Global warming discussion III

[stanfr]

...
So basically. No matter what the weather, no matter what happens.... it's global warming.

No. If the global temperature goes down, several years in a row, that is NOT global warming. You can quote me on that.

Seriously, that was one of the main reasons global warming was rephrased as "climate change"--it wasn't to spin and hide the facts from the deniers, as they would claim, it was to avoid having to explain every time it snowed that this wasn't proof that AGW was all a conspiracy started by Al Gore.

We don't have a huge amount of certainty that AGW will cause an X degree rise in temps or that it will cause an X increase in hurricanes. But we are pretty clear about are contributions to greenhouse gases and how they in turn affect the heat balance. We know that our impact doesn't just get locked away into insignificant nothingness, which is what many of the deniers claim.

 

[Fudbucker]

From that I only share the notion about how harmful are the United States in their contemporary mood.

And I don't buy the "practical approach" as it's just a boastful disguise. There's a faux logic in that of a drunk that recklessly drives and he can't be stop but just have increased his health and other insurances waiting for the inevitable crash and the flying pedestrians.

If I had been interested in such faux logics and making a mockery of this forum, I would have posted in "http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/forumdisplay.php?f=5&order=desc&page=3#Is ESP More Probable Than Advanced Alien Life?".

I don't care what you "buy" or not. Your personal credulity means nothing to me. I listed several reasons why combating climate change is doomed to fail. You need to address the argument, not the arguer.

 

[Puppycow]

Sorry Warmists, but Sen. Inhofe just Pwned you!

http://www.vox.com/2015/2/26/8116981/james-inhofe-global-warming

"We keep hearing that 2014 has been the warmest year on record," Inhofe said. "So I ask the chair," — referring to Sen. Bill Cassidy (R-LA) — "Do you know what this is? It's a snowball, from just outside here. So it's very, very cold out... very unseasonable." He then lobbed said snowball to a page and lapsed into deep silence, a smile across his face.

YOU CANNOT ARGUE WITH THAT LOGIC!!!

 

[Warmer1]

This story was what actually prompted me to post on this thread. They were doing a story on CBC news. In Ottawa where they are skating now 47 consecutive days on the Rideau canal. The longest stretch in its 45 year history.

Again. This drastic increase of ice time is of course caused by global warming

But this is what I read last year on the canal and it's future.

So basically. No matter what the weather, no matter what happens.... it's global warming.

This page is very user friendly and you might enjoy the graphics.

A melting Arctic and weird weather: the plot thickens.

https://theconversation.com/a-melting-arctic-and-weird-weather-the-plot-thickens-37314

NASA That's where the rocket scientists work - Oh yeah!

 

[uke2se]

Sorry Warmists, but Sen. Inhofe just Pwned you!

http://www.vox.com/2015/2/26/8116981/james-inhofe-global-warming



YOU CANNOT ARGUE WITH THAT LOGIC!!!

I wonder if Inhofe realizes how stupid that stunt looks. Or is he betting on nobody in congress realizing?

 

[Fudbucker]

Sorry Warmists, but Sen. Inhofe just Pwned you!

http://www.vox.com/2015/2/26/8116981/james-inhofe-global-warming



YOU CANNOT ARGUE WITH THAT LOGIC!!!

I know, wasn't that depressing?

 

[Cl1mh4224rd]

I wonder if Inhofe realizes how stupid that stunt looks. Or is he betting on nobody in congress realizing?

Realizing what; that it's actually winter right now? God I hope they're at least that intelligent.

 

[BrianH]

At least it smells better than the stuff they are usually flinging around in there.

 

[aleCcowaN]

I don't care what you "buy" or not. Your personal credulity means nothing to me. I listed several reasons why combating climate change is doomed to fail. You need to address the argument, not the arguer.

Oh, I have a lot to say about that but I'm sorry, I can't address an off-topic.

Your interests have been discussed in specific threads. Either you don't know, or you failed to found them, or there are not active threads and you didn't find solitude appealing, but that doesn't mean you can use this thread for your purpose because it's "current" and it has "public".

Look how confusing it can be. This thread is the default thread about GW happening or not and it being A or not. I did read a lot of posts of you taking post from others and proposing things in the line of letting fossil fuels alone and moving towards remediation and I thought it to be just a strategy meaning "AGW exists as long as you leave fossil fuels -and their consumers- alone".

I'm still think it is a strategy, but you may discuss that in a proper thread. If you don't know which one, start a new thread. Eventually it'd become merged with the proper one.

 

[Mikemcc]

China's coal use dropping

It appears China has already begun to cut back in it's use of coal, down 2.9% on the previous year and the first such cut.

http://www.carbonbrief.org/blog/2015/02/official-data-confirms-chinese-coal-use-fell-in-2014/

http://thinkprogress.org/climate/2015/02/26/3627490/china-coal-peak/

 

[tsig]

Again. I am not all on expert in global warming. I do however have a bit of a BS detector. That does mean I think climate change is not real... I just think some of it's proponents can be just as full of crap as the deniers.

Needs calibration.

 

[lomiller]

No. If the global temperature goes down, several years in a row, that is NOT global warming. You can quote me on that.

Change "years" to "decades". Global temperatures can easily go down several years in a row even in the presence of strong warming trend.

Seriously, that was one of the main reasons global warming was rephrased as "climate change"--it wasn't to spin and hide the facts from the deniers, as they would claim, it was to avoid having to explain every time it snowed that this wasn't proof that AGW was all a conspiracy started by Al Gore.

Both terms have been used for a long time. “Climate Change” started to become more common when Republican strategist Frank Luntz found in focus groups that “Climate Change” sounded less threatening than “Global Warming” and would therefore it be easier to convince people it’s not a problem if they started calling it Climate Chance rather than Global Warming.

 

[aleCcowaN]

No. If the global temperature goes down, several years in a row, that is NOT global warming. You can quote me on that.

Seriously, that was one of the main reasons global warming was rephrased as "climate change"--it wasn't to spin and hide the facts from the deniers, as they would claim, it was to avoid having to explain every time it snowed that this wasn't proof that AGW was all a conspiracy started by Al Gore.

We don't have a huge amount of certainty that AGW will cause an X degree rise in temps or that it will cause an X increase in hurricanes. But we are pretty clear about are contributions to greenhouse gases and how they in turn affect the heat balance. We know that our impact doesn't just get locked away into insignificant nothingness, which is what many of the deniers claim.

I concur, but the real thing is there are no "temperatures going down several years in a row" for a value of several greater than few. There's a myth promoted by denialists who took advantange of a 35-day long warm period at a global scale which took place covering a whole calendar month (such +25-long periods are very common, but they rarely cover one whole calendar month) and that happening during the peak of the second most powerful Niño event in more than a century, what was the strawberry on top of the melting sundae, and with such anomalous peak they fabricated figures similar to those generated in statistical analysis to induce in the dullest sectors of the masses the inference of a "pause" and the hope of a retreat [We have also in here the opportunistic chaps trying to sell the Brooklyn Bridge, a new Ice Age and other niceties].

I think it to have been some kind of revenge for warmers taking advantage of statistical variations during the 1985-1998 period to depict a catastrophic warming process. Year by year, the warmest was 2014, followed by 2010 and 2013, then 1998 and 2007, then 2005.

It's interesting to see the global temperatures with El Niño signals removed. Many methodologies proposed to do that. For instance, Thompson's (here's the more accessible figure at skepticalscience.com)

Does somebody here have a more current version of that analysis?

 

[Red Baron Farms]

I don't understand why you want that figure? IIRC the turnover of the oceans is ~1000years +/-. So I can't understand how there is any possible way of seeing the full effect of warming oceans on our climate in time scales so short as the El Niño signals we see now?

 

[aleCcowaN]

I don't understand why you want that figure?

I guess you don't. Certainly

"El Niño signals non sequitur ocean turnover"

is something you won't have me discussing here or anywhere.

 

[CapelDodger]

This should not be missed :

Willie Soon Attacks Funders of Climate Denial for 'Lack of Courage'
http://www.desmog.uk/2015/02/26/wil...s-attacks-funders-climate-denial-lack-courage

I first met Soon in Chicago in May 2012, at the Seventh International Climate Change Conference of the Heartland Institute. We spoke immediately after he gave his presentation claiming carbon dioxide was not driving recent climate change.

At the time, he was in the middle of a huge fight with his employers because they wanted to release emails and funding information to Greenpeace US. He lost the fight — hence the controversy breaking over the last week.

So I genuinely could not believe what he told me.

On the monster Steve McIntyre created:

“I am still in a big fight because of Greenpeace. The position is, my superior, is that they’re trying to force me to do that [release information]. I said ‘no’. I am concerned about where society is going through the direction of the FOIA. This is a fight which is bigger than me alone … During Climategate [Richard Lindzen] asked me, ‘should I release all my mail?’. I said, Dick, sure we do not mind that but the problem is people are going to take that and take it out of context, so it is not a good thing to do. He was just joking. I have got nothing to hide. Read every email you want. I really, literally, mean that. The problem is, why does Greenpeace have the right to see my email? That is all I wanted to know. "

On the Heartland circus :

“I would say I’ve been going as a Postdoc at this place [HSC] for 21 years. I would say the first 15 years I would never have come to a conference like this, not even if invited. But my conscience — it has become too much, I couldn’t take it any more … As a scientist I am not trying to be rebellious against anything … In my point of view I can say that 50 percent is wrong here — too extreme. People are trying to argue that you cannot make a CO2 measurement … this is crazy.”

There's more. Enjoy.

 

[Red Baron Farms]

I guess you don't. Certainly

"El Niño signals non sequitur ocean turnover"

is something you won't have me discussing here or anywhere.

That's kind of my point. Asking for El Niño signals seems like a non sequitur. I don't get the connection to AGW.

 

[Mikemcc]

Foster and Rahmstorf would be the experts at that sort of analysis. They published in 2009, 2011 and in 2012. Tamino has explained their work in great depth. His last posting ("It's the trend, stupid) is also very good at showing there hasn't really been any 'pause'. It's just that 1998 was a huge abberation.

 

[aleCcowaN]

Yes, thanks. I am looking for more up to date versions of

http://www.skepticalscience.com/pics/FR11_All.gif
[taken from here]

and the criticism about it -certainly not from wassupwiththat, I. Jones, Curry and other spices-, for this year's workshops.

And I'm looking forward to May-October, when we'll probably have a lot to talk -and not about Arctic sea ice, which will probably be around 5 million square kilometres-.

 

[Fudbucker]

Oh, I have a lot to say about that but I'm sorry, I can't address an off-topic.

Your interests have been discussed in specific threads. Either you don't know, or you failed to found them, or there are not active threads and you didn't find solitude appealing, but that doesn't mean you can use this thread for your purpose because it's "current" and it has "public".

What?

Look how confusing it can be. This thread is the default thread about GW happening or not and it being A or not. I did read a lot of posts of you taking post from others and proposing things in the line of letting fossil fuels alone and moving towards remediation and I thought it to be just a strategy meaning "AGW exists as long as you leave fossil fuels -and their consumers- alone".

What is "taking post from others"? Are you accusing me of plagiarizing?

My point is not what we should "let fossil fuels" alone. I believe we should transition away from them, for obvious reasons. My point is that what we do won't matter when it comes to climate change. Industrializing countries are going to continue to pursue cheap energy policies, as they have been since the early 2000's, and we've shown that we're more than happy to supply them the fossil fuels to do so, even when an "environmentally friendly" party is in power.

I'm still think it is a strategy, but you may discuss that in a proper thread. If you don't know which one, start a new thread. Eventually it'd become merged with the proper one.

If you want to become the thread police, start by brushing up on your English. There are many parts of your post where I have no idea what you're talking about.