Merged Global Warming Discussion II: Heated Conversation

[macdoc]

Are you going to answer the question??

So Haig..lets be clear.....you are denying that CO2 and related GHG gases are the main driver in current climate change on earth?

 

[Haig]

So Haig..lets be clear.....you are denying that CO2 and related GHG gases are the main driver in current climate change on earth?

••

Weather is not climate ...why are you promoting weather forecasting site

I'm saying the empirical evidence points to our variable star as being the main driver in current climate change on earth. CO2 is just a bit player in all this.

That weather forecasting site is able to successfully predict long range extreme weather events from the electromagnetic output of our sun. As such, it's an example of empirical evidence for the sun as the main driver of weather AND climate here on earth.

 

[Trakar]

Reality indeed

It's becoming more obvious that our variable star is the main driver in climate change: weather: volcanic activity and can even be used to predict these events successfully ...

5MIN News December 29, 2013: Solar Wind Affects Weather
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vMkpMBOBeAE&feature=share&list=UUTiL1q9YbrVam5nP2xzFTWQ

WELCOME to WeatherAction !
http://www.weatheraction.com/displayarticle.asp?a=614&c=5

I don't know anyone who seriously doubts that the sun is the primary source of the energy which drives our climate. Changes in that emitted energy can be very important in determining what is going on with the climate. The problem is that there have been no significant changes in solar emissions sufficient to account for the warming global climate over the last couple of centuries, and certainly not over the last half century of close and detailed monitoring.

As to extreme weather events and volcanic activity, those connections to solar activity are beliefs you are welcome to attempt to support, but not well and compellingly supported by any solar causality I am familiar with.
Correlation is not Causation

 

[Trakar]

Didn't you read the first line of my post? Let me repeat it here for you

Three clicks and you can open any link

The Evidence
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bEo3PBaVha8

Energy from Space
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_yy3YJBOw_o

And yet, when I go the Youtube page, and click on the links, I still find that many of the links are dead, and the ones that open either do not support your contentions or they link to sites promoting various pseudoscience and/or conspiracy theories.

Please update your offered list of support and provide links to reputable sites that compellingly support your contentions.

 

[Haig]

Trakar you need to try to understand the points being made in these video's and the links he lists. I'm not saying you have to agree with him, just understand the argument.

The Evidence ; Energy from Space

 

[lomiller]

My thoughts specific to Antarctica Ice core research

In my post # 1487 I said ... I have always felt that ice core samples are extremely hard to date accurately

In post # 1489 uke2se said .... Your feelings are getting less and less relevant with each post you make, and their relevance started close to, if not at, zero.

In post # 1492 lomiller said ... What you feel isn’t really all that important. The evidence in the scientific literature says ice cores can be dated accurately.

If you interpret being told that your “feelings” do not trump actual published science as an insult I really don’t know what to tell you. This is a simple statement of fact. If it bothers you perhaps you should look internally for why it bothers you, rather than claiming you are a victim.

Rather than fill posts with personal insults I prefer to stick with the Antarctica science I learned 20 years ago as a Meteorite hunter and collector.
.

I should not have to tell you this, as it’s remarkably obvious. Collecting meteorites doesn’t qualify you as an expert on ice cores.

If you don’t understand how ice cores can be used, read the papers that detail how the sites are selected and how the cores are analyzed. Do not just say “I collect meteorites so the papers on ice cores are all wrong, even though I’ve never read any of them or made any attempt to understand the science in them.”

 

[Red Baron Farms]

Nobody knows, that is the actuality. Nobody knows because it hasn't happened before. In a normal world, where this was purely a scientific event, we would all agree nobody knows. And we would all be quite interested in what is going to be the effect of a quiet sun. (and we would honestly discuss how very wrong the predictions were about this current sunspot cycle)

But instead we get claims that are just not scientific at all. You don't know what is going to happen. Period. No if ands or buts, you don't know. That is the honest truth.
Yes, going by historic records and current theory, we should see changes in climate from the changes in the sun. This ridiculous mania over "catastrophic global warming is happening now" wants to deny that this is even a possibility.

So what are you saying then? I shouldn't be sequestering carbon in my land because some unknown future global cooling event may happen along and we may need that carbon in the atmosphere?

 

[lomiller]

Ive read every post since my last post. Sure is a lot to know regarding this subject.
I wonder why Sean Hannity would embarrass himself over the airwaves, saying AGW is not true? I think Rush in this camp also? Cant remember for sure, but i think so. I think they have painted it as some liberal agenda, where basically anything Al Gore has to say is foolish poppycock. Probably started from claims made that he invented the internet.

Whether the commentators at Fox News would lie to people isn’t a global warming or even a science comment. (That said, Fox News went to court to establish their right to fire people for refusing to lie on the air...)

Gore’s involvement with the evolution of the modern internet is at least somewhat technology related even though it’s not related to climate change in any way. Given the technology connection I’ll touch on in very briefly but if you want follow-up or more detail you should start a separate thread.

Gore sponsored and pushed the legislation that changed the internet form a system of ad hoc interconnection of Universities to what we see today where privately run for profit backbone network providers exchange data and either run their own ISP’s or sell access to their networks to ISPs. This same legislation funded the development of applications utilizing this new infrastructure. The most notable application developed under this program is what you know today as web browsers. This legislation was one of if not the watershed events in the development of today’s internet.

 

[macdoc]

Nobody knows, that is the actuality. Nobody knows because it hasn't happened before. In a normal world, where this was purely a scientific event, we would all agree nobody knows.

Yes it has happened before R-J if you read the literature you would know that there have been high carbon events.

And we would all be quite interested in what is going to be the effect of a quiet sun.

Marginal at most since the solar influence is a magnitude below that of GHG. The sun has been quiet for several cycles....it's getting warmer.

Just because you are confused and choose to remain that way does not mean others, in particular, the science community are.

 

[lomiller]

(Raises arm, waving to teacher) Ummm...global warming? (Lol)
Dont keep us in suspense regarding why though.

As MacDoc already indicated Stratospheric cooling is one of the fingerprints of anthropogenic climate change.

The simplified (perhaps oversimplified) reason is that greenhouse gasses increase the temperature gradient between the earth and top of atmosphere. The result is that you get warming at the surface but cooling in the upper atmosphere. Conversely, if you get warming from an increase in solar activity the energy and temperature in the upper atmosphere would increase.

 

[lomiller]

Who only present a view that suits the belief that humans are to blame for climate change and weather extremes.

What does it tell you that publishing climate scientists always seem to say the world is warming due to human influence?

Other facts that show this is not the whole case and that CO2 plays a minor part are ignored, hardly Science.

What does it tell you about these “facts” that actively publishing climate scientists disregard them when they discuss what’s happening with the earth’s climate?

 

[Grizzly Bear]

The story, even being false, would be nice if not because of the fact that that "we" -which is basically "just you"- means you consider yourself to have a modicum of intelligence and education to evaluate the global climate. That's the pride and arrogance that comes with every unyielding denialist.

You're welcome.

I'm not sure how well I align with him/her but, my position remains that the satellite data shows changes to the climate which are objective. But considering that weather patterns range in cycles lasting between days, weeks, months, years, and for that decades, and longer, 30 or 40 years worth falls far short of providing direct consultation that the lions' share is due to anthropogenic reasons. I don't debate that the climate is changing or that sea levels might rise considerably, but politics sure don't help unless you're trying to be a doomsday promoter or some lobbyist, and I think that evidence is more incomplete than it is competent or "impossible".

At this stage the only recourse politicians have ever come up with are either heightened taxes, or investments into technologies that remain out-of this world expensive and relatively inefficient still for routine use. At the end of the day I'm fine with those if they can help, but as of right now most of those technologies have cost-efficiency ratio that's terrible. Not to mention priorities of investing those technologies in a manner that makes them more affordable seems considerably lax considering the apparent dire nature of changing human consumption of pollutants.

A case where a fair bit of the science is realistic but where the exact causes are incompletely mapped and solution-based priorities aren't well made

 

[lomiller]

Didn't you read the first line of my post? Let me repeat it here for you

It's all here ... any links that haven't copied well just click "show more" below the videos

Perusing the links provided nothing that supported your claims. IF there is anything in them that actually supports your claims it’s up to you to go though them and find it, no one is obliged to do your research for you.

 

[Trakar]

Trakar you need to try to understand the points being made in these video's and the links he lists. I'm not saying you have to agree with him, just understand the argument.

The Evidence ; Energy from Space

The arguments being made are well-understood, they simply are incorrect and unsupported by the wide range of evidences, nor by either field specific or general scientific understandings. You are certainly free to hold whatever beliefs you choose to hold, but these assertions are not in accord with mainstream science and evidences.

 

[macdoc]

GB

At this stage the only recourse politicians have ever come up with are either heightened taxes, or investments into technologies that remain out-of this world expensive and relatively inefficient still for routine use. At the end of the day I'm fine with those if they can help, but as of right now most of those technologies have cost-efficiency ratio that's terrible. Not to mention priorities of investing those technologies in a manner that makes them more affordable seems considerably lax considering the apparent dire nature of changing human consumption of pollutants.

You are wrong and every objection that you have made is answered in these threads.

A case where a fair bit of the science is realistic but where the exact causes are incompletely mapped

The causes are mapped sufficiently to act on ....even Exxon acknowledges the risk. If you read the thread you would know that.

Here is some more...this WAS Exxon's position and an interesting read
http://www.ceres.org/resources/reports/exxonmobils--governance-on-climate-change-2006

Now...under stress to get on with the things...

Exxon Mobil CEO finally admitted the obvious ...

[...]
Tillerson said humans have long adapted to change, and governments should create policies to cope with the Earth's rising temperatures.
"Changes to weather patterns that move crop production areas around -- we'll adapt to that. It's an engineering problem and it has engineering solutions," Tillerson said in a presentation to the Council on Foreign Relations.
[...]

Exxon Mobil, once one of the staunchest critics of climate change research, has acknowledged under Tillerson's leadership that human-made emissions have contributed to altering the planet's climate. The company now supports taxing carbon emissions.
[...]

http://www.dailykos.com/story/2012/...Presses-Oil-CEO-admits-Climate-Change-is-Real

and solution-based priorities aren't well made

Sweden has lowered it's emissions by 45% since 1990 while fostering a vibrant economy that is rated second in the world for competitiveness and continues on it's path to carbon neutral by 2050.

The path IS there. Political willingness to do so is missing.

Even California has shown very good gains in emissions over time and the US as a whole is down 11% last year.

For several regions solar is THE cheapest form of energy.
The main issue is replacing coal at this point and natural gas is a viable and cost effective approach and IS being done in the US and elsewhere.

••

Now - the fossil fuel companies knew this in 1995...they just decided to try and fight the reality with the kind of denier junk we've seen before from Big Tobacco.
Their own scientists knew and told them.

Industry Ignored Its Scientists on Climate

By ANDREW C. REVKINPublished: April 23, 2009

For more than a decade the Global Climate Coalition, a group representing industries with profits tied to fossil fuels, led an aggressive lobbying and public relations campaign against the idea that emissions of heat-trapping gases could lead to global warming.

“The role of greenhouse gases in climate change is not well understood,” the coalition said in a scientific “backgrounder” provided to lawmakers and journalists through the early 1990s, adding that “scientists differ” on the issue.

But a document filed in a federal lawsuit demonstrates that even as the coalition worked to sway opinion, its own scientific and technical experts were advising that the science backing the role of greenhouse gases in global warming could not be refuted.

Industry Ignored Its Scientists on Climate - NYTimes.com
http://www.nytimes.com/2009/04/24/science/earth/24deny.html?_r=2

and some coal companies acknowledge it

http://www.griffincoal.com.au/climatechangeactionplan.html


Are they all wrong??...all the world's science bodies, nations like Sweden and others who are far along the road to carbon neutral.....??

or are you the one that needs to alter thinking and understanding on the situation...the information is there...

 

[lomiller]

Trakar you need to try to understand the points being made in these video's and the links he lists.

He did, he wasted his time because there was nothing significant in them. You need to make an argument and support it, which you have yet to do.

Now, just because you haven’t actually provided anything for us to even refute, doesn’t mean we can’t say something about the lack of plausibility of the argument you are making. Satellite observations show that the PEAK of the sunspot cycle to the LOWEST part of the sunspot cycle is a difference of 1W/m^2.

There is zero evidence to support solar output is going to stop cycling and just sit at the bottom, but even if it did the decrease in energy from the Sun would only be 1W/m^2. The current anthropogenic forcing is equivalent to ~8W/m^2.

Greenhouse forcing is an order of magnitude higher than even the most extreme solar changes. The possibility of such a change occurring is little more that numerology to begin with and the evidence for such a change in solar output in the past is increasingly called into question.
http://www.nature.com/ngeo/journal/vaop/ncurrent/full/ngeo2040.html

 

[r-j]

So what are you saying then?

I stated it clearly with no weasel words, emotion or scare tactics.

I shouldn't be sequestering carbon in my land because some unknown future global cooling event may happen along and we may need that carbon in the atmosphere?

If that was what I was saying, I would have typed that out for all to read. I've said repeatedly that even if CO2 doesn't cause dangerous climate change, it's still most likely an extreme danger to the oceans. We are creating an imbalance in the levels, and it could cause the ocean to become more acidic, damaging critical food chains, or worse.

Once again, we don't know what will happen. That's why science is important, rather than some jackass running around screaming "Danger! Danger!" and filling the airwaves with horrific prophecies, rather than doing scientific work to find out what will happen, and to find solutions.

I remember when acid rain was damaging freshwater lakes and killing fish. Even before the laws could stop the high sulfur coal and oil from being uised, alkaline pellets were air dropped into ponds and lakes to stop the damage. Fish were restocked, things were done.

Temperatures are not the only thing that is effected by massive amounts of pollution.

 

[macdoc]

So - Haig - are you denying
a) the existent of AGW and climate change?
b) that GHG are the primary driver??

Are you proposing an alternative?

This is a science forum - if you have a thesis then state it clearly and defend it.

 

[Red Baron Farms]

I stated it clearly with no weasel words, emotion or scare tactics.



If that was what I was saying, I would have typed that out for all to read. I've said repeatedly that even if CO2 doesn't cause dangerous climate change, it's still most likely an extreme danger to the oceans. We are creating an imbalance in the levels, and it could cause the ocean to become more acidic, damaging critical food chains, or worse.

Once again, we don't know what will happen. That's why science is important, rather than some jackass running around screaming "Danger! Danger!" and filling the airwaves with horrific prophecies, rather than doing scientific work to find out what will happen, and to find solutions.

I remember when acid rain was damaging freshwater lakes and killing fish. Even before the laws could stop the high sulfur coal and oil from being uised, alkaline pellets were air dropped into ponds and lakes to stop the damage. Fish were restocked, things were done.

Temperatures are not the only thing that is effected by massive amounts of pollution.

No weaseling? Oh really? The very statement itself is a weasel tactic. We don't know the precise exact effect, but we do know the general trend. We don't know every factor as to why, but we do know major ones. Then you come out with a statement, "we really don't know". That's a logic fail. One doesn't ignore what we do know just because we don't know everything. And we do know a lot. Enough to do something about it.

It is the EXACT same fail logic found in many of the people you are fighting with on this thread. That's why I stopped posting on this thread for a while. Got tired of fighting with both sides.

1) AGW is real.
2) We can reverse AGW as easily as we caused it.

Deny EITHER of those 2 statements and nothing gets done and we all loose. Deer in the headlights

That's why I said what I did. I sure don't want deniers from either camp stopping me from doing something about it, at least my part. I can't force common sense on everyone, but I do have a choice for myself.

 

[Trakar]

I stated it clearly with no weasel words, emotion or scare tactics.



If that was what I was saying, I would have typed that out for all to read. I've said repeatedly that even if CO2 doesn't cause dangerous climate change, it's still most likely an extreme danger to the oceans. We are creating an imbalance in the levels, and it could cause the ocean to become more acidic, damaging critical food chains, or worse.

Once again, we don't know what will happen. That's why science is important, rather than some jackass running around screaming "Danger! Danger!" and filling the airwaves with horrific prophecies, rather than doing scientific work to find out what will happen, and to find solutions.

I remember when acid rain was damaging freshwater lakes and killing fish. Even before the laws could stop the high sulfur coal and oil from being uised, alkaline pellets were air dropped into ponds and lakes to stop the damage. Fish were restocked, things were done.

Temperatures are not the only thing that is effected by massive amounts of pollution.

So you completely discount what the evidences of geologic record tells us about past episodes of dramatic atmospheric CO2 fluctuations and the impacts this had upon climate?