Moderated Global Warming Discussion

[Furcifer]

You don't say?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PXvpDoGrRGU

You mean instead of feeling guilty people are just realizing this stuff totally sucks?

I've been saying for almost 15 years this type of alarmism wasn't doing anyone any good. If you read the comments I think people have got it right when they say these days it's easy to go online and see what the science says and compare it to what people are saying. Once they find out they've been lied to it's only natural they become skeptical of everything they hear.

 

[ThunderChunky]

I've been saying for almost 15 years this type of alarmism wasn't doing anyone any good. If you read the comments I think people have got it right when they say these days it's easy to go online and see what the science says and compare it to what people are saying. Once they find out they've been lied to it's only natural they become skeptical of everything they hear.

So according to you alarmism is more of the reason some people dont accept the following IPCC statement rather than anti-global warming propaganda?

Most of the observed increase in globally averaged temperatures since the mid-20th century is very likely (>90%) due to the observed increase in anthropogenic (human) greenhouse gas concentrations.

 

[Mikemcc]

lol, I Googled "climate model study impact 1% increase in CO2 per year " and these were the papers on the very first pages. That's the furthest thing from cherry picking.



Unreal, I specifically don't cherry pick and go with simple search results, only to get incorrectly accused of cherry picking and then not cherry picking enough.

There's plenty more where that came from, it was only the first two pages of a Google search which returned 41 million hits. Shall we continue?

Here's one :http://www.google.ca/url?sa=t&source=web&cd=19&ved=0CE0QFjAIOAo&url=http%3A%2F%2Fciteseerx.ist.psu.edu%2Fviewdoc%2Fdownload%3Fdoi%3D10.1.1.143.4164%26rep%3Drep1%26type%3Dpdf&rct=j&q=climate%20model%20study%20impact%201%25%20increase%20in%20CO2%20per%20year&ei=WjnQTYigNomltwfmrsT5DQ&usg=AFQjCNGAsgkS40xBmOUm1laTaAkKl4djnQ&sig2=-vTt2upwoUQwCuhb1SVA4A&cad=rja and another :http://journals.ametsoc.org/doi/pdf/10.1175/JCLI3592.1 and another : http://www.google.ca/url?sa=t&source=web&cd=17&ved=0CEQQFjAGOAo&url=http%3A%2F%2Fensembles-eu.metoffice.com%2Fmeetings%2FCoP13_Bali07%2Fflyer.pdf&rct=j&q=climate%20model%20study%20impact%201%25%20increase%20in%20CO2%20per%20year&ei=0znQTbvEBdS2tgfSxezuDQ&usg=AFQjCNGPfu1_r3ke3CVLlGJaU758AV746A&sig2=gOxL0BCJoXFlTJnyHEewIw&cad=rja and another : http://www.adb.org/Documents/Periodicals/ADR/pdf/ADR-Vol26-1-Zhai.pdf and another :http://www.google.ca/url?sa=t&source=web&cd=25&ved=0CDQQFjAEOBQ&url=http%3A%2F%2Feetd.lbl.gov%2Fea%2Fems%2Freports%2Flbnl-1249e.pdf&rct=j&q=climate%20model%20study%20impact%201%25%20increase%20in%20CO2%20per%20year&ei=GDrQTeunDY2ctwfDy_DkDQ&usg=AFQjCNE8sjtRkFHeZWeGVGfX1KPRz1RYlQ&sig2=cpBAgdUfSO5cZpl1jCMm1w&cad=rja here's a NASA study on quadrupling where they use a 1% increase: http://www.google.ca/url?sa=t&source=web&cd=25&ved=0CDQQFjAEOBQ&url=http%3A%2F%2Feetd.lbl.gov%2Fea%2Fems%2Freports%2Flbnl-1249e.pdf&rct=j&q=climate%20model%20study%20impact%201%25%20increase%20in%20CO2%20per%20year&ei=GDrQTeunDY2ctwfDy_DkDQ&usg=AFQjCNE8sjtRkFHeZWeGVGfX1KPRz1RYlQ&sig2=cpBAgdUfSO5cZpl1jCMm1w&cad=rja

Here's another and I quote "Transient experiments are intended to mimic the more realistic situation of continuously changing emissions. In a typical set-up, CO2 concentrations are increased by 1% per year. http://eetd.lbl.gov/ea/ems/reports/lbnl-1249e.pdf

Are we done playing your silly game or are you going to stop denying and admit it's a TYPICAL SET-UP? There's plenty more we're only on page 3.

You missed a bit from the same paragraph in the paper

Moreover, there is no particular reason to believe that emissions will continue to grow at the same rate indefinitely. Thus, while transient experiments provide a better estimate of the time-dependent response of the climate system, they should not be used as forecasts.

 

[a_unique_person]

Back on topic: Are Skeptics Changing Their Minds?

Yes.

Alarmists are creating skeptics and here is a recent study showing how it's bad for business

Why dire climate warnings boost skepticism.

Reminds me of when the health warnings about smoking started getting more alarming. The first reaction is denial, masquerading as skepticism, because people find it very difficult to face up to their addictions. The cigarette companies came up with very sophisticated strategies to fight the facts all the way, and help them to avoid the truth.

Saying that "Dire Warnings" are bad is getting close to insanity. Are you really supposed to tell people the truth, or lies so that their sensitivities won't be offended.

 

[Furcifer]

So according to you alarmism is more of the reason some people dont accept the following IPCC statement rather than anti-global warming propaganda?

No. I don't know how you're expecting to reduce the opinion of a large group of people down to a single question/statement.

 

[Furcifer]

Saying that "Dire Warnings" are bad is getting close to insanity. Are you really supposed to tell people the truth, or lies so that their sensitivities won't be offended.

People aren't going to become cannibals because of Global Warming. It's these type of typical grandiose statements coming from alarmists that drive people to skepticism or into down right denial.

Nobody here has made that claim, but every time there's an unusual weather event the vultures come out. They platform and use any chance they can get to scare people. It isn't effective, it just pushes people further from the truth and confuses the issue. It snowed yesterday in Michigan, and it's been the coldest May I've ever seen, April was cold and wet too. So much for global warming. See, not helpful.

What I'm finding around here is typical alarmist cherry picking. They pick studies that investigate worst case scenarios and then report them without explaining them properly. Or even discussing them. It's just "Look how bad it it's going to be, look see what they say, drought, famine, pestilence, oh noes the iceberg melted!"

Someone interested in the science and what's really going on only has to do a few searches to find scientists presenting moderate predictions and saying we need to study it further if we want a clear picture of what to expect.

 

[mhaze]

no, he knows AGW is true. he claims to be not a denier.
he knows the globe is warming, and he knows it is anthropic,
unless he lied when he claimed he is not a AGW denier.
...

Actually, you miss a rather important point here. AGW faith driven wackos don't really care if you think the globe is warming or if it is anthropic. They care about whether you submit to their belief system, and any dissonance causes the denier label to be slapped on, and the us-versus-them structure to start.

That's part of the standard method of propaganda. As an example, suppose someone said they believed in AGW, but thought CFL bulbs, windmills and solar systems were total bunko.

That dude will be treated like a denier.

It's all about control.

 

[Furcifer]

Actually, you miss a rather important point here. AGW faith driven wackos don't really care if you think the globe is warming or if it is anthropic. They care about whether you submit to their belief system, and any dissonance causes the denier label to be slapped on, and the us-versus-them structure to start.

That's part of the standard method of propaganda. As an example, suppose someone said they believed in AGW, but thought CFL bulbs, windmills and solar systems were total bunko.

That dude will be treated like a denier.

It's all about control.

Again very true. They also seem blind to this, they claim ignorance as to why threads are moderated here but they know it's because they're so overbearing they can't be trusted.

I don't know how many times I've said

"I know, it's warmed about +1.5C over the last 150 years, but they don't know how much of that is due to anthropogenic causes"​

"Denier! There's consensus on Global Warming, 95% of scientists say so"

Yah 95% of scientists agree that it's warmed up a bit over the last 150 years, but they don't agree it's been +1.5C or as to what portion is from fossil fuels and what might be natural variation.

They don't realize they basically are calling 95% of scientists deniers. They seem to imagine because they agree that it's warmed up a bit they agree with the results of every paper published. That's why I said pick a website like this :http://www.egu.eu/publications/list-of-publications.html
find a few papers and read them. You're going to get a much better picture of where the science is at and what the scientists are saying if you read their words instead of going to these agenda driven websites and immersing yourself in their bias. You know, skeptical.

 

[Corsair 115]

It's all about control.

Pardon me, but that line sounds awfully conspiratorial. Control—by who? To what purpose? Organized how? Funded in what manner?

 

[Furcifer]

I agree that is not cherry picking. But there are signs of incompetence in your research

1. Do not use Goggle to research scientific subjects because you will get millions of web pages included. Use Goggle Scholar if you have no access to anything else.
   Then you have about 134,000 papers to look at rather than millions of results.
2. Do not just throw the first X results into the thread. That is spamming.
   You need to read and understand each paper's abstract at least. If the abstract does not ccontain your search term then read the paper. If you do not have access to the paper then posting the citation is close to spamming.
3. Strongly consider restricting your results to the last decade or so.
   Otherwise you will (as you have) pick up older papers using outdated models that have been shown to be wrong (or limited in their application).

I don't disagree with you here. This was just to show that it wasn't "plucked out of the air". It's in many papers and referenced in many articles. It's a response to a ridiculous statement.

 

[Furcifer]

The reason that no one has answered your "doubling of atmospheric CO2" question is two-fold:

1. It depends on the future emission of CO2.

1. 
   
   *sigh
   
   I gave it to you in the question, 0.5% increase every year.
   
   

   [*]The estimates for the various scenarios are easy to look up, e.g. see Carbon Dioxide: Projected emissions and concentrations.

Thanks.

 

[Furcifer]

No - it is not linear but the average annual increase over the 10 years is about 0.5% (0.537%).

No, the percentage increase is linear, the ppm increase isn't.

You can fit a straight line to this data but you can generally fit a straight line to any set of data if you throw away most of it.

True, but I'm talking about the percentage increase every year. It's linear. That's all there is too it.

The fact is that the 30 years of data from Mauna Loa are not linear. They start with a certain rate of increase and end up with a larger rate of increase.

The percentage increase is linear.

This is something a high school student with a ruler can see: there is no way to put a straight line through the 30 years of Mauna Loa that falls inside of the annual changes in the data. The annual changes are much, much larger than the measurement error.

Do I really need to make the graph or do you understand that the increase has been linear? Just a yes or no answer will suffice.

The fact that I have been talking percentage and you don't have a graph with percentage on it would indeed make a school child raise there hand and say "But this isn't a percentage increase, it's a ppm increase"

 

[Furcifer]

So what. Forgive me for pointing this out yet again, but I I am not an alramist and find your assumption that I am insulting.

The similarities suggest you favour alarmist views rather than skeptical.

The "what" is that no one with any knowledge of the situation expects the reductions to be instantly reflected in the measurements. What they expect initially is a decrease in the rate of increase of the rate of increase.
I would expect a time lag in results given that there are reservoirs of CO2( e.g oceans and forests) but would have to do some research to confirm this (unless a more knowledgeable person here knows). So the last years Mauna Loa data probably does not not reflect the CO2 emitted in the last year but the CO2 emitted in the last several years.

Er, no, the CO2 mixes into the atmosphere immediately. There's no temporary sequestration.

That is an insane analogy - there are many working speedometers. The Mauna Loa observations are just one such 'speedometers'.
And once again: No one expects the emission reduction to work instantly like brakes.

Brakes don't work instantly, if they did you'd be dead.

A better analogy would be a car heading for a brick wall with a properly functioning speedometer. Some people are pressing on the accelerator. Some people are pressing on the brakes. At the moment the the people pressing the accelerator are winning. The CO2 emission controls are allowing the people pressing the brakes to press them harder. Hopefully the brakes will take effect and stop the care before it hits the wall.

It might be a better analogy for the climate but it says nothing about the fact that we can't properly measure if we're slowing down or not. Just imagine the windows are a really dark tint and you can't see.

OK, now it's getting insane.

There is no faith invoved. The fact is that spenting money to reduce CO2 emissions will reduce CO2 emissions and you agree with mne below.

Incorrect, there faith in what's being done is effective. Changing to CFL's now that they're $3 is effective, when they were $25 not so much. The smart money was waiting until they dropped in price. I like to think when we're spending billions, possibly trillions it's being spent smart and not a 26 inch chrome spinners and limo tint for our speeding car.

Your are wrong: Since CO2 is the primary driver of global warming, it is physically obvious that reducing CO2 will reduct global warming.

Yes and no. Yes because physics tells us, no because this is a global problem. It's very simple when you think about it. If reducing CO2 in Canada means shutting down coal fired plants costing each person $2000 and all that coal gets shipped to the US to be burned anyways the net effect is $2000 out of my pocket.

If you send money on reducing CO2 emissions then CO2 emissions will be reduced.

Nope, see above. The same goes with fuel, if we go electric and the price of gas goes down all that means is it will be burnt in China and India. Net effect: more money out of my pocket.

Obvuoulsy the amount of money being spent is not enough to reduce CO2 emissions enough to show up in the current data. The solutions include

• Spending more money.
• Spending the same amount of money more effectively.
• Stop spending money, crossing your fingers and hoping that 97% of climate scientists are wrong .

No, the only solution is the second one.

The current policies on CO2 reductions are not based on the minority opionions of alarmists or deniers or warmers or any other climate cranks.
They are based largely on the scientific evidence but with a dollop of politcial considerations that are outside of the scope of this thread (and section of the forum).

Somewhat true, although I'm beginning to question how much sensationalism is affecting politics and influencing policy.

 

[ThunderChunky]

No. I don't know how you're expecting to reduce the opinion of a large group of people down to a single question/statement.

It's the conclusion of the IPCC and all of the "well meaning" scientists in the field. Yet, it's also what the global warming "skeptics" are skeptical about. You can debate the minutia all you want, but that simple statement is the heart of the "debate."

 

[Trakar]

...If that's the case they better inform the rest of the scientific community. Oh and the planet, because the planet is doing it in a linear fashion, at least for the last 30 years.
(the actual statement isn't clear if they are talking about constants or rates)

I see no evidence of a 30 year linear increase in the data, please support this assertion with compelling reference and evidences.

 

[themusicteacher]

It's all about control.

If climate scientists were in this for the money, wouldn't it simply be easier to buy them off? Sorry but grants and university jobs don't really pay that well. You would think that if there were some global cabal to institute totalitarian rule, someone would have blown the whistle from the inside by now.

 

[Trakar]

...Here's another and I quote "Transient experiments are intended to mimic the more realistic situation of continuously changing emissions. In a typical set-up, CO2 concentrations are increased by 1% per year. http://eetd.lbl.gov/ea/ems/reports/lbnl-1249e.pdf

Are we done playing your silly game or are you going to stop denying and admit it's a TYPICAL SET-UP? There's plenty more we're only on page 3...

I doubt that I could have paid someone to produce a better example of what I am calling "Cherry-picking," to misrepresent and mislead.

Cherry-pick - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cherry_picking_(fallacy)

Compare your statement and qualifications quoted above, with the full contextual explanation the proffered reference actually makes:

...2.2 The Role of Emissions Scenarios
Because climate change is driven by emissions, a model run requires a detailed emissions scenario to be specified for the entire simulation period. The simulation will typically begin in the pre-industrial past, and use estimates of historical emissions and land-use change to "spin-up"
the model to the present-day climate. Future emissions are handled differently depending on whether the modeling goal is to perform an equilibrium experiment or a transient experiment. In equilibrium experiments, a specified change to some atmospheric constituent (e.g., a doubling of
CO2) is imposed and the model is run until the system comes to a new equilibrium. This type of experiment is used to quantify the climate forcing associated with different processes. It has also been used to estimate the widely quoted climate sensitivity, which is defined as the mean global
temperature increase associated with a doubling of CO2 from pre-industrial levels. The IPCC cites a best estimate for climate sensitivity of 3 degrees Celsius (°C) with a likely range of 2 to 4.5 °C. The multi-model distribution is asymmetric, so much higher values are possible, but much lower values are very unlikely [38]. Climate sensitivity is a measure of the global average
response of the climate to a set of forcings, and the computed ranges on sensitivity are not predictions of what the temperature change will be in the future.

Transient experiments are intended to mimic the more realistic situation of continuously changing emissions. In a typical set-up, CO2 concentrations are increased by 1% per year. The transient climate response (TCR), which is defined as the global average temperature change at the time of CO2 doubling, is used to quantify the change to the climate. This number can also be used as a model inter-comparison metric. There is less spread in predictions of TCR than for climate sensitivity, due in part to the fact that it is more constrained by observational data [10].

Edited by Gaspode: 

Edited for rule 4.

Now, I'm not saying that you must quote this entire block of textual explanation to avoid "cherry-picking" charges, but if quote merely the selected phrase and then misrepresent the author's intent and qualifications of the phrase (which are easily discerned from the enclosing paragraphs) the "cherry-picking" is the kindest of terms for that blatantly deceptive and misleading behavior.

 

[mhaze]

Pardon me, but that line sounds awfully conspiratorial. Control—by who? To what purpose? Organized how? Funded in what manner?

Well, let me explain. Yes, there certainly are conspiracies. But that isn't what I was referring to. Instead, in this context, I refer to a personality attribute, which is often seen in rabid, whackjob AGW folks, and in those who religiously follow them.

So here in this context, it is an individual attribute. And this is undeniable. People who promote AGW "solutions" promote almost alway, control of other people, because they "know better". I infer from that that some subset of humanity, who instinctively like to control others, gravitates toward the AGW faith.

The fact that AGW is all about control is quite straightforward. In a practical sense, control and power are ends in and of themselves.

If climate scientists were in this for the money, wouldn't it simply be easier to buy them off? Sorry but grants and university jobs don't really pay that well. You would think that if there were some global cabal to institute totalitarian rule, someone would have blown the whistle from the inside by now.

Nice reframing of the assertion, you've morphed "control" into "money". But see my above explanation, I may well not have done a good job of explaining myself.

 

[Trakar]

You missed a bit from the same paragraph in the paper

In general, when quoting something as support, it pays to not only read and understand the entire paragraph from which one is quoting, but the entire paper. I think most who have any long term association with science realize that it isn't well-served in sound-byte fashion.

 

[DC]

Actually, you miss a rather important point here. AGW faith driven wackos don't really care if you think the globe is warming or if it is anthropic. They care about whether you submit to their belief system, and any dissonance causes the denier label to be slapped on, and the us-versus-them structure to start.

That's part of the standard method of propaganda. As an example, suppose someone said they believed in AGW, but thought CFL bulbs, windmills and solar systems were total bunko.

That dude will be treated like a denier.

It's all about control.

Do you accept that the global average temperature is in a rising trend?
Do you accept that the rise in global temperature in the 20th century is mainly do to human activities?

two simple yes or no questions.
why don't you answer them?