Global warming

[Safe-Keeper]

I already have several times, but fine, I'm game. The Wiki article is a good place to start.

 

[mhaze]

I already have several times, but fine, I'm game. The Wiki article is a good place to start.

Global dimming is a big topic.

Your chart is based on "Modeled forcing response". Whatever that means.

Do you have any actual data you want to discuss, or questions that are not predicated on some unstated, unknown "model"?

 

[mhaze]

I don't speak for AUP, but my contention is with your statement "CO2 being the main driver of climate".

All other things being equal (including the sun), then increasing levels of CO2 can be a main driver of "climate change".

It is the change in the Earth's climate that is at issue here, is it not?

One should look at the natural variability of the climate and ask, do we have "change" that is outside of any reasonable bounds?

If so, what might the reasons be? One of those would be the effects of man, and one of many of those effects would be CO2. What, then is the natural variability? We appear to have had some 0.6 degree C increase in world temperature in the 20th century.

Is that within the range of natural variability?

Many have been told "we are experiencing unprecedented, alarming global warming".

But the Little Ice Age recovery began in the mid 1800s. Coming out of a "Little Ice Age" the trend line would be going up a bit, right? And if we are going into a warming period, say that is of 400 years duration and there is a steady increase to a peak temperature 2 C higher than average, then a steady decline back to the "average". That is 0.10 C per decade average.

That 0.10 C change - established as a natural variation - is the general range of 20th century warming. These simple realities destroy the myth of man made global warming.

Singer notes that the Little Ice Age and the Medieval Warming period are only the latest markers in a long historical series of approximate 1,500 year climate cycles. As previously noted, ice cores in the opinion of scientists prove this. (In the opinion of CP, they don't. But where is his published peer reviewed article, or citations to them?)

Dansgaard and Oeschger told us that the climate shifts were moderate, rising and falling over a range of about 4° C in northern Greenland, with very little temperature change at the equator — and only half a degree when averaged over the northern hemisphere.

The cycles were confirmed by 1) their appearance in two different ice
cores drilled more than 1,000 miles apart; 2) their correlation with known
glacier advances and retreats in northern Europe; and 3) independent data in a seabed sediment core from the Atlantic Ocean west of Ireland.

They noted that the cycle shifts were abrupt, sometimes gaining half of
their eventual temperature change in a decade or so. That suggested an external forcing, perhaps amplified and transmitted globally by the ocean currents and winds. (In the mid-19th century, the Upper Fremont Glacier in Wyoming went from Little Ice Age to Modern Warming in about 10 years.)

A robust series of other, unrelated proxies all show the same 1,500 year pattern. This is a well established hypothesis, derived from many separate and unrelated, yet interlocking, lines of research.

Just one more example - North American pollen databases, that go back approximately 14,000 years. The pollen database, reflecting the actual decline and increases of forests of particular types of tress, may be used to indicate historical climate patterns. The pollen database clearly shows 9 climate cycles, averaging some 1,650 years each.

There is no clear reason to ascribe recent global temperature increases to the activities of man, as they fall within well within the range of natural variation. Man made global warming does not exist, or if it does exist, is an insignificantly small factor in global climate dynamics.

Heavy handed government controls, taxation and regulation amounting to trillions of dollars are clearly not justified.

 

[mhaze]

References for the above.

Singer's paper on the "The Physical Evidence of Earth's Unstoppable 1,500 Year Climate Cycle"[SIZE=-1]
W. Dansgaard et al., "North Atlantic Climatic Oscillations Revealed by Deep Greenland Ice Cores," Climate Processes and Climate Sensitivity, Geophysical Monograph, American Geophysical Union, vol. 29, 1984, pages 288–298.

Richard D. Tkachuck, "The Little Ice Age," Origins, Geosciences Research Institute, vol. 10, 1983, pages 51-65.

C. Lorius et al., "A 150,000-year Climatic Record from Antarctic Ice," Nature, vol. 316, no. 6029, August 15, 1985, pages
591–596.
A.E. Viau et al., "Widespread Evidence of 1,500-Year Climate Variability in North America During the Past 14,000 Years," Geology, vol. 30, no. 5, May 2002, pages 455–458.

([/SIZE][SIZE=-1]The North American Pollen Database is located at Springfield, Ill., and is part of the Paleoclimatology Program sponsored by the National Oceanographic and Atmospheric Administration.)[/SIZE]

 

[Safe-Keeper]

Well let's see, how many hurricanes have there been since Katrina?

There have been plenty, several of which hitting Category 5. In fact, I believe 2005 was the only year ever to have four Category 5 hurricanes in one season: Emily, Katrina, Rita, and Wilma. And, of course, Dean in 2007. All Category 5 hurricanes.

In addition to those, we've got the hurricanes which did not reach Category 5, as well as a number of tropical storms and subtropical storms. You can find lists at the National Hurricane Center:

2006 Atlantic Season
2007 Atlantic Season
​

 

[mhaze]

.

There have been plenty, several of which hitting Category 5. In fact, I believe 2005 was the only year ever to have four Category 5 hurricanes in one season: Emily, Katrina, Rita, and Wilma. And, of course, Dean in 2007. All Category 5 hurricanes.

In addition to those, we've got the hurricanes which did not reach Category 5, as well as a number of tropical storms and subtropical storms. You can find lists at the National Hurricane Center:

2006 Atlantic Season
2007 Atlantic Season
​

Climate Science, as defined by pages 16-21 of this ...

1. climate is growing more powerful, and is taking its toll in lives and money.
2. Falsification of greenhouse? What a bunch of jerks.
3. what exactly is a prole? Is that short for proletariat?
4. In CapelDodgyWorld, the Sun stopped influencing climate around 1950
5. You invent factoids and then defy others to debunk them?
6. So your solution is to stop all car and plane transport right NOW?
7. the lying BushTurd Administration is denying or minimizing AGW
8. Do you have kin? Little ones? When they eventually ask you why you expended your efforts in denying the reality of AGW and making their adult lives more dangerous and precarious: WHAT WILL YOU TELL THEM?
9. New Orleans was Katrina's fault, and Katrina was caused by AGW.
10. Now you're saying Economics and Statistics are not science?
11. All evils lead to CO2
12. You will note this has been a rational discussion.
13. LOL apparently losing half the ice in the arctic is a laughably insignificant indicator. Run for that ice!
14. See? I am a reasonable person. Well, sort of....
15. the results do not bode well for alarmists. Particularly for fundamentalist faith based reasoning by the Gored.
16. Ice cores can tell us interesting stories.
17. it's not clear what point you're trying to make, but then it rarely is.
18. Black Knight: None shall pass.
19. Fire Ants. Spreading. World wide. Hot ants. AGW. Ant-Global Warming.
20. do you mean creating an artificial value (carbon credits) for carbon emissions, which in reality has a value of zero?
21. Debunk Singer's core theory, of the 1,500 year climate cycle. Debunk what? A novel? Come on...
22. When things really get bad and we have to take drastic action to counteract our Destructor-behavior - please get thee to a corner and stay there so you don't get underfoot and impede our efforts.
23. AUP and I will debunk anything you guys come up with. "sound of pump action shotgun chambering another round"
24. In Texas we prefer chain saws. That arm holding the shotgun, did it used to be part of you?

And the winner is ...

You will note that this has been a rational discussion

 

[CapelDodger]

Yes, it did. When I looked it up the issue was vaporization into the atmosphere of the generally rich fuel mixture, eg, unburned fuel into the atmosphere. And the phrase was "greenhouse gas equivalents" , you know, the way (which I don't agree with by the way) ...

Quelle surprise.

And yet you go by it when it's applied to Jakarta.

... they add up the pollutants into some kind of "equivalence of carbon dioxide".

Simply fuelling up six billion SUV's is going to release a lot of fumes. Aka "unburnt fuel". Six billion SUV's and a few hundred thousand two-strokes in Jakarta. This horse is beyond flogging.

All evils lead to CO2, so to speak.

Again with the "evil".

So, yes, we discussed it, yes, it sounded bizzaro, yes, a bit more research was done, and yes....it looked like they sort of had it right. Now....it's such a great little bit of spin...how can one not use it?

It's transparent bollocks. As spin it worked on you, but that doesn't make it great spin. It's more like leading with your chin.

I particularly like it because it puts into some perspective that the USA is not the greatest evil on the planet as far as this subject goes.

The USA doesn't house six billion SUV's. So how does the USA come into it?

It's not all about the USA, you know. You should check out China - or Jakarta, even, you'll find SUV's there. In the modern world, your ride defines your status just as your armour did back in the day. And an SUV is the must-have symbol. Unless you're cool, of course.

Why, it's as good as the Northwest Passage, New York under water, in my humble opinion.

The Northwest Passage opening up is ripe for spinning because it's actually happening. Spin up, spin down, whatever, there it actually is. Your Jakarta thing really isn't.

The idea of New York under water probably goes down well in some quarters.

But the lonely polar bear on the little chunk of ice, that takes the cake.

The sufferings of polar bears are also ripe for spinning. They are so photogenic (especially the cubs) and they are suffering.

 

[CapelDodger]

No, the IPCC clearly spells out what the greenhouse gases are and never makes the claim it is the only one. It is the only one that is, however, doubling in content.

More generally, it's the one that's accumulating. The others are relatively transient and concentrations quickly reflect the rate of input; methane and hydrocarbons are transients that actually produce CO2 when they break down. CO2 hangs about once it's arrived.

Which is the problem, really. Unlike smog, you can't see it or feel it in your throat, so there's no general sense of urgency.

 

[Safe-Keeper]

This is straying even farther off-topic, but I'm game.

I particularly like it because it puts into some perspective that the USA is not the greatest evil on the planet as far as this subject goes.

And we said otherwise how? Or are you suggesting that because someone else is not performing according to standard, neither should the USA? You know, good old Kindergarten 'I'm not doing it 'till Li'l Johnny does it!'-style?

Oh, and this might be of interest. Fact is that the US releases more Co2 annually than any other nation on the planet. It's silly beyond belief to stall and point to the lesser evils of China and India, or, for that matter, the scooter-driving commuters of Jakarta.

Oh, and you might want to have a look at this page. Where are the global warming baddies of China and India again? Are they hiding behind those green countries in South-East Asia [/cheap shot]?

 

[mhaze]

Quelle surprise.
And yet you go by it when it's applied to Jakarta.
Simply fuelling up six billion SUV's is going to release a lot of fumes. Aka "unburnt fuel". Six billion SUV's and a few hundred thousand two-strokes in Jakarta. This horse is beyond flogging.

Again with the "evil".

It's transparent bollocks. As spin it worked on you, but that doesn't make it great spin. It's more like leading with your chin.

The USA doesn't house six billion SUV's. So how does the USA come into it?

The sufferings of polar bears are also ripe for spinning. They are so photogenic (especially the cubs) and they are suffering.

My BAD. Here is the post. It was only 5 billion. Now, are you happy?

Meanwhile as we talk, hundreds of thousands of motorbikes in Jakarta each pollute more than an average USA car, and no one cares. And China just took our enshrined position as the biggest CO2 emitter.

DUUUUUUUUUUHHHHHHHHHHH!!!!!!!!!!!​

Excuse me, but it was 3 million bikes in Jakarta.... and I quote

Two-stroke engine pollution is a particular problem in the developing countries of South and Southeast Asia, where more than 100 million two-stroke vehicles produce pollution equivalent to 5 billion automobiles each year. Localized bans fail to remove two-strokes from the larger market as nothing of value is discarded in developing countries.

Equal to 5 BILLION AUTOS!!!! Sheeesssh... And people want to control and regulate my (our) behavior! To "save the planet". Unbelievable.
​

 

[mhaze]

This is straying even farther off-topic, but I'm game.
And we said otherwise how? Or are you suggesting that because someone else is not performing according to standard, neither should the USA? You know, good old Kindergarten 'I'm not doing it 'till Li'l Johnny does it!'-style?

Oh, and this might be of interest. Fact is that the US releases more Co2 annually than any other nation on the planet.

It's silly beyond belief to stall and point to the lesser evils of China and India, or, for that matter, the scooter-driving commuters of Jakarta.

China is top bad gas dog now. And it's not silly at all to look at obvious, possibly easily fixed issues.

The USA did better percentage wise without Kyoto than Kyoto nations did with it. No brag. just facts.

Your neighbors in Finland are all fixed to get some $400 Euro per year per house higher utility bill in the name of Kyoto.

That's "good"? Why?

 

[mhaze]

This is straying even farther off-topic, but I'm game.
And we said otherwise how? Or are you suggesting that because someone else is not performing according to standard, neither should the USA? You know, good old Kindergarten 'I'm not doing it 'till Li'l Johnny does it!'-style?

Oh, and this might be of interest. Fact is that the US releases more Co2 annually than any other nation on the planet. It's silly beyond belief to stall and point to the lesser evils of China and India, or, for that matter, the scooter-driving commuters of Jakarta.

Oh, and you might want to have a look at this page. Where are the global warming baddies of China and India again? Are they hiding behind those green countries in South-East Asia [/cheap shot]?

from www.climateaudit.org unthreaded #19 ...

No Consensus Hits TV

Last night, Fox News, Brit Hume asked:
“How Many Scientists Say That Mankind Is Affecting Global Warming?”

Conventional Wisdom
Earlier this year the U.N.’s Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change said it was “90 percent likely” that man was having an impact on global temperatures. And dailytech.com reports an analysis of scientific papers in 2004 concluded that a majority of researchers supported what it called the “consensus view” that humans were effecting climate change.
But now a study of all research papers between 2004 and 2007 indicates only seven percent give an explicit endorsement of that so-called consensus. Forty-five percent give an implicit endorsement. But 48 percent of the papers are classified as neutral — neither accepting nor rejecting the hypothesis. And only one of the 528 papers reviewed makes any reference to climate change leading to catastrophic results.
​

read the rest here

 

[CapelDodger]

Evidence? Once again CapelDodgy produces yet another invented factoid.

Solar influence has not increased since the 1950's. Volcanic influence has not decreased since about 1900. The thermal inertia of the oceans smooths out variations in forcings (inertia does have that effect). What's invented out of that?

Perhaps then you can explain where James Hansen is going to conjure sealevel rise of several meters in the next 100 years?

I think the Hansen position is "more than a metre", which is not "several metres" by any honest stretch.

The metre-and-more projection includes the loss of ice-mass. Sea-level rise has been dominated by thermal expansion until recently, the last decade or so, but now the melt is getting into its stride. Ice-mass has its own inertia but that's been overcome. Loss of ice-mass is outstripping the forecasts quite significantly. Given the positive albedo feedback there's no reason to expect that to change, and there's more than enough ice outside the Antarctic and Greenland icecaps to increase sea-levels by a metre. Relative to the total volume of the oceans that's not much.

When they're not produced by Creationists like Hansen, maybe. Or Houghton.

What a strange person you are.

Because of the science? You invent factoids and then defy others to debunk them? This is standard CT behavior.

I've invented nothing, not even a Marxist conspiracy to explain AGW's increasing orthodoxy. As I recall, you have invented a Marxist conspiracy for just that purpose. (Or had it invented for you and bought in.)

You have a long history of ignoring facts that don't fit your long standing belief that industrial society of whatever kind MUST be responsible in large part for changes in climate.

Increasing atmospheric CO2-load is the driver of current climate change. Modern industrial society is the cause of the increasing CO2-load, by its consumption of fossil-fuels as an energy source. Pre-modern industrial society that depended on water- and wind-power as energy sources had no such effect and didn't influence the climate. It's the burning of fossil-fuels that's responsible for climate change, not industrial society.

Again standard CT behavior. Make ridiculous claim based on no evidence and then try to get others to disprove it.

Do what now ?

It's undeniable that there was a significant change in land-use between 7000 and 4000 years ago as agricultural society developed exponentially. Is it ridiculous to think that it might have an influence on climate?

Produce the evidence that the Holocene maximum was anthropogenic. You know - science. The thing you're ignorant of.

The Holocene maximum was more than 7000 years ago and was the result of natural causes. I've never argued anything different.

Yes it could. It could also be entirely false, as a sea-level expert explains.

A sea-level expert explains? The link didn't work for me, perhaps you could give me a precis of his argument.

No it isn't. In CapelDodgyWorld, the Sun stopped influencing climate around 1950 (see above)

Solar input stabilised in the 1950's. That's an observed fact. GCM's would reflect any variation since then, given that they do incorporate solar influence. They also reflect the absence of such variation. Which is what's been observed in the real world.

There's no alarmism in responding to alarmism.

As a long standing climate alarmist since the Ice Age scare of the 1970s you should know all about spinning minor changes in climate into apocalyptic visions of the future.

You keep pretending you knew me in the 70's. We've never met. I was sceptical about AGW in the 70's, and there never was an Ice Age scare. That's the truth of the matter. You'll keep calling me a liar, but it's not me you're referring to in any real sense. You're referring to a tiny-minded paranoid bigot's projection of me. Which is pretty much all you've got to go on.

The point being that the actual contribution of sea-level rise from Antarctica at the moment is negative.

You're quite sure of your sources for that? Some of them might be scientists, after all, so you have to allow for the Marxist bias. It's numpties like you that take refuge in Central Antarctica's stability.

Ah! You've spotted your arguments as well.

Sad. The twat I was responding to has apparently fled the field while my reputation remains intact. Your reputation as an A-list carpet-biter remains similarly unsullied.

 

[a_unique_person]

My BAD. Here is the post. It was only 5 billion. Now, are you happy?

Meanwhile as we talk, hundreds of thousands of motorbikes in Jakarta each pollute more than an average USA car, and no one cares. And China just took our enshrined position as the biggest CO2 emitter.

DUUUUUUUUUUHHHHHHHHHHH!!!!!!!!!!!​

Excuse me, but it was 3 million bikes in Jakarta.... and I quote

Two-stroke engine pollution is a particular problem in the developing countries of South and Southeast Asia, where more than 100 million two-stroke vehicles produce pollution equivalent to 5 billion automobiles each year. Localized bans fail to remove two-strokes from the larger market as nothing of value is discarded in developing countries.

Equal to 5 BILLION AUTOS!!!! Sheeesssh... And people want to control and regulate my (our) behavior! To "save the planet". Unbelievable.
​

You might this hard to believe, but the US is still the single biggest creater or CO2.

Kyoto was created in 1997, that's ten years ago. It was intended that the wealthy Western countries would set up a structure that would then be ready to be used globally when the new treaty was set up in 2012. So it doesn't just pick on the USA, but it did look to the USA for leadership.

 

[mhaze]

I think the Hansen position is "more than a metre", which is not "several metres" by any honest stretch.

Really?

It appears Al Gore was way off on his 20 ft. sea level claim as Hansen is now saying 80 ft by 2100
​

Increasing atmospheric CO2-load is the driver of current climate change. Modern industrial society is the cause of the increasing CO2-load, by its consumption of fossil-fuels as an energy source.

Nonsense.

 

[mhaze]

You might this hard to believe, but the US is still the single biggest creater or CO2.

Google it.

Kyoto was created in 1997, that's ten years ago. It was intended that the wealthy Western countries would set up a structure that would then be ready to be used globally when the new treaty was set up in 2012. So it doesn't just pick on the USA, but it did look to the USA for leadership.

Leadership you got but follow you didn't.

We led by refusing to buy into that very bad scheme.

History proved us right.

 

[Pipirr]

But 48 percent of the papers are classified as neutral — neither accepting nor rejecting the hypothesis. And only one of the 528 papers reviewed makes any reference to climate change leading to catastrophic results.

Neutral, in the sense that the authors made no explicit statement to the effect that "our findings confirm/contradict the AGW hypothesis".

However, it's entirely possible that the paper's findings did in fact support the hypothesis of AGW, and further bolstered the evidence base for the IPCC reports.

An awful lot of climate scientists are not working in a paradigm of confirming or refuting the AGW hypothesis. That just isn't a useful way to conduct research, especially when one's research area may be small, focused and in and of itself unable to confirm or reject the AGW hypothesis.

However, taken together, such small pieces of evidence are added up and will form the basis of reports such as the IPCC.

I use the Web of Science frequently myself, and the last few weeks, just for fun, have been conducting searches using search terms such as "global warming" and "climate change." Know what that gets you? Non peer reviewed opinion pieces, for the most part. To reveal the vast evidentiary base for the hypothesis of AGW, you need to be rather more targeted with your search terms.

For the most part, it really is neutral science. The study you reference found only one paper that mentioned AGW leading to catastrophe. The scholarly and learned climate science journals are not publishing such alarmism, even as they publish more and more papers that refine and bolster the hypothesis of AGW.

I do hope you appreciate the sheer amount of scientific research that would have to be refuted for the AGW hypothesis to fall. That's not to say that you shouldn't tilt at it, as after all criticism and skepticism will always have a role to play.

 

[Safe-Keeper]

There's no alarmism in responding to alarmism.

Say what you want, but in my eyes, stating that a Communist cabal plots far-left reforms and gargantuan taxes in the States after falsifying climate science by buying thousands of scientists... makes you sound alarmist, yes.

Equal to 5 BILLION AUTOS!!!! Sheeesssh...

6 billion SUVs≠5 billion generic cars. If this is even true. Glad we got that sorted out.

And people want to control and regulate my (our) behavior!

See my earlier post. To refuse to take action because others in your eyes aren't meeting your standards is childish to the extreme.

To "save the planet". Unbelievable.

Am I hearing an appeal to personal incredulity? Looks like a strawman, too.

Out 48 percent of the papers are classified as neutral — neither accepting nor rejecting the hypothesis

And out of the remaining 52%, is there a single one that denies AGW is real?

 

[CapelDodger]

I don't speak for AUP, but my contention is with your statement "CO2 being the main driver of climate".

All other things being equal (including the sun), then increasing levels of CO2 can be a main driver of "climate change".

It is the change in the Earth's climate that is at issue here, is it not?

The current change in climate is the issue, of course. You have to nail weasels down very precisely to stop them wriggling. Contrarians habitually take refuge in a past that, unsurprisingly, doesn't reflect an artificial CO2 forcing by the planet's first industrialised species, which is certainly the main driver of climate change today. Obviously, the Sun and orbital cycles have been the main drivers of climate change in the past. Everything else has been feedback. This time is different. Contrarians prefer obfuscation to facing that fact. "Hasn't happened before" is their deeply conservative watchword.

 

[CapelDodger]

My BAD. Here is the post. It was only 5 billion. Now, are you happy?

Hardly. Seeing you look sad and stranded on an ice-floe would be a blast but even then ... Happy? I'm not sure I can do it.

Meanwhile as we talk, hundreds of thousands of motorbikes in Jakarta each pollute more than an average USA car, and no one cares. And China just took our enshrined position as the biggest CO2 emitter.​

DUUUUUUUUUUHHHHHHHHHHH!!!!!!!!!!!​

Excuse me, but it was 3 million bikes in Jakarta.... and I quote

Two-stroke engine pollution is a particular problem in the developing countries of South and Southeast Asia, where more than 100 million two-stroke vehicles produce pollution equivalent to 5 billion automobiles each year. Localized bans fail to remove two-strokes from the larger market as nothing of value is discarded in developing countries.

Equal to 5 BILLION AUTOS!!!! Sheeesssh... And people want to control and regulate my (our) behavior! To "save the planet". Unbelievable.

​

Just a billion out, "pollution" not greenhouse gas equivalent, "autos" not SUV's, South-East Asia not Jakarta. That's the "sad", and worth a giggle in itself, but the "stranded on an ice-floe" is still missing.