Moderated Global Warming Discussion

[Furcifer]

Some seem to think that climate considerations are divided into distinct 30 year intervals, this is simply naively incorrect, or disingenuously distorted.

When someone says "In the last 30 years" it would in fact be a very distinct interval. It would be from present day, less 30 years.

This is such a bizarre case of hand waving. The inclusion of any years prior to 1980 is utterly pointless other than to make a weak case to object to the 1% increase. If you include those years it's actually less than 1%.

Which of course you would object to saying "Oh well you're just trying to make it seem like less than it actually is".

In any event it's the rate of change in the last 30 years that's important.

 

[Furcifer]

The Keeling curve is for CO2 concentration - not global GHG emissions - the metric that you shifted the goalpost to. You can't have it both ways, you've been whinging enough about posters discussing the Mauna Loa CO2 concentration!

So, to repeat:

• Where do you get these figures from (in terms of your desired metric of global GHG emissions)?
• How have this mythical source merged the differing GWPs for each gas? Have they converted them to tons of CO2 equivalent?

lol, Keeling believe it or not actually authored more than just the curve. Apparently you're completely unaware of what his area of study is outside this one picture.

 

[Mikemcc]

lol, Keeling believe it or not actually authored more than just the curve. Apparently you're completely unaware of what his area of study is outside this one picture.

No, YOU specifically meantioned the Keeling Curve in post 2612:

lol, it's actually from Keeling, you know, the Keeling Curve you brought up.

I enjoy exposing how dependent the alarmists are on their propaganda sites for their information. They don't actually read the info themselves, they allow someone else to cherry pick the relevant data and simply copy and paste it here.

Keeling actually wrote some papers and collected some data in order to make that curve. Instead of fixing on the picture you may want to look at those papers for your answers.

Apparently you're completely unaware of what you are talking about...

So, to repeat:

• Where have you got the data to substanciate a 1% yr^-1 increasing to 2% yr^-1 increase in GHG emission rate.
• How have they incorporated the GWP into those figures to account for the properties of the different gasses.

 

[Trakar]

Originally Posted by TShaitanaku
Some seem to think that climate considerations are divided into distinct 30 year intervals, this is simply naively incorrect, or disingenuously distorted. The rule of thumb in climate considerations is that 30 years is the least significant length of time in which to consider and evaluate climate trends. In general the larger the time period considered the more reliable and significant any climate trending exposed.

I wouldn’t say it’s the least amount of time, more like a useful rule of thumb...

??

 

[Furcifer]

No, YOU specifically meantioned the Keeling Curve in post 2612:
Apparently you're completely unaware of what you are talking about...

Are you being serious? I specifically said "...FROM KEELING..." and yet you glossed over that and fixated on the curve again???

So, to repeat:

• Where have you got the data to substanciate a 1% yr^-1 increasing to 2% yr^-1 increase in GHG emission rate.

• 
  
  What don't you understand about the cited reference that describes this as "typical" that would make you ask this question? I've cited peer reviewed science that clearly indicates this was/is a "typical" increase.
  
  

  [*]How have they incorporated the GWP into those figures to account for the properties of the different gasses.

It's simple math and logic. We've looked at the Mauna Loa data and seen the CO2 increase measured isn't quite 1%. By using simple logic, this "typical" increase must reflect the GWP and not just the CO2.

It's then confirmed by noting the cited references that clearly indicate the GWP figure is used in the models.

Easy peasy.

 

[Trakar]

Why some think BAU does not apply?

It is easy to see why some might think there are monumental changes are occurring, and yet rates of CO2 emissions continue to accelerate in their increase.

Canada leaves oilsands pollution rise from UN report
http://www.canada.com/Canada+leaves+oilsands+pollution+rise+from+report/4859956/story.html

OTTAWA — The federal government has acknowledged that it deliberately excluded data indicating a 20 per cent increase in annual pollution from Canada’s oilsands industry in 2009 from a recent 567-page report on climate change that it was required to submit to the United Nations.

The numbers, uncovered by Postmedia News, were left out of the report, a national inventory on Canada’s greenhouse gas pollution. It revealed a six per cent drop in annual emissions for the entire economy from 2008 to 2009, but does not directly show the extent of pollution from the oilsands production, which is greater than the greenhouse gas emissions of all the cars driven on Canadian roads.

The data also indicated that emissions per barrel of oil produced by the sector is increasing, despite claims made by the industry in an advertising campaign.

“The oilsands remain Canada’s fastest-growing source of greenhouse gas pollution, and they’re the subject of a huge amount of attention and scrutiny in Canada and internationally,” said Clare Demerse, director of climate change at the Pembina Institute, an Alberta-based environmental research group. “So it’s very disappointing to see Environment Canada publish a 500-page report that leaves out these critical numbers — especially when last year’s edition included them.”

Overall, Environment Canada said that the oilsands industry was responsible for about 6.5 per cent of Canada’s annual greenhouse gas emissions in 2009, up from five per cent in 2008. This also indicates a growth in emissions that is close to about 300 per cent since 1990, which cancel out many reductions in pollution from other economic sectors...

 

[Reality Check]

3bodyproblem, where are your citations to the 1% growth rate in GHG emissions

Are you being serious? I specifically said "...FROM KEELING..." and yet you glossed over that and fixated on the curve again???

Just to clear this up 3bodyproblem: You specifically stated:

lol, it's actually from Keeling, you know, the Keeling Curve you brought up.

The Keeling Curve is based on the Mauna Loa data which

1. is not increasing by 1% per year
2. is a measurement of only CO2 in the atmosphere.

You need to cite the papers of Keeling (or someone else) which support your answer to 3bodyproblem, What is increasing by 1% per year (emissions, CO2, GHGs)?
which was

The growth rate in GHG emissions.

So where are your citations to the 1% growth rate in GHG emissions?

 

[Reality Check]

It's simple math and logic. We've looked at the Mauna Loa data and seen the CO2 increase measured isn't quite 1%. By using simple logic, this "typical" increase must reflect the GWP and not just the CO2.

It's then confirmed by noting the cited references that clearly indicate the GWP figure is used in the models.

The simple math and logic is that we've looked at the Mauna Loa data and seen the CO2 increase measured is not even near 1% (0.27% at the start, 0.5% now). By using simple logic, this "typical" increase must reflect the only the CO2 because ... that is what is measured!
If you want to guess that all GHGs are produced at the same rate as CO2 then state that this is your guess.

Thie use of a 1% componding increase in CO2 emissions is then confirmed by noting the cited references that clearly indicate the CO2 figure was used in the models as an ideal scenerio (i.e. nothing to do with the real world).

 

[Trakar]

But surely a few degrees won't hurt us?!

A recent British Medical Journal editorial entitled "Climate change, ill health, and conflict," a very interesting article that among other things focusses on a recent report by the International Institute for Strategic Studies (IISS) looking at climate change and its impact upon collective security and global order in the first half of the current century.

...The IISS report states that “The earth is warming, and has been for at least a century,” with this being “directly attributable to the increasing emission of carbon dioxide and other greenhouse gases.” As a result, “Climate change may already be changing weather and precipitation patterns” and will continue to drive extreme weather events and changes in water resources (through flood, drought, and rising sea levels), and it will adversely affect global food and energy production. This quote comes not from an environmental pressure group but from security experts drawn from US and UK military and intelligence communities. At the same time, Dennis Blair, director of National Intelligence for the United States, recently stated that, “Some recent climate science would indicate that the effects of climate change are accelerating.”4 In addition, the Pentagon’s 2010 Quadrennial Defense Review to Congress stressed the potential for climate change to contribute to “poverty, environmental degradation, and the further weakening of fragile governments.” It continues with: “Climate change will contribute to food and water scarcity, will increase the spread of disease, and may spur or exacerbate mass migration,”5 which in turn may increase the likelihood of instability and risk to national security.

Such statements resonate with those of a 2009 Lancet report, which made it clear that climate change is the biggest global health threat of the 21st century, with the greatest threat coming from effects on water and food security, human shelter and settlements, and resultant population migration...

http://www.bmj.com/content/342/bmj.d1819.full

A good read, very thought-provoking.

 

[Trakar]

Worst thermal event in history a wanker compared to today.

Carbon release to atmosphere 10 times faster than in the past
http://www.eurekalert.org/pub_releases/2011-06/ps-crt060311.php

...The rate of release of carbon into the atmosphere today is nearly 10 times as fast as during the Paleocene-Eocene Thermal Maximum (PETM), 55.9 million years ago, the best analog we have for current global warming, according to an international team of geologists. Rate matters and this current rapid change may not allow sufficient time for the biological environment to adjust....

Nothing to see, move along!

 

[Hallo Alfie]

Court finds AGW science not settled.

I assume legal issues falls in EBF topic.

Global warming is by no means a settled issue, they made clear, suggesting it would be foolhardy to assume it was.

The court decision noted that the Environmental Protection Agency itself had “Acknowledg[ed] that not all scientists agreed on the causes and consequences of the rise in global temperatures,” before suggesting readers consult “views opposing” the conventional wisdom.

Full findings here

http://www.leagle.com/xmlResult.aspx?page=1&xmldoc=In SCO 20110620C09.xml&docbase=CSLWAR3-2007-CURR&SizeDisp=7

Interesting article here.

http://opinion.financialpost.com/2011/06/23/lawrence-solomon-supreme-skeptics/


From a legal perspective, can the scientific community and their supporters continue to claim "the science is settled" or similar when a legal system does not?

Will this bring greater conflict to the debate and fan the flames, or assist in calming by legitimising non alarmist perspectives?

Does this make the US Supreme Court "deniers" as others who debate or argue alarmist claims are labelled as such?

Very interesting.

 

[Furcifer]

From a legal perspective, can the scientific community and their supporters continue to claim "the science is settled" or similar when a legal system does not?

Will this bring greater conflict to the debate and fan the flames, or assist in calming by legitimising non alarmist perspectives?

Does this make the US Supreme Court "deniers" as others who debate or argue alarmist claims are labelled as such?

Very interesting.

Short of physically gagging people no, nothing will stop them from making unfounded claims.

Climate science far from being settled, predictions of where the climate is headed remain wild speculations at best. Claims to the contrary are politically motivated and have no foundation in science. At least at this time. In the future as the science progresses this may change, but at the current time it's not economically feasible to make decisions based on an emerging science.
It's nice to see the Supreme Court is keeping objective, and skeptical

 

[Hallo Alfie]

Quite.

 

[geni]

I assume legal issues falls in EBF topic.

Global warming is by no means a settled issue, they made clear, suggesting it would be foolhardy to assume it was.

The court decision noted that the Environmental Protection Agency itself had “Acknowledg[ed] that not all scientists agreed on the causes and consequences of the rise in global temperatures,” before suggesting readers consult “views opposing” the conventional wisdom.

Full findings here

http://www.leagle.com/xmlResult.aspx?page=1&xmldoc=In SCO 20110620C09.xml&docbase=CSLWAR3-2007-CURR&SizeDisp=7

The judgement doesn't contain the phrase you have written in italics. In fact the words "settled" and "conventional wisdom" don't appear.

the closest would be

Responding to our decision in Massachusetts, EPA undertook greenhouse gas regulation. In December 2009, the agency concluded that greenhouse gas emissions from motor vehicles "cause, or contribute to, air pollution which may reasonably be anticipated to endanger public health or welfare," the Act's regulatory trigger. §7521(a)(1); 74 Fed. Reg. 66496. The agency observed that "atmospheric greenhouse gas concentrations are now at elevated and essentially unprecedented levels," almost entirely "due to anthropogenic emissions," id., at 66517; mean global temperatures, the agency continued, demonstrate an "unambiguous warming trend over the last 100 years," and particularly "over the past 30 years," ibid. Acknowledging that not all scientists agreed on the causes and consequences of the rise in global temperatures, id., at 66506, 66518, 66523-66524, EPA concluded that "compelling" evidence supported the "attribution of observed climate change to anthropogenic" emissions of greenhouse gases, id., at 66518. Consequent dangers of greenhouse gas emissions, EPA determined, included increases in heat-related deaths; coastal inundation and erosion caused by melting icecaps and rising sea levels; more frequent and intense hurricanes, floods, and other "extreme weather events" that cause death and destroy infrastructure; drought due to reductions in mountain snowpack and shifting precipitation patterns; destruction of ecosystems supporting animals and plants; and potentially "significant disruptions" of food production. Id., at 66524-6653

Interesting article here.

http://opinion.financialpost.com/2011/06/23/lawrence-solomon-supreme-skeptics/

Since the case appears to be largely about a complex issue of who has standing who sue who due to the interaction of common law and statue law not really.

From a legal perspective, can the scientific community and their supporters continue to claim "the science is settled" or similar when a legal system does not?

Under US law truth is a pretty good defence in cases of free speech.

Will this bring greater conflict to the debate and fan the flames, or assist in calming by legitimising non alarmist perspectives?

It's a bunch of legal arguments about a complex issue of who has standing who sue who due to the interaction of common law and statue law. I Imagine that the main effect will be to send non lawyers to sleep.

Does this make the US Supreme Court "deniers" as others who debate or argue alarmist claims are labelled as such?

The judgment expresses no opinion on global warming.

Very interesting.

In so far as how despirate the denial campain is getting perhaps.

 

[shadron]

Will this bring greater conflict to the debate and fan the flames, or assist in calming by legitimising non alarmist perspectives?

Please - no fanning the flames around here. Most of Texas and Arizona are on fire, and our area is in a red fire state.

 

[Hallo Alfie]

Coming from Victoria Australia, I can readily relate.

I wish you well with the fire control, and what (I assume) is your fire season.

 

[a_unique_person]

Freeman, an unabashed skeptic, believes that carbon dioxide, rather than being harmful, is both necessary and desirable, arguing that “increases in atmospheric carbon dioxide produce many beneficial effects upon the natural plant and animal environments of the Earth.”
Somewhat in the same vein, Justice Ginsburg notes carbon dioxide is necessary and ubiquitous, and thus shouldn’t be the target of indiscriminate attacks. “After all, we each emit carbon dioxide merely by breathing,” she notes, repeating a point that Dyson couldn’t have said better himself.

It's like asking a proctologist what advice he would give in medicating a schizophrenic. The ignorance and basic errors in logic in those statements is mind boggling. Something that can be good in one way can also be bad in another way. The example I have used before is ozone. Of course, it is also completely possible that the judgement has been completely misrepresented by deniers, I will have to read over geni's comments more closely to see what the real story is.

 

[Furcifer]

The judgement doesn't contain the phrase you have written in italics. In fact the words "settled" and "conventional wisdom" don't appear.

the closest would be

The closest would be "Global warming is by no means a settled issue, they made clear, suggesting it would be foolhardy to assume it was."

It's from the second link.

 

[leonAzul]

I assume legal issues falls in EBF topic.

Global warming is by no means a settled issue, they made clear, suggesting it would be foolhardy to assume it was.

The court decision noted that the Environmental Protection Agency itself had “Acknowledg[ed] that not all scientists agreed on the causes and consequences of the rise in global temperatures,” before suggesting readers consult “views opposing” the conventional wisdom.

Full findings here

http://www.leagle.com/xmlResult.aspx?page=1&xmldoc=In SCO 20110620C09.xml&docbase=CSLWAR3-2007-CURR&SizeDisp=7

Interesting article here.

http://opinion.financialpost.com/2011/06/23/lawrence-solomon-supreme-skeptics/


From a legal perspective, can the scientific community and their supporters continue to claim "the science is settled" or similar when a legal system does not?

Will this bring greater conflict to the debate and fan the flames, or assist in calming by legitimising non alarmist perspectives?

Does this make the US Supreme Court "deniers" as others who debate or argue alarmist claims are labelled as such?

Very interesting.

It seems like you have been misled to believe that the SCOTUS has issued a finding on AGW. That is not true. What happened is that in addition to finding on a legal matter, they have included in their rationale for their findings, for whatever reason entered their minds, an opinion on the matter of AGW. This has about as much weight and authority as a plumber's opinion on net neutrality, or a school board's opinion on toll roads.

The legal system has not ruled on AGW, and if the SCOTUS justices wish to avoid the risk of impeachment they never shall. It is conceivable that in certain cases brought before lower courts findings of fact concerning expert witness testimony might involve AGW. There is simply no way that the validation of scientific theory could ever be construed as a proper matter before a court of constitutional law.

 

[leonAzul]

The closest would be "Global warming is by no means a settled issue, they made clear, suggesting it would be foolhardy to assume it was."

It's from the second link.

In addition to the ruling itself, SCOTUS issues so-called opinions which detail the lines of reasoning of those justices who concurred and those who dissented. (It's interesting to note that the decision was 8-0, meaning that one justice abstained, so no dissenting opinion needs to be issued.) It is from that opinion that the completely tangential observation concerning AGW was cited.

IMHO what I find truly disturbing is that SCOTUS would even go there in a published legal opinion.