Global warming discussion III

[Cleon]

There are also a few libertarians around these parts. Also "libertarians."

 

[DavidJames]

You need another option - I'm not left leaning and although I agree human activity contributes significantly to climate change, I haven't seen any government policies that I feel would adequately address the problem.

The poll is directed specifically at conservatives. If you aren't, this isn't the thread for you.

 

[Brainster]

Some global warming appears to be happening. The extent to which it is human-caused is less certain. The precision of predictions about the extent of global warming that we should be seeing by now has been pretty miserable, as pointed out by Bjorn Lomborg today:

“This ignores that much of the data are actually encouraging,” Lomborg writes in the Wall Street Journal. “The latest study from the United Nations Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change found that in the previous 15 years temperatures had risen 0.09 degrees Fahrenheit. The average of all models expected 0.8 degrees. So we’re seeing about 90% less temperature rise than expected.”

And climate alarmists like Al Gore and Ross Gelbspan have actually sabotaged the effort to curb global warming with their ridiculous and mistaken predictions of doom and gloom.

 

[Elf Grinder 3000]

Global warming alarmists are using fear for political ends

http://www.wsj.com/articles/bjorn-lomborg-the-alarming-thing-about-climate-alarmism-1422832462

Models predicted a 0.8 degree increase and it has only been 0.09 over the last 15 years. Is this increase even within the margin of error? Probably not

It is an indisputable fact that carbon emissions are rising—and faster than most scientists predicted. But many climate-change alarmists seem to claim that all climate change is worse than expected. This ignores that much of the data are actually encouraging. The latest study from the United Nations Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change found that in the previous 15 years temperatures had risen 0.09 degrees Fahrenheit. The average of all models expected 0.8 degrees. So we’re seeing about 90% less temperature rise than expected.

Facts like this are important because a one-sided focus on worst-case stories is a poor foundation for sound policies. Yes, Arctic sea ice is melting faster than the models expected. But models also predicted that Antarctic sea ice would decrease, yet it is increasing. Yes, sea levels are rising, but the rise is not accelerating—if anything, two recent papers, one by Chinese scientists published in the January 2014 issue of Global and Planetary Change, and the other by U.S. scientists published in the May 2013 issue of Coastal Engineering, have shown a small decline in the rate of sea-level increase.

We are often being told that we’re seeing more and more droughts, but a study published last March in the journal Nature actually shows a decrease in the world’s surface that has been afflicted by droughts since 1982.

Hurricanes are also down with global warming

 

[uke2se]

Some global warming appears to be happening. The extent to which it is human-caused is less certain. The precision of predictions about the extent of global warming that we should be seeing by now has been pretty miserable, as pointed out by Bjorn Lomborg today:



And climate alarmists like Al Gore and Ross Gelbspan have actually sabotaged the effort to curb global warming with their ridiculous and mistaken predictions of doom and gloom.

Thank you for clarifying your poll option. For the record, Bjorn Lomborg is one of the extremely few climate denier scientists (he's also lying by omission in the linked article), and Al Gore, while not a scientist, is a good communicator of the science. Deniers like to paint him as alarmist when reality actually is alarming.

 

[macdoc]

Models predicted a 0.8 degree increase and it has only been 0.09 over the last 15 years. Is this increase even within the margin of error? Probably not

care to explain this measured reality then??

You DO understand that the atmosphere represents a tiny fraction of the warming.?? of course you do...

Now, do you have some actual climate science to contribute??
Rather than WSJ lies and distortions which you seem to swallow hook line and sinker to the benefit of Koch and Co.
Some people are soooo gullible.

•••

Hurricanes are also down with global warming

Hurricanes and cyclones are more intense with global warming.

Unlike you - I have science studies to back my assertions.

Higher ocean surface temperatures. Scientists have looked at potential correlations between ocean temperatures and tropical cyclone trends worldwide over the past several decades. A 2005 study published in the journal Nature examined the duration and maximum wind speeds of each tropical cyclone that formed over the last 30 years and found that their destructive power has increased around 70 percent in both the Atlantic and Pacific Oceans. (13,14) Another 2005 study, published in the journal Science, revealed that the percentage of hurricanes classified as Category 4 or 5 (based on satellite data) has increased over the same period. (15) The findings from both studies correlate with the rise in sea surface temperatures in regions where tropical cyclones typically originate.

http://www.ucsusa.org/global_warmin...rricanes-and-climate-change.html#.VNAUwEJ8zHA

You might read the rest of that article and actually learn some climate science instead of repeating laughably wrong sound bites from the deniers handbook.

 

[Brainster]

Thank you for clarifying your poll option. For the record, Bjorn Lomborg is one of the extremely few climate denier scientists (he's also lying by omission in the linked article), and Al Gore, while not a scientist, is a good communicator of the science. Deniers like to paint him as alarmist when reality actually is alarming.

So the article about Lomborg was lying when it said:

Lomborg actually agrees with environmentalists that the world has warmed....

Or do you have some unique definition of denier?

And you have no trouble with Al Gore's claim that the Arctic Sea ice might be gone by summer 2014? Or Gelbspan's ridiculous projection (immediately after Katrina) that hurricanes would be more numerous and severe.

 

[uke2se]

So the article about Lomborg was lying when it said:



Or do you have some unique definition of denier?

That's his schtick. Agree and then throw in a "but"to cloud, distort and sow doubt. You can read about it here.

And you have no trouble with Al Gore's claim that the Arctic Sea ice might be gone by summer 2014? Or Gelbspan's ridiculous projection (immediately after Katrina) that hurricanes would be more numerous and severe.

No. Gore gave the lower estimate in a span of years. He was using valid science. Gelbspan is correct.

 

[Emily's Cat]

Meh. I don't consider myself conservative, but many other people do. It depends on the topic. Either way, I'm skipping your poll.

I'll share my opinion though: Global Warming is occurring, and humans are contributing to it. Humans are not the only source of global warming, and I don't think any of the policies discussed in developed nations are really going to affect it any. But maybe someone will come up with a better energy solution and share it with all the developing nations around the globe for free... so you know, maybe at some point in the future it can be addressed.

 

[CapelDodger]

Models predicted a 0.8 degree increase and it has only been 0.09 over the last 15 years.

You can't seriously believe that any model predicted 0.8 C of warming in 15 years. The upper end of model predictions from the late 80's is 0.2C per decade and the consensus rate is 0.16-0.18C. Warming in the last 15 years has been about 0.25C, but who's counting?

Is this increase even within the margin of error? Probably not

Climate models are not designed to make predictions over such short periods. Since there's no prediction there's no error range. The actual observations lie within model projections from the early 90's, which is quite an achievement when you think about it.

Hurricanes are also down with global warming

Global warming (at least you acknowledge its existence) has nothing to with that as far as I know; have you seen research that links them? Of course, there's never been any concensus on how AGW will affect the number of hurricanes.

You may have noticed, if you follow non-US news, that there's been a lot of tropical cyclone activity in recent years. Make of that what you will.

 

[bit_pattern]

Or Gelbspan's ridiculous projection (immediately after Katrina) that hurricanes would be more numerous and severe.

I'd never heard of Gelbspan before today but this claim piqued my interest. Because if anyone has said what I have highlighted from your post then that definitely would be at odds with the scientific literature and could be construed as unreasonably alarmist. It's generally accepted that due to the mechanism of wind-shear then the incidences of hurricanes will actually decline.

So I Googled this person - turns out he is a journalist from the Boston Globe so not quite sure what relevance you think his opinion has, as he's not actually a scientist who studies climate change, but, whatever - to find out what he was actually saying in the wake of Katrina.

Now, it might be that he revised his opinion somewhere between conducting the following interview and that you genuinely have a record of him making the claim you attribute to him - or it could be that you are completely fabricating the claim and conflating it with the absolutely reasonable claim that you've bundled it together with, that hurricanes get more intense as oceans warm.

Here's what he said in an interview in 2005:

ROSS GELBSPAN: It’s very clear that global warming does not make more hurricanes, but it makes hurricanes much stronger. And that’s because hurricanes take their energy from the temperature of surface waters. In the case of Katrina, it started as a category one, I think 70 mile-an-hour winds when it glanced off South Florida, but as it moved through the Gulf where surface temperatures are about 80 degrees, it became enormously more powerful. I think the winds reached about 170 degrees, and that is a big reason for this incredible devastation that we have been seeing. It’s very interesting that also Sir David King, who is Tony Blair’s science adviser, made a direct link between hurricane intensity and global warming, and coincidentally, there was a piece of research done by Dr. Kerry Emmanuel at M.I.T. that came out just a couple of weeks ago that found that tropical storms had become 50% more severe in the last 30 years, again because of rising temperatures.

So there we have it. Global warming does not result in more hurricanes, but basic physics dictates that warmer oceans will result in hurricanes of greater intensity.

Now, aside from the error you made in falsely attributing an argument that Gelbspan had not made, you also seem to find the notion that warmer oceans would result in more intense hurricanes as "ridiculous". Can you explain on what physical basis you are making that claim? It is a pretty straight forward proposition that when ocean temperatures are higher there is more energy going into hurricanes that form. This is really beyond any kind of dispute. I am at a loss to understand why you think that claim is "ridiculous", as you put it.

 

[bit_pattern]

Meh. I don't consider myself conservative, but many other people do. It depends on the topic. Either way, I'm skipping your poll.

I'll share my opinion though: Global Warming is occurring, and humans are contributing to it. Humans are not the only source of global warming, and I don't think any of the policies discussed in developed nations are really going to affect it any. But maybe someone will come up with a better energy solution and share it with all the developing nations around the globe for free... so you know, maybe at some point in the future it can be addressed.

What are the other sources?

 

[Elf Grinder 3000]

What are the other sources?

Cow flatulence

Its why liberals want to tax hamburgers

 

[bit_pattern]

Cow flatulence

Its why liberals want to tax hamburgers

The fact that there are so many cows dedicated to providing us hamburgers should tell you that methane from cattle farming is a consequence of human activity. The cows aren't self organising into industrial farming operations now, are they?

 

[macdoc]

Brainster

And you have no trouble with Al Gore's claim that the Arctic Sea ice might be gone by summer 2014?

That was actually a consideration by the US Military....that bastion of wild speculation.

They KNOW it's a problem....did you not get the memo.

US Navy predicts summer ice free Arctic by 2016 | Nafeez ...
www.theguardian.com › Environment › Climate change
Dec 9, 2013 - Arctic Sunrise among broken floes of Arctic sea ice ... by a US Navy scientist predicts that the Arctic could lose its summer sea .... .. 9 Dec 2013 6:03.

how woefully ill informed you are of the world around you..

 

[macdoc]

Emily

I'll share my opinion though: Global Warming is occurring, and humans are contributing to it. Humans are not the only source of global warming,

Pray tell enlighten us on your statement.

The sun is in "cool mode"....

and is a magnitude below GHG in temperature influence anyway.

We are dimming the planet a bit with SO2 - but that's anthro as well and working in the opposite direction.

Cutting down rain forests are impacting, including other land use changes but again that's all anthro.

Got some explanation for your conjecture.??

 

[CapelDodger]

And climate alarmists like Al Gore and Ross Gelbspan have actually sabotaged the effort to curb global warming with their ridiculous and mistaken predictions of doom and gloom.

What evidence do you see for that? I could just about believe - just - that US Republican politicians reject climate science because Al Gore supports it (US rightwingers seem to have an obsession with the man) if they hadn't rejected it long before his film came out. As for the other guy, I've never heard of him, which would be odd if he was so influential. Large though these people may loom in your own worldview they really don't feature with most people.

I have heard of Senator Inhofe, though, so I'm not completely out of touch. And Al Gore is the guy who couldn't beat a chimp in a run for the White House. Not something I'd want on my CV, I can tell you.

 

[CapelDodger]

I'll share my opinion though: Global Warming is occurring, and humans are contributing to it. Humans are not the only source of global warming ...

macdoc is being a tad disingenuous in his question : there are, in fact, no identified causes of the current warming other than human activity.

and I don't think any of the policies discussed in developed nations are really going to affect it any.

Any policies which reduce the peak CO₂ level will have an impact on the final outcome, and any that reduce the rate at which it climbs will slow the warming.

But maybe someone will come up with a better energy solution and share it with all the developing nations around the globe for free... so you know, maybe at some point in the future it can be addressed.

China and India make up the bulk of developing countries and they have the technology and capacity to develop alternatives themselves. Solar, wind, nuclear, wave and tide power - none of this is rocket science.

Perhaps they'll share it with the rest of the world, but I doubt they'll do it for free. China might donate solar panels to Africa but they'll want some diplomatic and strategic return on the deal. That's the way of the world, I'm afraid.

 

[Mikemcc]

Brainster



That was actually a consideration by the US Military....that bastion of wild speculation.

They KNOW it's a problem....did you not get the memo.



how woefully ill informed you are of the world around you..

Even then the dates quoted were the absolute low end of that prediction

 

[macdoc]

and I don't think any of the policies discussed in developed nations are really going to affect it any.

Emily - Sweden is the number 2 most competitive nation on earth yet leads the planet in reduction of emissions and is well on it's way to being carbon neutral by 2050.

Even the US has dropped emissions 11% over the last while yet has grown in population.

China has declared peak coal ( much to Australia's horror ) as being 2016 !!! and has shown its ability to accelerate technology massively.
They are building 26 nuclear reactors and have the world's largest solar array tho the US leads the world in wind and solar.

These are real, substantive and measureable changes.

Will we avoid dangerous climate change?? Iffy - can we reduce the impact by moving toward carbon neutral...indeed we already have.

Can more be done?? yup but the denier cretins in several nations throw sand in the gearbox but even they are changing their tune and shuffling their feet.