Moderated Global Warming Discussion

[Reality Check]

Try lifting a finger to do some actual work. The NCDC site clearly labels the trend produced, and has two setting. Decade trend and century trend.

Try understanding what you link to, r-j.
Decade trend = display the trend per decade, e.g. the December trend for 1983-2013 = +1.00 °F/decade.
Century trend = display the trend per centrury, e.g. the December trend for 1983-2013 = +9.99 °F/century.

This trend says that you are wrong. The December temperatures in the mainland US have been increasing over the last 30 years - this is climate.
If we look at the weather then we can see a cooling in winters over the last 20 years.

 

[r-j]

The intelligent might ask, how can that be? And it gets so much worse. Florida has a trend of -1.3 per century. The thirty year trend is -1.2 (1983-2013) (.1 per decade)

This is the point where you have to look at the data. Of course I am not making any of it up.

(now is when the argument switches to "well the US isn't the world and it's still getting warmer")

But you can't keep repeating the winters are getting warmer. (OK I know some people will)

But please, get a grip.

 

[r-j]

The December temperatures in the mainland US have been increasing over the last 30 years -.

You really need to look at the data. You are digging your hole deeper.

 

[pteridine]

First, global climate change is anthropogenic. Science shows us this.

The first thing we need to do is focus research into renewable energy, and energy sources aside from fossil fuels. This isn't going to mitigate all of the temperature increases, but it might help limit it a bit, as long as these energy sources are heavily subsidized and fossil fuels are penalized.

Secondly, we need to focus research into ways to increase food production. A lot of arable land will either be lost or be made useless.

Thirdly, we need to learn to adapt to the changing climate. We have already seen what this means with disaster preparedness. Sandy isn't going to be the last of its kind.

Fourthly, we might need to move away from the capitalist society we have today. That would mean a lot of hardships, but as I see it, it is probably the only way we are going to prevent this from happening again.

Science says that it is likely that there is an anthropogenic component during the present period. At the time of Rome, the world was warmer. During the dark ages it was colder. Around 1000 it warmed up again and was warmer than it is now. Greenland wasn't called Snowland, or Whiteland. In the middle of the last millennium, things got cold again, hence the term "little ice age." More recently, things are warming up. There is a desire by many to claim that climate change is entirely anthropogenic and is controllable by man. This gives some comfort to those who think that they control what happens at every turn.

Your first concept is generally what everyone else says. Much like the mindless "think outside the box" or the previous mantra of "work smarter not harder" so favored by those that could do neither. Do you use a scattergun approach or select a specific technology? Solar or wind? Hot fusion or cold?

Your second point is also vague. We have been doing that for quite some time. Synthetic ammonia allows about 7 billion to populate the planet rather than the 4 billion or so that would have been barely surviving without Haber. The ability to use synthetic nitrogen fixation to produce high explosives has not balanced out the additional increase due to more food. GM crops and pesticides have also increased our food supply.

We likely have no choice but to adapt. The species has survived this long by just that technique.

Political structure has nothing to do with climate change. It is solar cycles and carbon dioxide in the atmosphere. If you are espousing more efficient use of resources, socialism may not be the best way to go.

 

[uke2se]

Science says that it is likely that there is an anthropogenic component during the present period. At the time of Rome, the world was warmer. During the dark ages it was colder. Around 1000 it warmed up again and was warmer than it is now. Greenland wasn't called Snowland, or Whiteland. In the middle of the last millennium, things got cold again, hence the term "little ice age." More recently, things are warming up. There is a desire by many to claim that climate change is entirely anthropogenic and is controllable by man. This gives some comfort to those who think that they control what happens at every turn.

The current warming is Anthropogenic. Deny it if you must.

Your first concept is generally what everyone else says. Much like the mindless "think outside the box" or the previous mantra of "work smarter not harder" so favored by those that could do neither. Do you use a scattergun approach or select a specific technology? Solar or wind? Hot fusion or cold?

Everything and anything that doesn't make things worse.

Your second point is also vague. We have been doing that for quite some time. Synthetic ammonia allows about 7 billion to populate the planet rather than the 4 billion or so that would have been barely surviving without Haber. The ability to use synthetic nitrogen fixation to produce high explosives has not balanced out the additional increase due to more food. GM crops and pesticides have also increased our food supply.

What's your point? We increase food production, or people starve. Quite easy to understand.

We likely have no choice but to adapt. The species has survived this long by just that technique.

It's unlikely we'll die out. Our civilization, though, just might.

Political structure has nothing to do with climate change.

It has to do with initializing and combating climate change.

It is solar cycles and carbon dioxide in the atmosphere. If you are espousing more efficient use of resources, socialism may not be the best way to go.

Where did I say socialism was a way to go? Are you another one of those "it's either capitalism or socialism, there can be nothing else"?

 

[uke2se]

You really need to look at the data. You are digging your hole deeper.

The only one digging is you, r-j.

 

[Reality Check]

Prove it.

Wow r-g !
You accuse us of twiddling our thumbs and when Pixel42 obviously used Climate at a Glance , you dismiss the actual scientific data!
I entered the appropriate parameters and got:

Illinois winter (3 month period, December selected) trend over 30 years (1984-2013) gieves a warming of 0.6F per decade.
​

 

[DC]

Science says that it is likely that there is an anthropogenic component during the present period. At the time of Rome, the world was warmer. During the dark ages it was colder. Around 1000 it warmed up again and was warmer than it is now. Greenland wasn't called Snowland, or Whiteland. In the middle of the last millennium, things got cold again, hence the term "little ice age." More recently, things are warming up. There is a desire by many to claim that climate change is entirely anthropogenic and is controllable by man. This gives some comfort to those who think that they control what happens at every turn.

Your first concept is generally what everyone else says. Much like the mindless "think outside the box" or the previous mantra of "work smarter not harder" so favored by those that could do neither. Do you use a scattergun approach or select a specific technology? Solar or wind? Hot fusion or cold?

Your second point is also vague. We have been doing that for quite some time. Synthetic ammonia allows about 7 billion to populate the planet rather than the 4 billion or so that would have been barely surviving without Haber. The ability to use synthetic nitrogen fixation to produce high explosives has not balanced out the additional increase due to more food. GM crops and pesticides have also increased our food supply.

We likely have no choice but to adapt. The species has survived this long by just that technique.

Political structure has nothing to do with climate change. It is solar cycles and carbon dioxide in the atmosphere. If you are espousing more efficient use of resources, socialism may not be the best way to go.

do you have evidence for the hilited parts?

from what i know those claims are wrong.
http://www.pnas.org/content/105/36/13252.full

 

[uke2se]

Prove it.

Wow r-g !
You accuse us of twiddling our thumbs and when Pixel42 obviously used Climate at a Glance , you dismiss the actual scientific data!
I entered the appropriate parameters and got:

Illinois winter (3 month period, December selected) trend over 30 years (1984-2013) gieves a warming of 0.6F per decade.
​

I did the same for contiguous US with February selected, giving the trend December through February, 1983-2013 and got +0.35F per decade.

Let's see r-j frantically deny this.

 

[Reality Check]

...The trend for Dec-Feb for the state of Illinois, for 1913-2013 is -.5 (per century)

So now we are going to look at the the local temperature trends for evey state in the US !

Go for it r-j. When you are finished wasting your time then do the sensible act of looking at mainland US: +086 F/century.

 

[uke2se]

do you have evidence for the hilited parts?

from what i know those claims are wrong.
http://www.pnas.org/content/105/36/13252.full

Yep, it's the MWP canard all over again. We really should have a continuously updated OP that lists all the various denier canards that have already been dealt with in the thread, so all the Jonny-come-Lately deniers can go somewhere else with their anti-science crap.

 

[Buckaroo]

Science says that it is likely that there is an anthropogenic component during the present period. At the time of Rome, the world was warmer. During the dark ages it was colder. Around 1000 it warmed up again and was warmer than it is now. Greenland wasn't called Snowland, or Whiteland. In the middle of the last millennium, things got cold again, hence the term "little ice age." More recently, things are warming up. There is a desire by many to claim that climate change is entirely anthropogenic and is controllable by man. This gives some comfort to those who think that they control what happens at every turn.

Your first concept is generally what everyone else says. Much like the mindless "think outside the box" or the previous mantra of "work smarter not harder" so favored by those that could do neither. Do you use a scattergun approach or select a specific technology? Solar or wind? Hot fusion or cold?

Your second point is also vague. We have been doing that for quite some time. Synthetic ammonia allows about 7 billion to populate the planet rather than the 4 billion or so that would have been barely surviving without Haber. The ability to use synthetic nitrogen fixation to produce high explosives has not balanced out the additional increase due to more food. GM crops and pesticides have also increased our food supply.

We likely have no choice but to adapt. The species has survived this long by just that technique.

Political structure has nothing to do with climate change. It is solar cycles and carbon dioxide in the atmosphere. If you are espousing more efficient use of resources, socialism may not be the best way to go.

Regurgitating talking points from denier blogs isn't going to get you very far here. You might want to check out http://www.skepticalscience.com, which deals with pretty much every denier myth you're parroting, and come back after a little self-edification.

 

[Reality Check]

You really need to look at the data. You are digging your hole deeper.

That is rather inane, r-j because I did look at the data (Climate at a Glance) and the data says:

Try understanding what you link to, r-j.
Decade trend = display the trend per decade, e.g. the December trend for 1983-2013 = +1.00 °F/decade.
Century trend = display the trend per centrury, e.g. the December trend for 1983-2013 = +9.99 °F/century.

This trend says that you are wrong. The December temperatures in the mainland US have been increasing over the last 30 years - this is climate.
If we look at the weather then we can see a cooling in winters over the last 20 years.

 

[Reality Check]

Science says that it is likely that there is an anthropogenic component during the present period.

That is correct.
But the rest the the paragraph ("At the time of Rome...") is irrelevant because the anthropogenic component is mainly the emission of CO2. That did not become significant until there were large populations burning a lot of fossil fuels, i.e. since the Industrial Revolution.

It sounds like you have been fooled by some climate denier web site. If you want to look at the valid science behind climate change then I recommend Skeptical Science as a good starting point.

 

[pteridine]

Regurgitating talking points from denier blogs isn't going to get you very far here. You might want to check out http://www.skepticalscience.com, which deals with pretty much every denier myth you're parroting, and come back after a little self-edification.

Thanks for your patronizing comments. I would have never thought of self edification had you not suggested it. I did look at the website of your affection and discovered that it has its own agenda, much like every other website.

Regardless of your belief of how much of GCC is anthropogenic, if Climategate is important, or if climate models fail by not considering water vapor, you have not responded to my questions regarding what earthlings should do about this. Pretend that I completely agree that it is the industrial revolution that is entirely to blame and work from there.
What energy sources would you pursue? Would you double your electric bill to put some CO2 in the ground and monitor it for centuries? The only way this would work is to suspend certain laws that prevent anyone from accepting the liability. Technically doable, legally a nightmare, at present.
Self-edify by looking at the amount of CO2 China generates now and would generate over the next 50 years and estimate how much sequestration in the US would effect atmospheric concentrations. If a GNP is directly related to energy prices, who will be the first to economically handicap themselves?

When do you stop generating electricity with fossil fuels? When do you stop heating houses with natural gas?

How would you prevent permafrost from melting and releasing methane? As the oceans warm, methane hydrates will become unstable and release more methane. It would be better to burn the methane and release CO2 vice methane, so a recovery method would be useful.

It is easy to carp and whine about things but difficult to propose specific solutions, isn't it?

 

[pteridine]

Everything and anything that doesn't make things worse.

What's your point? We increase food production, or people starve. Quite easy to understand.

It's unlikely we'll die out. Our civilization, though, just might.

It has to do with initializing and combating climate change.

Where did I say socialism was a way to go? Are you another one of those "it's either capitalism or socialism, there can be nothing else"?

Your responses are typical of those who can only point out the obvious and claim that they have done their part.
"Everything and anything that doesn't make things worse." Pure genius.
"What's your point? We increase food production, or people starve. Quite easy to understand." What if our present population is unsustainable with your new world order? If you grow more food, the population will grow to use it. How do you peacefully taper the population down to a survivable size or do you just let Darwin work his magic?

I feel much better knowing that the human specie will not become extinct and know you are basing this on complete lack of extinction events during the history of the earth.

What political order would you suggest for combating climate change? Some sort of determinism? A dictatorship? This last is most common among those who desire to run the show and they often believe that they are most suited due to special knowledge or skills.

 

[DC]

Thanks for your patronizing comments. I would have never thought of self edification had you not suggested it. I did look at the website of your affection and discovered that it has its own agenda, much like every other website.

Regardless of your belief of how much of GCC is anthropogenic, if Climategate is important, or if climate models fail by not considering water vapor, you have not responded to my questions regarding what earthlings should do about this. Pretend that I completely agree that it is the industrial revolution that is entirely to blame and work from there.
What energy sources would you pursue? Would you double your electric bill to put some CO2 in the ground and monitor it for centuries? The only way this would work is to suspend certain laws that prevent anyone from accepting the liability. Technically doable, legally a nightmare, at present.
Self-edify by looking at the amount of CO2 China generates now and would generate over the next 50 years and estimate how much sequestration in the US would effect atmospheric concentrations. If a GNP is directly related to energy prices, who will be the first to economically handicap themselves?

When do you stop generating electricity with fossil fuels? When do you stop heating houses with natural gas?

How would you prevent permafrost from melting and releasing methane? As the oceans warm, methane hydrates will become unstable and release more methane. It would be better to burn the methane and release CO2 vice methane, so a recovery method would be useful.

It is easy to carp and whine about things but difficult to propose specific solutions, isn't it?

there are many things one can do now already with existing technology.
and many things are already being done. many countries have already started to "economically handicap themselves" or like rational people would say, reducing their contribution to the problem. its like you are coming a decade or two too late to the party. your long debunked claims and your ignorance as to what others are already doing to mitigate the problem.

 

[pteridine]

there are many things one can do now already with existing technology.
and many things are already being done. many countries have already started to "economically handicap themselves" or like rational people would say, reducing their contribution to the problem. its like you are coming a decade or two too late to the party. your long debunked claims and your ignorance as to what others are already doing to mitigate the problem.

In my last post, I said assume that all GCC was anthropogenic so your comment is pointless. Of what the many others are doing, how have their great sacrifices affected them economically and how have they significantly affected CO2 concentrations in the atmosphere? Name a few others so I can edify myself.

Thank you for including the emoticon, surely a mark of intellectual prowess and much like calling someone a "liar," continually.

 

[lomiller]

Science says that it is likely that there is an anthropogenic component during the present period.

They say that component is 80% - 90% of the warming experienced in the last 100 years and that there is no trend from any natural forcing in the last 50.

At the time of Rome, the world was warmer.

No. It wasn't.

Around 1000 it warmed up again and was warmer than it is now. Greenland wasn't called Snowland, or Whiteland.

Greenland has been covered in glaciers for millions if years.

In the middle of the last millennium, things got cold again,

This cooling was a few tenth's of a deg C over several centuries. The earth is currently warming a few tenths of a deg C every decade.

More recently, things are warming up. There is a desire by many to claim that climate change is entirely anthropogenic

Where has anyone said "entirely"?

We likely have no choice but to adapt. The species has survived this long by just that technique.

We are not an old species...

Political structure has nothing to do with climate change.

Correct, though your post strongly suggests political motivation on your part.

Political structure has nothing to do with climate change.

CO2 in the atmosphere yes. solar cycles no. Solar cycles are on the order of 0.1% variation in the suns output. Far too small to impact global temperatures.

If you are espousing more efficient use of resources, socialism may not be the best way to go.

No one has espoused anything like this. Again you seem to be the one politically driven.

 

[Buckaroo]

Thanks for your patronizing comments. I would have never thought of self edification had you not suggested it. I did look at the website of your affection and discovered that it has its own agenda, much like every other website.

Regardless of your belief of how much of GCC is anthropogenic, if Climategate is important, or if climate models fail by not considering water vapor, you have not responded to my questions regarding what earthlings should do about this. Pretend that I completely agree that it is the industrial revolution that is entirely to blame and work from there.
What energy sources would you pursue? Would you double your electric bill to put some CO2 in the ground and monitor it for centuries? The only way this would work is to suspend certain laws that prevent anyone from accepting the liability. Technically doable, legally a nightmare, at present.
Self-edify by looking at the amount of CO2 China generates now and would generate over the next 50 years and estimate how much sequestration in the US would effect atmospheric concentrations. If a GNP is directly related to energy prices, who will be the first to economically handicap themselves?

When do you stop generating electricity with fossil fuels? When do you stop heating houses with natural gas?

How would you prevent permafrost from melting and releasing methane? As the oceans warm, methane hydrates will become unstable and release more methane. It would be better to burn the methane and release CO2 vice methane, so a recovery method would be useful.

It is easy to carp and whine about things but difficult to propose specific solutions, isn't it?

There are a lot of mitigation strategies -- wind and solar where appropriate, nuclear where not, electrified mass-transit infrastructure, etc. But the fact is that deniers such as yourself have made complete avoidance of the problem impossible by stymieing the deployment of such alternative technologies over the last several decades through lies and misinformation about the alleged non-reality of AGW. By doing something now we may temper the problem, but at this point we're committed to 50 years or so of significant warming that we didn't need be, and are screwed any way you look at it. So spare me your whining about my "patronizing comments." Your type has earned my contempt many times over.