Global warming discussion III

[Mikemcc]

Sorry, Mikemcc, but for once r-j's pedantic nitpicking without citing any of the sources that he insists with other posters sources so that he can ignore most of the post is right
In 2013, global CO2 emissions due to fossil fuel use (and cement production) were 36 gigatonnes (GtCO2); this is 61% higher than 1990 (the Kyoto Protocol reference year) and 2.3% higher than 2012

What you have stated looks like the nearly 10 billion tonnes of C per annum (see that same web page).

Thank you, my bad. You are correct. (see r-j, it's not that difficult...)

 

[DC]

Global warming theory just isn't that complicated, nor is it hard to explain. An enhanced greenhouse effect causes the lower atmosphere to warm, due to an energy imbalance (less IR radiation being lost than solar energy being absorbed) until the emitted IR radiation once again equals the amount of absorbed sunlight. The theory is the Earth must increase its temperature until global energy balance is once again restored. This is the most basic global warming theory, as NOAA, NASA and many other scientific bodies explain. There may be people who would argue against that, but they aren't posting here.

Calculations based on experiments and theory predict the amount of warming directly caused by the extra CO2 is, by itself, relatively weak. It has been calculated theoretically that, if there are no other changes in the climate system, a doubling of the atmospheric CO2 concentration would cause about 1 deg. F increase, in the global average We may be about 50% of the way toward a doubling of atmospheric CO2, due to fossil fuel burning, burning forests and turning them into parking lots, cities, pastures, cropland or highways and deserts.

The unknown, and very contentious predictions of what that small increase will cause, that is where the major conflicts seem to be.

The theory also predicts (and the models use theory to try and predict these changes) a certain kind of change, different than if the sun was causing warming, or if water vapor was increasing, or if ocean circulation was causing warming.

All of this is basic theory, and when measurements showed this kind of warming, what is predicted by theory, it was considered validation of the theory.

As Cohen et al 2014 states plainly, the theory does not predict winter cooling. There isn't currently any theoretical model that creates a scenario where boreal cold season cools, while the boreal warm season warms.

Why it's happening is of great interest to climate science.

Is it a natural cycle? Or is it due to greenhouse forcing, and an unexpected negative feedback? Is it due to early snow, due to the warming boreal summers?

Is it a change to the jet stream flow?

Why is the Pacific cooling? Will this pattern continue? These are scientific issues.

Ignoring, or worse, rejecting the consensus about global warming theory is the last thing I expected here.

But there is little doubt now, explained or not, that the drastic and long term cooling trend for the boreal cold season is happening, and that it does not fit with current global warming theory.

This does not, as some assume, mean that increased greenhouse forcing will not happen. It does mean that mother nature, as always, laughs at mankinds hubris.

so easy and then you explain it wrongly lol. you just left out the oceans..... hilarious.

and the raw warming from CO2 doubling is 1°C not 1°F......



you might impress people on YT and WUWT with that, but here? not so much.

 

[Pixel42]

What is the background on your other posted image. What you have posted is an image from imgur.com. Where has it come from, what data was used to produce it? Just because it has a NOAA watermark in the image doesn't necessarily make it legitimate.

As I explained the last time he posted it, he's using this utility:

http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/cag/time-series/global

Try putting in the same data parameters, then play with the trend parameters to see how carefully he chose the start year to get the one that best suited his purpose.

He insists that this trend was not predicted, but of course the fact of the matter is that no reputable climatologist claims to be able to accurately predict even global trends for periods as short as 20 years, let alone carefully cherry-picked 20 year seasonal trends for the land parts of the northern hemisphere.

 

[DC]

...or if water vapor was increasing,...

 

[Pixel42]

If you asked a climatologist to predict how the temperature would vary in the Northern Hemisphere between January 1st and June 30th next year, they would undoubtedly produce a smooth graph showing the warming trend from winter to summer. I can just imagine the conversation a couple of months later:

r-j: look at the actual temperature graph for the UK in February! If you choose the unusually warm day of 5th February as the starting point and calculate the trend for the next 20 days it actually cooled! You didn't predict that, did you Mr Climatologist!

Climatologist: um, no. The model predicts long term trends over the whole hemisphere, not short term regional trends.

r-J: this means the basic physics that tells us that the northern hemisphere warms from winter to summer must be wrong! Clearly the earth is not really tilted on its axis!

 

[Belz...]

[qimg]http://i.imgur.com/sKDArIo.png[/qimg]

They are not "my" graphs. It's just information.

But why do you start your line at 1995 and not 1990 like the graph starts, why only three months, etc. ? That's one of the reason why I say you are cherry picking the data. There's no reason to shorten your sample, except to get the result you want: cooling.

Now, please answer my questions:

Explain why all those experts are wrong and you're right.

Let's think about this for a moment: you want to convince the general public that you are right. They ask you, justifiably so, why they should believe you over the experts. Don't expect all of them to read up the data. What do you tell them ?

 

[Belz...]

And, really, there are only two possibilities for such wrongness: (1) they are all honestly mistaken, or (2) they are all deliberately being wrong.

If it's #1, then how is such honest wrongness so widespread amongst so many climate scientists around the world? How do so many peer-reviewed scientific studies continue this wrongness? Why has this wrongness gained traction in the scientific community over the last thirty years rather than lose traction?

If it's #2, then to what purpose is this worldwide wrongness being perpetrated? When did this organized deliberate wrongness begin? How did it gain ever more converts over the last thirty years such that they too would contribute to the deliberate wrongness? How is this global wrongness coordinated and administered such that the participants know what wrongness to get published?

Neither #1 nor #2 seem particularly plausible to me, but perhaps r-j can select which option he thinks is the case and offer such plausible explanation.

And, really, this is one of those cases where the question is supposed to illustrate that the opinion one holds is untenable. But r-j won't touch it with a ten foot cattle prod, because he knows what it would entail.

 

[Pixel42]

r-J: this means the basic physics that tells us that the northern hemisphere warms from winter to summer must be wrong!

Sorry, this should obviously have read "Theory of Seasonal Warming" rather than "basic physics".

 

[greybeard]

Is climate change denial fast becoming something that companies don't want to be associated with? Last month ten leading pr companies said they would not consider a campaign based on convincing people that there was no threat from AGW.

“We would not knowingly partner with a client who denies the existence of climate change,” said Rhian Rotz, spokesman for WE.

Weber Shandwick would also not take any campaign to block regulations cutting carbon emissions or promoting renewable energy. “We would not support a campaign that denies the existence and the threat posed by climate change, or efforts to obstruct regulations cutting greenhouse gas emissions and/or renewable energy standards,” spokeswoman Michelle Selesky said.

Then Google announces it will sever ties with the American Legislative Exchange Council, accusing it of telling lies about climate change.

I was also interested to see that the president of Heartland impressed a judge enough that he was moved to say of him

Mr. Joseph Bast, president and CEO of the Heartland Institute, testified for the Intervenors regarding the Texas Taxpayers’ Savings Grant Programs (“TTSGP”), a school voucher bill that failed in the 82nd Legislative Session. As a threshold matter, this Court finds that Mr. Bast is not a credible witness and that he did not offer reliable opinions in this matter. While Mr. Bast described himself as an economist, he holds neither undergraduate nor graduate degrees in economics, and the highest level of education he completed was high school. Mr. Bast testified that he is 100% committed to the long-term goal of getting government out of the business of educating its own voting citizens. Further, his use of inflammatory and irresponsible language regarding global warming, and his admission that the long term goal of his advocacy of vouchers is to dismantle the “socialist” public education system further undermine his credibility with this Court.

If it wasn't that they have an army of useful idiots willing to help them the denial industry would be struggling even more.

 

[DC]

Is climate change denial fast becoming something that companies don't want to be associated with? Last month ten leading pr companies said they would not consider a campaign based on convincing people that there was no threat from AGW.


Then Google announces it will sever ties with the American Legislative Exchange Council, accusing it of telling lies about climate change.

I was also interested to see that the president of Heartland impressed a judge enough that he was moved to say of him



If it wasn't that they have an army of useful idiots willing to help them the denial industry would be struggling even more.

the worst a company can do is deny reality and not be prepared for the coming changes. I think most companies realize that. just look how the fossil fuel energy companies almost all have a mix with renewable now, they know they have to switch away from fossil fuels in the long run if they want to stay a company with a product.

 

[r-j]

And for those who want to claim I have to prove everything, and the experts don't have to support any of their claims, that's nonsense. They made bogus claims, which is obvious. Now they have to show evidence for it all.

Or they might actually be committing fraud at this point. We will see.

 

[Belz...]

And for those who want to claim I have to prove everything, and the experts don't have to support any of their claims, that's nonsense. They made bogus claims, which is obvious.

Again, if it's so obvious, why are laymen spotting it but not experts ?

 

[macdoc]

Big business steals the show at New York climate talks

17:33 24 September 2014 by Fred Pearce

Maybe it was because the UN's big climate summit was being held within a couple of kilometres of Wall Street. Tuesday's summit of world leaders, hosted by UN secretary-general Ban Ki-moon, was upstaged by corporate leaders pledging to cut carbon emissions from their operations and investment portfolios.

Finance houses led the way. A group of investment institutions, including pension funds and corporate asset managers, promised to "decarbonise" their investment portfolios by $100 billion by the end of next year. This means pulling out of funding coal mines, oil wells and oil-palm plantations in rainforests, for instance.

"Climate change is more and more recognised as a financial risk," said Mats Andersson, CEO of AP4, a Swedish pension fund. Both AP4 and the Dutch Bank ASN promised to make their entire investment portfolios carbon-neutral by 2030.

A price on carbon

Meanwhile, an even larger group of 340 financial institutions – who claimed to be managing $24 trillion in assets – joined other corporations and many governments in calling for a global system of carbon pricing to reflect the environmental cost of carbon emissions. Such a system would push their investments out of fossil fuels and towards low-carbon energy, they said. But it would have to do better than the European Union carbon trading system, which is plagued by low carbon prices that provide little incentive.

Competing for attention with the finance houses were big companies that plant or trade in agricultural commodities grown on cleared rainforests. In recent months a slew of them – including Unilever, the world's biggest supplier of supermarket products, and major palm-oil suppliers Wilmar and Cargill – have committed to ban crops grown on newly deforested land from their supply chains.

http://www.newscientist.com/article/dn2 ... COa6Et1Zic

This is where the discussion of "what to do about it " gets serious.

 

[Belz...]

Well, if global warming threatens big money, there's hope.

 

[DC]

And for those who want to claim I have to prove everything, and the experts don't have to support any of their claims, that's nonsense. They made bogus claims, which is obvious. Now they have to show evidence for it all.

Or they might actually be committing fraud at this point. We will see.

and the usualy modi operandi. you just ignore every single post that exposed your ignorance and showed you wrong.

the only people you are fooling here are those that are already fooled. all the others here know you already long enough.

 

[greybeard]

nm

 

[greybeard]

and the usualy modi operandi. you just ignore every single post that exposed your ignorance and showed you wrong.

the only people you are fooling here are those that are already fooled. all the others here know you already long enough.

I'm still trying to figure out why the post asking him to back up his claims was moved to AAH. Are we not allowed to ask him to justify slandering named individuals?

 

[greybeard]

And for those who want to claim I have to prove everything, and the experts don't have to support any of their claims, that's nonsense. They made bogus claims, which is obvious. Now they have to show evidence for it all.

Or they might actually be committing fraud at this point. We will see.

You have already made the claim that this is fraudulent r-j. What did they say when you asked them about this? Any reasonable person would have asked them first before building a conspiracy theory around this. You could have just left a comment after the article. That is what the comment section after an article is for. Please tell us what they said? We need to hear both sides. Please tell us this before you post any more allegations.

 

[greybeard]

And for those who want to claim I have to prove everything, and the experts don't have to support any of their claims, that's nonsense. They made bogus claims, which is obvious. Now they have to show evidence for it all.
Or they might actually be committing fraud at this point. We will see.

So what did they say when you put the allegations to them?

 

[CapelDodger]

Is climate change denial fast becoming something that companies don't want to be associated with?

I've been noticing this for some years; the process seemed to accelerate after the Heartland billboard fiasco. Associating themselves with AGW deniers is no way for a business to appear serious and responsible.

The target now is renewables. It always was, but the tactic was to associate renewables with AGW and then deny AGW. Now the tactic is to attack renewables on economic grounds without mentioning climate change at all.

At Heartland, just after the billboard fiasco and the haemorrhage of supporters which followed, they established a new section specifically concerned with opposing renewables. The career conscious Heartland apparatchiks moved there leaving the swivel-eyed true believers to organise sad affairs such as the Las Vegas circle-jerk.

The objective remains the same : to delay, if not prevent, the inevitable transition to renewables. That's what conservatives do, after all : they conserve the status quo.