Moderated Global Warming Discussion

[Furcifer]

But fortunately here you are to turn the conversation into a direction you're more comfortable with.



Why have they never manifested before, in your system? There was no greater expansion of blacktop than in the 50's to 70's globally and I don't recall talk of heatwaves then. This was mostly in places where the forests were long-gone anyway, of course.

There are photographs available of Earth taken from space, in the round and in daylight, and one thing you'll notice about them is how little black shows up even where there's no cloud. Most is blue, of course, and there's great stretches of yellow and brown, lots of green, and a fair bit of white. Not much black. You can't even see the urbanisation; for that you have to go to the night-side pictures.

One's impression of the world from inside a car is rather different, of course, but that would be an ant's-eye view, and who of us would be satisfied with that?

Since we're talking about albedo : for a proper cinematic effect check out the reduction in white on those whole-earth photos over the last few decades. An area which you could drop all the new blacktop into without being able to find it later.

The forests being cut down these days are mostly for arable land (as they have been in the past), which tends to be just as green.



No need, I was properly educated.



And fail to evade. Haig has taken issue with you.



What a cunning catch-all. Whatever happens it's because of something we/they did inadvertently in the past (but not the 40% in atmospheric CO₂ load) so there's nothing to do now but adapt. Because it's not the CO₂. It was the deforestation and the freeways/motorways/autobahns and that damned inconstant Sun, all delayed for a few decades and coincidentally kicking-in when that erroneous AGW prediction was due to fail.

Whatever happens now you've got your safe-room.

lol, yes steering a climate science thread to climate science and not weather. Shame on me

You're desperately trying to extend climate changes to include changes in the weather and the fact is climate is not weather. The changes to albedo due to urbanization and deforestation are much more suited to explaining these extreme weather events than is climate change.

Of course over the years, the continuous change in weather due to changes in albedo get lumped in under the monikur of climate change. The scientists are quick to point out however that they aren't entirely sure what amount of warming is due to emissions and what is due to change in albedo.

That doesn't stop the alarmists though. They'll pick a nice steep slope for some truncated graph, point to some heatwave in Arizona and call for outrageous tax they believe will somehow remedy the problem. lolz.

The environment may have "suffered" over the last 150 years due to increased emissions, but people haven't. The standard of living has gone up, so have longevity and so has food production. The alarmists will continue to point out the few farmers who have lost income from climate change, the few who have died in heatwaves and a few bad crops. The fact is on a whole we're all doing better from a degree increase in average temperature over that time.

Face it, any way you slice it, this is the cost of doing business.

 

[DC]

lol, yes steering a climate science thread to climate science and not weather. Shame on me

You're desperately trying to extend climate changes to include changes in the weather and the fact is climate is not weather. The changes to albedo due to urbanization and deforestation are much more suited to explaining these extreme weather events than is climate change.

Of course over the years, the continuous change in weather due to changes in albedo get lumped in under the monikur of climate change. The scientists are quick to point out however that they aren't entirely sure what amount of warming is due to emissions and what is due to change in albedo.

That doesn't stop the alarmists though. They'll pick a nice steep slope for some truncated graph, point to some heatwave in Arizona and call for outrageous tax they believe will somehow remedy the problem. lolz.

The environment may have "suffered" over the last 150 years due to increased emissions, but people haven't. The standard of living has gone up, so have longevity and so has food production. The alarmists will continue to point out the few farmers who have lost income from climate change, the few who have died in heatwaves and a few bad crops. The fact is on a whole we're all doing better from a degree increase in average temperature over that time.

Face it, any way you slice it, this is the cost of doing business.

can you show me the studies that led to your conclusions that the weather extremes can be linked to changes in Albedo?

and as i asked already, what is the usual forest in your book and what is its albedo?

 

[Trakar]

...The evidence for a “stall” fails statistical tests for significance. IOW THERE IS NO STATISTIALY SIGNIFICANT EVEDENCE FOR A SLOWDOWN IN THE RATE OF WARMING.

LOL, well played!

 

[Trakar]

Poetry is in our blood, and poetic justice is the essence of irony. It features large in ancient folk-tales and modern Hollywood, and clearly satisfies a common psychological need.

Sadly, it's mostly a fiction. When stuff hits the fan it's generally not the people responsible who take the hit. They just re-emerge the other side of the "incident" and carry on as usual.

Well, while I was jerking around about the iron in our blood that allows us to inspire oxygen from the air,...I can see your comments value.

It is rather like a nostalgia effect where an older generation might remember fondly their youth when they bought gas cheaply and wasted it on whims, til intrusive government regulations ruined all their fun. When the facts are that the excessive usage and government subsidies and cor[porate welfare underwriting that created the situation of a failed market damaged our overall economy through encouraging unsustainable usage and propped up reliance upon sources of energy that were broadly damaging to our nation and planetary environment.

Nostalgia often depends upon the focus on carefree pleasures sans the consequences that they disconnected from those thoughtless remembrances of "good times."

 

[Trakar]

...The environment may have "suffered" over the last 150 years due to increased emissions, but people haven't. The standard of living has gone up, so have longevity and so has food production. The alarmists will continue to point out the few farmers who have lost income from climate change, the few who have died in heatwaves and a few bad crops. The fact is on a whole we're all doing better from a degree increase in average temperature over that time.

Face it, any way you slice it, this is the cost of doing business.

The consequences of the last 150 years of excess are still unfolding and will continue for another few centuries, meanwhile we are continuing to increase the future magnitude of consequences at an accelerating rate with ever diminishing returns. Time to put down the shovel and start filling the hole we've dug ourselves into before the walls collapse and we are sequestered.

 

[Reality Check]

The changes to albedo due to urbanization and deforestation are much more suited to explaining these extreme weather events than is climate change.

You really should look up the actual science rather than making things up and not supporting them with citations, Furcifer.

The albedo effect and global warming
Deforestation increases albedo, reflects more heat aaway and so reduces warming.
Urbanization decreases albedo but has no significant effect on global temperatures. You are still ignoring
Berkeley Earth Surface Temperature Study: “The effect of urban heating on the global trends is nearly negligible”

And my question:
Furcifer

Where are the "strip mall, 2 lanes of black top and a concrete urban jungle" in rural Colarado which is causing the heat wave there?

First asked 3rd July 2012.

 

[bit_pattern]

You really should look up the actual science rather than making things up and not supporting them with citations, Furcifer.

The albedo effect and global warming
Deforestation increases albedo, reflects more heat aaway and so reduces warming.
Urbanization decreases albedo but has no significant effect on global temperatures. You are still ignoring
Berkeley Earth Surface Temperature Study: “The effect of urban heating on the global trends is nearly negligible”

And my question:
Furcifer

First asked 3rd July 2012.

To be fair, the heatwave in the south west has been caused by albedo, or rather the loss thereof

 

[Furcifer]

The consequences of the last 150 years of excess are still unfolding and will continue for another few centuries, meanwhile we are continuing to increase the future magnitude of consequences at an accelerating rate with ever diminishing returns. Time to put down the shovel and start filling the hole we've dug ourselves into before the walls collapse and we are sequestered.

Only if by "excess" you mean living longer and better lives.
The usual definition of "excess" would be a Rolex and a 5000 sqrft. home, not a well fed, fulfilled 80 years on the planet.

To each his or her own

 

[Furcifer]

You really should look up the actual science rather than making things up and not supporting them with citations, Furcifer.

The albedo effect and global warming
Deforestation increases albedo, reflects more heat aaway and so reduces warming.
Urbanization decreases albedo but has no significant effect on global temperatures. You are still ignoring
Berkeley Earth Surface Temperature Study: “The effect of urban heating on the global trends is nearly negligible”

And my question:
Furcifer

First asked 3rd July 2012.

You're trying to explain weather in terms of climate and climate change.

WEATHER IS NOT CLIMATE.

Even more to the point, changes to North America's albedo for example will show up in localized weather patterns, but not necessarily in the climate.

Allow me to explain a simple example. 25 years ago this area was farmland. The average temperature was 75 degrees in the summer. By paving over the farmland and build homes and strip malls the albedo is changed. Now there are extremely hot days where the temperature tops 100 and there are cooler days where the temeprature barely tops 50.

There's little change to the climate, the average remains the same. The changes to albedo have immediate effects on the weather, although over 25 or 30 years they may become part of the climate.

Obviously you question is nonsense becase it's quite easy to see not only do changes in albedo have little or no immediate effect on the climate in North America, in terms of the global average they have even less effect.

Simply put, you could pave the entire state of Illinois and have almost no effect on global albedo, essentially have the same climate (at least for 20 or 30 years) but the effect on the weather would be ridiculous heat waves in the summer.

Again, we're talking about albedo and weather, not climate. Your links are clearly about albedo and climate. There's a difference. In terms of climate, where these extremes get averaged out, albedo is expected to have marginL effects.

I'm sure I'll be back in the winter explaining how extreme cold snaps can also be attributed to changes in albedo and have little or nothing to do with climate.

 

[DC]

does anyone know a good denunking to this Monkton calculation?

 

[DC]

You're trying to explain weather in terms of climate and climate change.

WEATHER IS NOT CLIMATE.

Even more to the point, changes to North America's albedo for example will show up in localized weather patterns, but not necessarily in the climate.

Allow me to explain a simple example. 25 years ago this area was farmland. The average temperature was 75 degrees in the summer. By paving over the farmland and build homes and strip malls the albedo is changed. Now there are extremely hot days where the temperature tops 100 and there are cooler days where the temeprature barely tops 50.

There's little change to the climate, the average remains the same. The changes to albedo have immediate effects on the weather, although over 25 or 30 years they may become part of the climate.

Obviously you question is nonsense becase it's quite easy to see not only do changes in albedo have little or no immediate effect on the climate in North America, in terms of the global average they have even less effect.

Simply put, you could pave the entire state of Illinois and have almost no effect on global albedo, essentially have the same climate (at least for 20 or 30 years) but the effect on the weather would be ridiculous heat waves in the summer.

Again, we're talking about albedo and weather, not climate. Your links are clearly about albedo and climate. There's a difference. In terms of climate, where these extremes get averaged out, albedo is expected to have marginL effects.

I'm sure I'll be back in the winter explaining how extreme cold snaps can also be attributed to changes in albedo and have little or nothing to do with climate.

that sounds interesting, do you have a study into this Albedo / waether stuff?

 

[Trakar]

does anyone know a good denunking to this Monkton calculation?

What leads you to believe that this is a relevent or accurate calculation, the entire premises upon his argument are flawed.

 

[Trakar]

Allow me to explain a simple example. 25 years ago this area was farmland. The average temperature was 75 degrees in the summer. By paving over the farmland and build homes and strip malls the albedo is changed. Now there are extremely hot days where the temperature tops 100 and there are cooler days where the temeprature barely tops 50...

Demonstrate the reality of this asserted hypothetical. Show me the evidence that suburbanization over the last 50 years has a real and measurable impact on regional or hemispheric weather expressions. I don't find casual purported "common sense" musings and incomplete considerations to be compelling evidence when it comes to issues that are going to cost money whether we are talking adaptation or amelioration.

 

[Trakar]

Only if by "excess" you mean living longer and better lives.
The usual definition of "excess" would be a Rolex and a 5000 sqrft. home, not a well fed, fulfilled 80 years on the planet.

To each his or her own

That is your distortion of my words and meanings, not at all even relevent to what I said or intended.

If you have a question, ask it

 

[Warmer1]

does anyone know a good denunking to this Monkton calculation?

Lord Moncton is a total fraud snd it's funny to watch that video and I am too lazy to disprove his continual nonsense.

He is introduced as a science advisor to Margaret Thatcher, which there is no record of, and she went on air to warn people about global warming.

Then Moncton opens with "We burn 30 billion tons of CO2 a year"- really? we burn CO2? He is not a scientist and it shows.

Next Glen Beck sits there totally dumbstruck by the numbers Lord Moncton presents. Wouldn't it make sense for Glen Beck to understand what is happening on his program? Bye Bye Glen Beck!

Greenman's smackdown on Lord Moncton on YouTube at Climate Denial Crock of the Week is classic, and kudos to Peter Sinclair for the very entertaining expose of a repetative and persistant liar.

It's really pathetic that the UK parliament had to ask him to stop lying.

http://www.parliament.uk/business/news/2011/july/letter-to-viscount-monckton/

Debunking Lord Moncton part 1 and 2.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JfA1LpiYk2o

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=duxG4lyeSlc

Also the Search for Lord Moncton

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

Thanks for posting that DC!

 

[Piggy]

Nostalgia often depends upon the focus on carefree pleasures sans the consequences that they disconnected from those thoughtless remembrances of "good times."

My denier brother claims to remember summers as hot as we have now, and they weren't so bad, really... despite the fact that we're breaking records right and left.

 

[DC]

What leads you to believe that this is a relevent or accurate calculation, the entire premises upon his argument are flawed.

Nothing at all

 

[DC]

Lord Moncton is a total fraud snd it's funny to watch that video and I am too lazy to disprove his continual nonsense.

He is introduced as a science advisor to Margaret Thatcher, which there is no record of, and she went on air to warn people about global warming.

Then Moncton opens with "We burn 30 billion tons of CO2 a year"- really? we burn CO2? He is not a scientist and it shows.

Next Glen Beck sits there totally dumbstruck by the numbers Lord Moncton presents. Wouldn't it make sense for Glen Beck to understand what is happening on his program? Bye Bye Glen Beck!

Greenman's smackdown on Lord Moncton on YouTube at Climate Denial Crock of the Week is classic, and kudos to Peter Sinclair for the very entertaining expose of a repetative and persistant liar.

It's really pathetic that the UK parliament had to ask him to stop lying.

http://www.parliament.uk/business/news/2011/july/letter-to-viscount-monckton/

Debunking Lord Moncton part 1 and 2.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JfA1LpiYk2o

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=duxG4lyeSlc

Also the Search for Lord Moncton

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

Thanks for posting that DC!

Yeah i know that i also liked Potholer's Monkton Bunkum videos.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fbW-aHvjOgM

or Abrahams video's

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SjhNVSZmLF4

but i was wondering if there is a specific debunking of this video.

 

[Trakar]

What leads you to believe that this is a relevent or accurate calculation, the entire premises upon his argument are flawed.

POsted without review, could someone please replace "..., the entire premises upon his argument are flawed."

with:

", the entire set of premises upon which he is basing this argument are flawed."


Thank-you

 

[Trakar]

My denier brother claims to remember summers as hot as we have now, and they weren't so bad, really... despite the fact that we're breaking records right and left.

Memories almost never have the degree of objectivity required to establish them as accurate.