Awaiting your well thought out and evidenced thesis.

 

[r-j]

Put up or shut up...if you have an robust theory of AGW complete with the physics and the evidence...then post here.
Awaiting your well thought out and evidenced thesis.