Climat Change is not a commie myth.

[A_Nony_Mouse]

My Methuselah points are that what opinion there is on global melting is that it was once a global ice age. I have made several other Methuselah points such as by the SAME scientists have have taken up melting as a political cause, if was in fact to late to do anything about it in 1999, also in 2000, 2001, and 2002 because by those years it was too late to do anything about it as in "in ten years it will be too late" (insert hysterical exclamation points here)

Melting of the Arctic sea ice is not a political cause, it is a scientific fact. Second point - you failed top address poppy's point.

And it is a fact that, absent satellite cameras, it appeared nearly as short of ice in the early 1930s as it is today.

That aside as I do not know if I can find the article again, the idea that a total absence of arctic sea ice is BAD is a political idea. IF there is no arctic ice that implies the arctic is warmer meaning all the land north of the arctic circle should be opening to food production instead of tourists looking at polar bears.

Then also the commercial gains of direct shipping between northern Europe and Asia, the fabled Northwest Passage hardly needs be mentioned. Also it will open the arctic oil fields to much easier exploitation.

If you can convince me those two points are BAD absolutely rather than just a political position devoid of scientific content I will come up with a few more advantages such as no more arctic icebergs.

One can always resort to argumentation but is of no more value in melting than it is with god(s). Physical evidence only.

I have no idea what point I did not address but I am sure he will point it out to me.

[orogenicman]

Most scientists do, in fact, have an understanding of the greenhouse effect (a demonstrable natural phenomenon), and agree that you cannot pump 6 billion tons and increasing of GHGs into the world's atmosphere every year and have no effect on the atmosphere. The atmosphere does not exist in isolation from humanity. They are having measurable negative effects. And given the fact that the Carbon cycle takes about 100 years to go full circle, those effects will be around with us for quite some time to come.

Scientists also know that if one builds two greenhouses one with IR reflecting glass and the other without the effect is the same. That means trapped IR is not the cause of the increased temperature of a greenhouse.

According to New Scientist 4 June 2011 pg 6 the human contribution in 2010 for CO2 emissions 30.6 GT up 1.6GT from 2009, G as in giga as in billion tons.

If one prefers "secular" sources this number was repeated in a New York Times article, 12/08/14 31.6 GT human in 2011.

Sure sounds awfuller than the 6GT you mention. But the total atmospheric CO2 750-830 GT making the uncertainty 80GT about +/-5% +/-40GT. One must note the human contribution per year is less than the uncertainty.

If the human contribution were cumulative we can do the following.

As CO2 makes up only 0.03% of the atmosphere this means roughly a 0.04% increase in CO2 per year or or 0.0001% increase in total atmospheric CO2.

So, in other words, you believe that the greenhouse effect doesn't exist. I am afraid that you are going to have a difficult time convincing most of the world's scientists that what you believe is true.

---

In fact, it was a joint award given to the authors of the 2007 IPCC climate report and Al Gore. Mann was one of those authors, and received a certificate from the IPCC in recognition of his efforts that contributed to the award, as were all the other authors. End of story.

Of course you don't need to refute any science. Given that it is highly doubtful that you could argue the issue with a 10 year old, I can understand your reluctance.

To assume that a peace prize, Nobel or otherwise, has any bearing upon the science involved is to assume Peres, Arafat and Kissinger and Ho Chi Minh were the supreme advocates of peace. As the peace prize barely addresses peace the suggestion it supports any science at all is ludicrous.

---

I made no such assumption. I was simply pointing out the facts.

That invented save even lead one crackpot to claim warming could result in an ice age. I am sorry but anyone claiming global warming leads to cooling is going to have to give me the definitions of both warming and cooling they are using.

As to shutting of the GULF not jet stream that is no more than a hypothetical from years ago which has since been rejected one grounds of 1) not that simple and 2) if the Arctic melting stops tomorrow the inertial will continue the flow for a thousand years.

Scientists are not saying that global warming leads to cooling. They are saying that it leads to more extreme weather. AGW is causing an increase in atmospheric moisture in some regions, and in many of those regions is causing an increase in precipitation. Add normal cold winter temperatures to the mix and you get an increase in snowfall. We are seeing that in North America, in Eurasia, and in Eastern Antarctica. AGW is also causing decreases in atmospheric moisture in some regions, which is leading to increased and more severe droughts. Extreme weather, not global cooling.

---

Melting of the Arctic sea ice is not a political cause, it is a scientific fact. Second point - you failed top address poppy's point.

And it is a fact that, absent satellite cameras, it appeared nearly as short of ice in the early 1930s as it is today.

And your evidence of this would be?

That aside as I do not know if I can find the article again, the idea that a total absence of arctic sea ice is BAD is a political idea. IF there is no arctic ice that implies the arctic is warmer meaning all the land north of the arctic circle should be opening to food production instead of tourists looking at polar bears.

By all means, please find the article. The Arctic sea ice is the northern Hemisphere's 'air conditioning' in that it moderates temperatures and gives us our four seasons. Without it, plants and animals that depend on those four seasons will instead either have to adapt to two seasons (wet and dry) or go extinct. That would necessarily include ALL of our food crops. Moreover, the Arctic is currently experiencing more warming than just about any other place on the planet. While the planet is seeing an increase of a degree or so, the Arctic has seen an increase over nearly 10 degrees. The argument that more land will open up to farming just doesn't hold up, since that will come at a heavy price in that much of the land that was 'formerly' used for farming will no longer be productive. And that will mean a huge political and economic shift affecting tens of millions of people. And this is just scratching the surface with regard to the likely negative outcome.

Then also the commercial gains of direct shipping between northern Europe and Asia, the fabled Northwest Passage hardly needs be mentioned. Also it will open the arctic oil fields to much easier exploitation.

Yes, it is recognize that there could be gains with respect to shipping lanes. It also means political battles with regard to who controls those lanes and what products will can be shipped. I also think the argument about increased exploitation of the Arctic resources is a huge can of worms.

[A_Nony_Mouse]

...
[quote=n. mouse]Another Methuselah point is that those same experts NEVER said greater variability until about five years ago. It was only after measurable warming had obviously stopped that they started using variability instead of warming.

This is not true, of course. Variability in regional climates have always been considered in climate models. If you believe they haven't been, then it is up to you to show on what you are basing your conclusion.

If your point is that it was more than five years ago, please cite the 1990 claim that it was only variability instead of warming. If you want to argue ten rather than five, I will concede the extra five years. I will say I first heard of variability instead of warming when variability was prefaced by ALWAYS SAID. Been there, done that, sorry but is is a recent T-shirt.

<snip>

My position is IF one cites the same experts on the same subject then one has an absolute right to consider their credibility over time in the manner of their politicized statement.

Which experts would they be? And which politicized statements are you referring to?

I am referring to ALL the people who are cited by the political melter types. If you wish to quote any of them please feel free to use the people with the highest reputation you can find. I will respond. This really only means I never bothered to memorize their names and organizations.

I will be happy to read why they were wrong on both 'ten years or too late' and on why warming went to variability and what they have done to change their models and why those changes lead to their new political statements.

I've yet to see you show that they were wrong about anything. I've seen you make various claims, but you've presented no scientific refutation to support those claims, nor have you cited scientific references in support of your claims.

That does not make sense. They, they as in ALL the experts who started this hysteria were saying around 1990 that in ten years it would be to late to do anything about global warming. It is now more than ten years. It is too late. Why have they not shut up?

I my first post on the subject here I also raised the best of all global climates assumption. Note the graphs below have also changed in how they are described. It used to be considered a disastrous change period. Now it is a change faster than at any known time in history and is disastrous for the rate of change not the amount of change.

Yet another one of your unfounded claims. Climate scientists have said all along that the rate of change is as significant as the level of GHG build up in the atmosphere (and in fact, they go hand in hand), and that both have potentially disastrous consequences..

If you do in fact assert they always said rate of change, and we agree on the fact they always said change, then I invite you to cite the ALWAYS from the late 1980s to early 1990s.

The difference between potentially disastrous and disastrous is a great as night and day. If you do not understand the difference in rate of change in context you do not know enough about the subject to have an opinion.

You may feel free to say the same about me. Machts nichts.

Please explain why all temperature measurements have to be from absolute zero and the difference between heat and temperature.

Notice in these charts it is again a matter of where one puts the zero however it is not arbitrary it is as old as one can pretend is possible with a straight face.

First of all the second graph plots global average temperatures over time, and so has no zero line of deviation to plot. Secondly, even if one choose a different zero line in the first graph, the slope of the plot does not change. In both graphs, warming is apparent.

Fine with me. You have no idea how to read the graphs you are presenting. Pardon but I have other posts to read and respond to without wasting any more time on you.

Have a better one.

[orogenicman]

This is not true, of course. Variability in regional climates have always been considered in climate models. If you believe they haven't been, then it is up to you to show on what you are basing your conclusion.

If your point is that it was more than five years ago, please cite the 1990 claim that it was only variability instead of warming. If you want to argue ten rather than five, I will concede the extra five years. I will say I first heard of variability instead of warming when variability was prefaced by ALWAYS SAID. Been there, done that, sorry but is is a recent T-shirt.

My point is that variability in regional climates have always been considered in climate models. Is this not clear?

<snip>


Which experts would they be? And which politicized statements are you referring to?

I am referring to ALL the people who are cited by the political melter types. If you wish to quote any of them please feel free to use the people with the highest reputation you can find. I will respond. This really only means I never bothered to memorize their names and organizations.

If Mitch McConnell cites Newton's laws a gravity when a landslide occurs, is he making a political statement?

I've yet to see you show that they were wrong about anything. I've seen you make various claims, but you've presented no scientific refutation to support those claims, nor have you cited scientific references in support of your claims.

That does not make sense. They, they as in ALL the experts who started this hysteria were saying around 1990 that in ten years it would be to late to do anything about global warming. It is now more than ten years. It is too late. Why have they not shut up?

Really? Every single one? See, this is the problem. You make these blanket claims with nothing to support them, and then act surprised when someone questions them. Why is that?

Yet another one of your unfounded claims. Climate scientists have said all along that the rate of change is as significant as the level of GHG build up in the atmosphere (and in fact, they go hand in hand), and that both have potentially disastrous consequences..

If you do in fact assert they always said rate of change, and we agree on the fact they always said change, then I invite you to cite the ALWAYS from the late 1980s to early 1990s.

I understand that conservatives and other deniers have an issue with using Wikipedia as a source, but I have neither the time nor the inclination to dig up peer reviewed papers from the 1980s to make my point. I've been a certified professional geologist since 1988, and have kept up with most aspects of my field for a very long time. So I believe I am in a better position than you to know what has been said and even more importantly, what has not be said.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_...ge_science

The difference between potentially disastrous and disastrous is a great as night and day. If you do not understand the difference in rate of change in context you do not know enough about the subject to have an opinion.

Of course that is a ridiculous claim. It will not potentially become night after the day. We know that it will.

Please explain why all temperature measurements have to be from absolute zero and the difference between heat and temperature.

I would if I understood what the hell you were referring to with regard to absolute zero.

First of all the second graph plots global average temperatures over time, and so has no zero line of deviation to plot. Secondly, even if one choose a different zero line in the first graph, the slope of the plot does not change. In both graphs, warming is apparent.

Fine with me. You have no idea how to read the graphs you are presenting. Pardon but I have other posts to read and respond to without wasting any more time on you.

That would come as a shock to those who have paid me a lot of money over the decades to plot graphs just like the ones in question. This is it? This is all you have? Really?

[Minimalist]

And remember, global warming is a long term trend, not a short term variation

Jesus freaks hate long term trends....they have an attention span which can barely handle a bible verse.

[A_Nony_Mouse]

That would come as a shock to those who have paid me a lot of money over the decades to plot graphs just like the ones in question. This is it? This is all you have? Really?

I have no idea what the development of graphing, which was invented by Galileo FYI, has to do with your inability to understand them. In connection with your claim to be a certified professional geologist, that appears to be something a soil engineer would be called. Scientists are NEVER certified. It is beneath them. That a title includes the name of a science does not make the person a scientist.

Your dodge and weave responses clearly indicate you do not understand the issues much less the subject.

---

And remember, global warming is a long term trend, not a short term variation

Jesus freaks hate long term trends....they have an attention span which can barely handle a bible verse.

I am sort of intrigued how a mere century can be considered other than a short term variation of 4.5 billion years.

---

If Mitch McConnell cites Newton's laws a gravity when a landslide occurs, is he making a political statement?

When and if he does you get back to me and we can talk about it.

I understand that conservatives and other deniers have an issue with using Wikipedia as a source,
[/quote]

Then you do not understand anything. All educated people have a problem with ANONYMOUS sources like wikipedia.

[Aractus]

In fact, it was a joint award given to the authors of the 2007 IPCC climate report and Al Gore. Mann was one of those authors, and received a certificate from the IPCC in recognition of his efforts that contributed to the award, as were all the other authors. End of story.

You're wrong. It wasn't awarded to the authors - it was awarded to the IPCC. Mann took it to court as you know. Mann believes he won the award, he did not.

Of course you don't need to refute any science. Given that it is highly doubtful that you could argue the issue with a 10 year old, I can understand your reluctance.

Oh please, I've followed the EGHE science for close to a decade, it has not advanced and many of the previous claims have been long since discredited or disproven. The EGHE has an effect on our climate, it has had a contributing effect towards the global trend, however I believe that the science shows the upper limit of the effect that it had in the 20th century (1900-2000) is 0.1-0.2 degrees Celsius. The actual, physical global warming trend for that same period is 0.6-0.7 degrees; thus the majority of the trend is not attributable to EGHE's nor a subset of EGHE's.

I also believe NASA who in 2010 published their modelling that has CO2 contributing less than half of the EGHE and Methane and Black carbon contributing the bulk of the other half. It is, however, important to mention this to simple minds.

Even IF the full 0.6-0.7 degree trend is actually solely attributable to EGHE's, then CO2's modelled contribution of 47% makes it attributable for ~0.3 degrees of warming in the 20th century (upper limit).

Now go discuss this nonsense of yours with the uneducated masses.

[KichigaiNeko]

@ Kichi

As far as solutions go scientists have been telling us the solution for years. Cut back on the amount of CO2 we are pumping into the atmosphere. Methods to do that include using different methods to generate our energy, capturing the carbon before it released, and taxing the shit out of it in order to make it uneconomical. I'm not a big fan of the last one, but the first two are viable if we are willing to tighten the belt a couple of notches and make the capital investments required. No it isn’t going to bring warming to a sudden halt. It would however result in less warming over the long term.

They have also been telling what we need to do to adapt. Besides for developing alternative energy production we need to use energy more efficiently. We need to stop development in low lying costal and other flood prone areas. We need to start moving people out of those areas. More work needs to be done developing drought-resistant plants. Planting and harvesting schedules need to be modified.

Is that ALL?

We have been doing this for close to 50 years and still the warming trend and the inevitability of climate change is a given. Recently read some news articles (won't vouch for their accuracy) that were stating that Australia had reduced it's CO2 output by roughly 5% of 2002 figures (?) and being able to utilise Solar for residential use have cut our energy consumption by 40% further thanks to the GFC our industries are no longer putting out CO2 (amongst other gasses) and our REAL jobless rate is around 11.5% of a population of only 23 million.

I get rather irritable when I have well meaning people yelling at the population with alarmist rhetoric like we are so stupid that we haven't got the message and our governments are doing nothing. Taxing the shit out of a product as abundant as leaves is rather counter intuitive as the current Carbon price @ $3/ metric ton attests. I brings no revenue, only cost to governments who have to scramble to find funding for other initiatives.

[Aractus]

Also, and I think this is an important point, the increased CO2 levels are not solely anthropogenic. If we were not emitting, then CO2 levels would still be increasing. CO2 increases by about 40% of what we emit so there is a strong correlation. But correlation doesn't mean causation for that would assume that if we weren't emitting then CO2 levels would drop by 150% of the amount that they're presently increasing by - which is obviously nonsensical!

Yet I still see this claim made all the time by alarmists that we have total control over the CO2 levels - we don't. Atmospheric CO2 concentrations wouldn't drop at 150% of the rate of increase if we weren't emitting, it would still be climbing, albeit by only about half the present growth rate.

[orogenicman]

That would come as a shock to those who have paid me a lot of money over the decades to plot graphs just like the ones in question. This is it? This is all you have? Really?

I have no idea what the development of graphing, which was invented by Galileo FYI, has to do with your inability to understand them. In connection with your claim to be a certified professional geologist, that appears to be something a soil engineer would be called. Scientists are NEVER certified. It is beneath them. That a title includes the name of a science does not make the person a scientist.

Erm, graphs were invented by Leonhard Euler. You didn't know this? Huh. Soil science is only one aspect of geology, which is, after all, the study of the Earth - ALL of it.

Your dodge and weave responses clearly indicate you do not understand the issues much less the subject.

Says the person who has yet to answer any of my questions.

If Mitch McConnell cites Newton's laws a gravity when a landslide occurs, is he making a political statement?

When and if he does you get back to me and we can talk about it.

I doubt that McConnell even realizes how much gravity is affecting his sorry arse.

I understand that conservatives and other deniers have an issue with using Wikipedia as a source,

Then you do not understand anything. All educated people have a problem with ANONYMOUS sources like wikipedia.

First of all, I didn't post it because of its anonymous author. I posted it because it contains easily verifiable NON-anonymous references. Secondly, as someone with 9 years of college, I must tell you that you are WRONG! Would I use it as a reference in a peer reviewed publication? Of course not. But for general use it is perfectly acceptable. Now, did you actually go to the link and read the contents, and browse the references contained therein? I doubt that you did, and if that is the case, then don't complain to me about Wikipedia if you aren't willing to vet what it has to say.

---

In fact, it was a joint award given to the authors of the 2007 IPCC climate report and Al Gore. Mann was one of those authors, and received a certificate from the IPCC in recognition of his efforts that contributed to the award, as were all the other authors. End of story.

You're wrong. It wasn't awarded to the authors - it was awarded to the IPCC. Mann took it to court as you know. Mann believes he won the award, he did not.

Yes, it was awarded to the IPCC. "The IPCC leadership agreed
to present personalized certificates for contributing to the award
of the Nobel Peace Prize for 2007 to the IPCC to scientists that had
contributed substantially to the preparation of IPCC reports. Such
certificates, which feature a copy of the Nobel Peace Prize diploma,
were sent to coordinating lead authors, lead authors, review editors,
Bureau members, staff of the technical support units and staff of the
secretariat from the IPCC’s inception in 1988 until the award of the prize in 2007. The IPCC has not sent such certificates to contributing
authors, expert reviewers and focal points."

Are we clear?

Of course you don't need to refute any science. Given that it is highly doubtful that you could argue the issue with a 10 year old, I can understand your reluctance.

Oh please, I've followed the EGHE science for close to a decade, it has not advanced and many of the previous claims have been long since discredited or disproven. The EGHE has an effect on our climate, it has had a contributing effect towards the global trend, however I believe that the science shows the upper limit of the effect that it had in the 20th century (1900-2000) is 0.1-0.2 degrees Celsius. The actual, physical global warming trend for that same period is 0.6-0.7 degrees; thus the majority of the trend is not attributable to EGHE's nor a subset of EGHE's.

I am going to assume you mean enhanced greenhouse emissions. Since the beginning of the industrial revolution, concentrations of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere have increased nearly 30 per cent, methane concentrations have more than doubled, and nitrous oxide concentrations have risen by about 15 per cent.

http://jncc.defra.gov.uk/page-4389



Carbon dioxide is the single largest contributor to the enhanced greenhouse effect. Increases in carbon dioxide emissions account for approximately 70 per cent of the enhanced greenhouse effect. Using ice cores from the Antarctic, scientists estimate that the concentration of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere in the pre-industrial era had a value of approximately 280 parts per million (ppm). Measurements in 2005 put it at 379 ppm. The 2005 figures also tell a story of alarming growth. The 2005 carbon dioxide levels exceeded the natural range of atmospheric carbon dioxide over the last 650,000 years (180 to 300 ppm). In addition, even though there has been year to year variability (at an average of 1.9 ppm), the annual growth rate of carbon dioxide concentrations in the atmosphere was larger during the 10 years between 1995 and 2005 than it had been since the beginning of continuous direct atmospheric measurements between 1960 and 2005 (average: 1.4 ppm per year) (IPCC, 2007).

It is true that natural sources of carbon dioxide - plant respiration and decomposition of organic matter - generate more than 10 times the amount of carbon dioxide produced by human activities such as driving motor vehicles, heating homes and powering factories. However, in the past, natural processes that remove or sequester carbon dioxide from the atmosphere, namely photosynthesis and the carbon reservoir function of the oceans, balanced out these releases.

We now have a situation where not only are additional sources producing and emitting carbon dioxide in significant quantities but the natural sinks that remove carbon dioxide are also being compromised. Trees and forests are being cut down for a variety or reasons, including agriculture and human settlements. At the same time, oceans, including the North and South Atlantic oceans, are reaching their carbon dioxide saturation point because their absorptive capacity is failing to keep pace with the increase in carbon dioxide emissions. A 10-year study by the University of East Anglia found that the North Atlantic halved its absorption of carbon dioxide between the mid-90s and 2000 to 2005. Scientists previously thought the carbon sink function of the oceans would help offset the increase in anthropogenic carbon dioxide emissions. However, this appears not to be the case. Even though a decrease in the ability of the oceans to absorb carbon dioxide was anticipated by scientists and even factored into some climate models, it seems to be happening 40 years earlier than expected.

I also believe NASA who in 2010 published their modelling that has CO2 contributing less than half of the EGHE and Methane and Black carbon contributing the bulk of the other half. It is, however, important to mention this to simple minds.

Where do you think all that methane and carbon black is coming from?

Even IF the full 0.6-0.7 degree trend is actually solely attributable to EGHE's, then CO2's modelled contribution of 47% makes it attributable for ~0.3 degrees of warming in the 20th century (upper limit).

Now go discuss this nonsense of yours with the uneducated masses.

Why, are you afraid of discussing it with someone who can actually counter some of your ridiculous claims?

In fact, Researchers at the Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory who examined effects of gaps in temperature measurements during the 20th century have concluded that global warming during that time period may have been slightly larger than the previously estimated value of roughly 0.6 degrees Celsius.

http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/200...092014.htm

In an article titled "Effect of Mission Data on Estimates of Near-Surface Temperature Change Since 1900," in the July 1 edition of the Journal of Climate, LLNL researchers Philip B. Duffy, Charles Doutriaux, Imola Fodor and Benjamin Santer studied effects of the incompleteness of surface thermometer records on the estimated 20th century warming by examining 16 climate model simulations of the surface temperature changes from 1899 to 1998.

The scientists compared temperature trends obtained from globally complete model output with temperature trends derived by sampling the model output at only those locations where temperature observations are actually available. The comparison enabled the researchers to assess the effect of missing observational data on the apparent temperature trend during the 20th century.

"We found no evidence to support the hypothesis that incomplete observational data has caused us to overestimate the true warming trend," said Duffy, lead author of the paper. "On the contrary, our results suggest that the actual warming during the 20th century may have been slightly larger than the warming estimated from the incomplete observational data of -about 0.7 degrees Celsius instead of 0.6 degrees Celsius."

Also, you might want to browse this graph:

---

Also, and I think this is an important point, the increased CO2 levels are not solely anthropogenic. If we were not emitting, then CO2 levels would still be increasing. CO2 increases by about 40% of what we emit so there is a strong correlation. But correlation doesn't mean causation for that would assume that if we weren't emitting then CO2 levels would drop by 150% of the amount that they're presently increasing by - which is obviously nonsensical!

Yet I still see this claim made all the time by alarmists that we have total control over the CO2 levels - we don't. Atmospheric CO2 concentrations wouldn't drop at 150% of the rate of increase if we weren't emitting, it would still be climbing, albeit by only about half the present growth rate.

It takes Carbon 100 years to cycle through the atmosphere. Were we to stop emitting all of our share CO2 today, it would take 100 years just to get rid of our current contribution. No one said there was a short-term fix.