Merged Global Warming Discussion II: Heated Conversation

Status
Not open for further replies.
..snipped irrelevant reply....
And the height above sea level of Al Gore's ocean view villa (that you obviously looked up to back up your assertion that it would be flooded by sea level changes :rolleyes:) is, ABC10?

P.S. The possible villa at 1504 E Mountain Drive is about 3,000 meters from the sea on a mountain side at a height of 500 feet above sea level :eek:.
However the idiocy of asserting that his villa would be flooded if you do not even know the address of the villa should be obvious to you. So the question should have been: What is the address of Al Gore's ocean view villa and what is its height above sea level?
 
Last edited:
No, politics is the process of instituting public policy. Consensus is merely an agreement on some specific common understandings. The problem with most politics is that there is no semblance of consensus, nor even the need to develop such.
Hate to say but my position on the global warming topic while changed over the years remains cynical since it's still wildly politicized - and it IS wildly politicized, particularly here in the states. It's not the data that really makes me cynical either anymore, it's the over-hyping and lack of any real change in policies that could allow anything human-related in that mix to be addressed. Figures like Al gore never really helped with that for me either.

Even so, I figure supporting renewable energy if/when it can trump fossil fuels would cancel out my skepticism related to politics anyway ;)
I won't say much else about my thoughts about the data and consensus on this one other than, I'm a little more open than I used to be to taking it at face value where politics isn't as heavily injected. I'd rather personally deal with making any technologies we apply to it more efficient, which is happening, but still only very slowly in terms of practical mainstream use
 
Last edited:
Hate to say but my position on the global warming topic while changed over the years remains cynical since it's still wildly politicized - and it IS wildly politicized, particularly here in the states. It's not the data that really makes me cynical either anymore, it's the over-hyping and lack of any real change in policies that could allow anything human-related in that mix to be addressed. Figures like Al gore never really helped with that for me either.

Even so, I figure supporting renewable energy if/when it can trump fossil fuels would cancel out my skepticism related to politics anyway ;)
I won't say much else about my thoughts about the data and consensus on this one other than, I'm a little more open than I used to be to taking it at face value where politics isn't as heavily injected. I'd rather personally deal with making any technologies we apply to it more efficient, which is happening, but still only very slowly in terms of practical mainstream use

" and it IS wildly politicized, particularly here in the states. "

how is that the case? what is politicized about climatology?
 
Hate to say but my position on the global warming topic while changed over the years remains cynical since it's still wildly politicized - and it IS wildly politicized, particularly here in the states. It's not the data that really makes me cynical either anymore, it's the over-hyping and lack of any real change in policies that could allow anything human-related in that mix to be addressed. Figures like Al gore never really helped with that for me either.

Even so, I figure supporting renewable energy if/when it can trump fossil fuels would cancel out my skepticism related to politics anyway ;)
I won't say much else about my thoughts about the data and consensus on this one other than, I'm a little more open than I used to be to taking it at face value where politics isn't as heavily injected. I'd rather personally deal with making any technologies we apply to it more efficient, which is happening, but still only very slowly in terms of practical mainstream use

You could always just focus on the results of the research.
 
He could also focus on the data

54AB933A-627B-489E-BBE319BE9FEDAC8C.jpg


735DEC0E-749C-4EFF-A3EDDCA469488883.jpg


20121230_Icesheet_mass_balance_2009_fig2.gif


No hyberbole....rapid change in a blink of an eye.

•••••
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-27506349

Carbon loss from tropical forests 'underestimated'

The amount of carbon lost from tropical forests is being significantly underestimated, a new study reports.

Experts say that in addition to loss of trees, the degradation of trees by selective logging and fires causes large amounts of "hidden" emissions.

The slow moving process has remained almost invisible to satellite observations.

The study team say that 40% of carbon emissions from deforestation in the Amazon is due to degradation.

The research is due to be published in the journal Global Change Biology.
 
China glaciers shrink 15 percent in warming
17 hours ago

China's glaciers have shrunk by thousands of square kilometres over the past 30 years as a result of climate change, state-run media reported Wednesday.The Qinghai-Tibet plateau in western China has seen its glaciers shrink by 15 percent, or 8,000 square kilometres (3,089 square miles), the official Xinhua news agency cited the Chinese Academy of Sciences (CAS) as saying.
Glacier melt in the region, which includes the Chinese portion of the Himalayas, has accelerated since the 1990s, the report cited researchers as saying, the latest sign of the impact of climate change in the region.
The report cited CAS researcher Kang Shichang as saying that "more and bigger cracks" have appeared in ice on Mount Everest, a sign of "rapidly melting glaciers".
The Qinghai-Tibet plateau covers the area China calls the Tibetan Autonomous Region as well as highland parts of neighbouring provinces.
Kang added that over the long term the glacial melt could substantially reduce the flow into several of Asia's main rivers, which originate on the Tibetan plateau.

more....
http://phys.org/news/2014-05-china-glaciers-percent.html

and the heat goes on.....
 
Big Al is such an easy laughable target.
Irrelevant if he is or not.
I will never forgive him for accepting that Nobel Prize when he knew it was ridiculous propaganda.
"An Inconvenient Truth" is mostly correct.

Irena Sendler, a real heroine who save 2,500 jewish children from certain death should have gotten it, but then that is part of way the "Prize" is of such little value now.

:confused: There are plenty of other years she could have got it. There is still time for her to get it. Do you hate the people who got the Nobel Prize those other years as well. Logically, as a debating point, this is complete non-sequitor.

500 feet from the ocean ain't much. What is that? About 0.3 part of a mile?

Where Al Gore chooses to live has nothing to do with the scientific case for Global Warming. Neither does his weight.
 
500 feet from the ocean ain't much. What is that? About 0.3 part of a mile?
It's not 500 feet from the ocean it's 500 feet above the ocean - elevation, not distance. It would only be at risk of flooding if sea level rose at least 500 feet, which is ten times more than expected in even the worst case scenarios.
 
Hillarious WUWT dishonesty.

http://wattsupwiththat.com/2014/05/...g-only-7-in-per-century-with-no-acceleration/

New study finds sea levels rising only 7 in. per century – with no acceleration

this newest analysis of the most comprehensive data set available suggests that there has been no dramatic increase – or any increase, for that matter

he links to the paper, because he knows, his minnions will not click the link but just take his word for it.

http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0921818113002750#f0015

in the Abstract we find :

We calculate an acceleration of 0.02 ± 0.01 mm·yr− 2 in global sea level (1807–2009).

Highlights


Updated global and regional sea level rise since 1807

Fastest sea level rise in Arctic (3.6 mm·yr− 1) and Antarctica (4.1 mm·yr− 1) since 1970.

Acceleration of 0.02 mm·yr− 2 in global sea level (1807–2010)
Uncertainties in GSL reconstruction due to GIA corrections are up to 0.3 mm·yr− 1

here the full paper
http://kaares.ulapland.fi/home/hkunta/jmoore/pdfs/Jevrejevaetal2013GPChange.pdf

htey just blatantly lie and missrepresent the science, and then his minnions run over to YouTube and spamm all the AGW Videos with their latest lies....
and you debunk their lies with their own links and they just make up another lie....

frustrating.
 
Last edited:
You could always just focus on the results of the research.
Which you'll find I don't have much issue with anymore. I know the position I have isn't exactly "ideal" but I'm not so invested in the idea of whether climate change is human caused or not to bother arguing about it anymore. The data is what it is... I'm actually fine with addressing the issue regardless since the solutions can have other benefits which I've already supported, I'm just pointing out that the politicization had alot to do with the way I viewed it in the past and still do to an extent to date.
 
Last edited:
Which you'll find I don't have much issue with anymore. I know the position I have isn't exactly "ideal" but I'm not so invested in the idea of whether climate change is human caused or not to bother arguing about it anymore. The data is what it is... I'm actually fine with addressing the issue regardless since the solutions can have other benefits which I've already supported, I'm just pointing out that the politicization had alot to do with the way I viewed it in the past and still do to an extent to date.

what politicization ?
i have read so many papers on this Topic now, and i never came across a paper that gave me the Impression of any political influence whatsoever.
i dont understand what People mean by it.
 
No, a concensus opinion. The IPCC is not a policy-making body, it's advisory. It has no opinion, consensus or otherwise, on policies.
Er, yes. Voting (or at least debating) within IPCC, that is, internal politics. :)

I find the 'no opinion' unjustifiable, beginning with Hansen and continuing to this day. Keep the grant funds flowing.
 
Er, yes. Voting (or at least debating) within IPCC, that is, internal politics. :)
No it isn't. The debate is about confidence levels based on the research involved in each particular case.

I find the 'no opinion' unjustifiable, beginning with Hansen and continuing to this day. Keep the grant funds flowing.
Hansen's personal opinions are nothing to do with the IPCC confidence levels, and since he's retired from research he has no need of grants.
 
Er, yes. Voting (or at least debating) within IPCC, that is, internal politics. :)

I find the 'no opinion' unjustifiable, beginning with Hansen and continuing to this day. Keep the grant funds flowing.

your conspiracy theory makes no sense at all.
 
... I'm just pointing out that the politicization had alot to do with the way I viewed it in the past and still do to an extent to date.
Which is fair enough. I approach the world in a different way but I'm not going to argue it's a better one.

The way that AGW denial has become a totem of the right world-wide is an interesting phaenomenon in itself, and will no doubt be the subject of much historical debate in future, but I can (and do) keep it quite separate from the science. That approach works for me; others prefer a more holistic or subjective one, or even something scripture-based. It takes all sorts to make a good poker party.
 
Personal insults diminish the discussion and show a definite lack of ideas to advance the debate. What lists? Where?

Stating a demonstrated fact, is not a personal insult. Lying insults the people to which you tell the lies.
 
Stating a demonstrated fact, is not a personal insult. Lying insults the people to which you tell the lies.

Sorry all, I forgot what ABC's role was here, I will take my own advice and I do encourage others not to feed the trolls.
 
What kinds of things did people actually claim about global warming?

“The global temperature will increase every year by 0.2°C”
Michael Müller, Socialist, State Secretary in the Federal Ministry of Environment, in Die Zeit, January 15, 2007

Because there are hundreds, maybe thousands of claims about winters that were made, none of which came true. Same for all the predictions about temperatures rising globally.

“Warmer and Wetter Winters in Europe and Western North America Linked to Increasing Greenhouse Gases.”
NASA, June 2, 1999
http://www.giss.nasa.gov/research/news/19990602/

Milder winter temperatures will decrease heavy snowstorms but could cause an increase in freezing rain if average daily temperatures fluctuate about the freezing point.”
IPCC Climate Change, 2001

“We are beginning to approximate the kind of warming you should see in the winter season.”
Star News, Mike Changery, National Climatic Data Center, 11 Mar 2000

In a warmer world, less winter precipitation falls as snow and the melting of winter snow occurs earlier in spring. Even without any changes in precipitation intensity, both of these effects lead to a shift in peak river runoff to winter and early spring, away from summer and autumn.”
Nature, T. P. Barnett et. al., 17 Nov 2005

"The rise in temperature associated with climate change leads to a general reduction in the proportion of precipitation falling as snow, and a consequent reduction in many areas in the duration of snow cover.”
Global Environmental Change, Nigel W. Arnell, Geographer, 1 Oct 1999

Within a few years winter snowfall will become a very rare and exciting event. … Children just aren’t going to know what snow is.”
David Viner, Climatic Research Unit, University of East Anglia, 20 March 2000

“Shindell’s model predicts that if greenhouse gases continue to increase, winter in the Northern Hemisphere will continue to warm. ‘In our model, we’re seeing a very large signal of global warming and it’s not a naturally occurring thing. It’s most likely linked to greenhouse gases,’ he said.
NASA, GISS, 2 June 1999

“We have seen that in the last years and decades that winters have become much milder than before and that there isn’t nearly as much snowfall. All simulations show this trend will continue in the future and that we have to expect an intense warming in the Alps…especially in the foothills, snow will turn to rain and winter sports will no longer be possible anymore.
Mojib Latif, Leibnitz Institute for Oceanography, University of Kiel, February 17, 2005

That now, after 6 years of increasingly colder and usually snowier winters for the NH, we see claims that global warming will make winters colder. There are even people so clueless they want to claim warmer winters will actually mean more snow. And they are serious. The delusion is that deep.

We see this absurd reversal, where instead of talking about the warming of winters, more rain instead of snow, lack of snowfall for ski resorts, the danger of winters too warm for winter wheat to grow, animals moving north because of warming winters, now the exact thing that wasn't predicted, is now being blamed on global warming.

So when the winters were warming, with less snow, we heard all kinds of predictions about it, because of global warming. Warmer winters are a prediction of global warming.

“More heat waves, no snow in the winter… Climate models… over 20 times more precise than the UN IPCC global models. In no other country do we have more precise calculations of climate consequences. They should form the basis for political planning… Temperatures in the wintertime will rise the most… there will be less cold air coming to Central Europe from the east…In the Alps winters will be 2°C warmer already between 2021 and 2050.”

Max Planck Institute for Meteorology, Hamburg, September 2, 2008.

But now, the reverse is being claimed.

Actually, this cold weather can be linked to global warming

And no, it's not the media making this up.

Millions of people in America and northern Europe are still battling snow and ice, wondering why they are being punished with bitter cold when -- officially -- spring has arrived and Earth is in the grip of global warming.

Yet some scientists, eyeing the fourth year in a row of exceptionally harsh late-winter weather in parts of Europe and North America, suggest warming is precisely the problem.

In a complex tango between ocean and atmosphere, warming is causing icy polar air to be displaced southwards, they contend.

"The linkage is becoming clearer and clearer, I think, although the science has not yet been settled," said Dim Coumou of the Potsdam Institute for Climate Impact Research (PIK) near Berlin.
http://www.wunderground.com/news/global-warming-winters-20130328

That the science is not settled is for certain.
The warming-and-winter scenario is far from unanimous in climatology. Other experts call for more evidence, especially from longer-term data.

"Looking at what's happening right now, in early spring, it's too early to say whether it is due in part to a temporary climatic swing," said David Salas-y-Melia of Meteo France, the French meteorological agency.
Especially since a lot of people are still in denial that winters are getting colder.

I remember in 09 when some people were saying the epic snow and cold meant global warming was a joke. The AGWs said clearly, that one cold winter meant nothing, that you could still have the rare cold winter. But in a global warming world they would be rare. That pointing to weather, a cold winter, meant you didn't understand climate at all.

Now those same people are claiming cold winters are possibly caused by global warming.

And they can't understand why so many people have become skeptical of their claims.
 
Last edited:
Originally Posted by ABC10 View Post
Personal insults diminish the discussion and show a definite lack of ideas to advance the debate.

The "debate" is only in your imagination.....the reality of AGW is being dealt with in the wider community. There is much debate about best method of dealing with the problem.

You don't advance the discussion....the discussion thread is about climate science and you don't have any supported position in climate science nor have you provided any..

You have not answered a single easy easy question posed to you

Does C02 trap IR?
 
What kinds of things did people actually claim about global warming?

“The global temperature will increase every year by 0.2°C”
Michael Müller, Socialist, State Secretary in the Federal Ministry of Environment, in Die Zeit, January 15, 2007

Because there are hundreds, maybe thousands of claims about winters that were made, none of which came true. Same for all the predictions about temperatures rising globally.

“Warmer and Wetter Winters in Europe and Western North America Linked to Increasing Greenhouse Gases.”
NASA, June 2, 1999
http://www.giss.nasa.gov/research/news/19990602/

Milder winter temperatures will decrease heavy snowstorms but could cause an increase in freezing rain if average daily temperatures fluctuate about the freezing point.”
IPCC Climate Change, 2001

“We are beginning to approximate the kind of warming you should see in the winter season.”
Star News, Mike Changery, National Climatic Data Center, 11 Mar 2000

In a warmer world, less winter precipitation falls as snow and the melting of winter snow occurs earlier in spring. Even without any changes in precipitation intensity, both of these effects lead to a shift in peak river runoff to winter and early spring, away from summer and autumn.”
Nature, T. P. Barnett et. al., 17 Nov 2005

"The rise in temperature associated with climate change leads to a general reduction in the proportion of precipitation falling as snow, and a consequent reduction in many areas in the duration of snow cover.”
Global Environmental Change, Nigel W. Arnell, Geographer, 1 Oct 1999

Within a few years winter snowfall will become a very rare and exciting event. … Children just aren’t going to know what snow is.”
David Viner, Climatic Research Unit, University of East Anglia, 20 March 2000

“Shindell’s model predicts that if greenhouse gases continue to increase, winter in the Northern Hemisphere will continue to warm. ‘In our model, we’re seeing a very large signal of global warming and it’s not a naturally occurring thing. It’s most likely linked to greenhouse gases,’ he said.
NASA, GISS, 2 June 1999

“We have seen that in the last years and decades that winters have become much milder than before and that there isn’t nearly as much snowfall. All simulations show this trend will continue in the future and that we have to expect an intense warming in the Alps…especially in the foothills, snow will turn to rain and winter sports will no longer be possible anymore.
Mojib Latif, Leibnitz Institute for Oceanography, University of Kiel, February 17, 2005

That now, after 6 years of increasingly colder and usually snowier winters for the NH, we see claims that global warming will make winters colder. There are even people so clueless they want to claim warmer winters will actually mean more snow. And they are serious. The delusion is that deep.

We see this absurd reversal, where instead of talking about the warming of winters, more rain instead of snow, lack of snowfall for ski resorts, the danger of winters too warm for winter wheat to grow, animals moving north because of warming winters, now the exact thing that wasn't predicted, is now being blamed on global warming.

So when the winters were warming, with less snow, we heard all kinds of predictions about it, because of global warming. Warmer winters are a prediction of global warming.

“More heat waves, no snow in the winter… Climate models… over 20 times more precise than the UN IPCC global models. In no other country do we have more precise calculations of climate consequences. They should form the basis for political planning… Temperatures in the wintertime will rise the most… there will be less cold air coming to Central Europe from the east…In the Alps winters will be 2°C warmer already between 2021 and 2050.”

Max Planck Institute for Meteorology, Hamburg, September 2, 2008.

But now, the reverse is being claimed.

Actually, this cold weather can be linked to global warming

And no, it's not the media making this up.

http://www.wunderground.com/news/global-warming-winters-20130328

That the science is not settled is for certain.

Especially since a lot of people are still in denial that winters are getting colder.

I remember in 09 when some people were saying the epic snow and cold meant global warming was a joke. The AGWs said clearly, that one cold winter meant nothing, that you could still have the rare cold winter. But in a global warming world they would be rare. That pointing to weather, a cold winter, meant you didn't understand climate at all.

Now those same people are claiming cold winters are possibly caused by global warming.

And they can't understand why so many people have become skeptical of their claims.

So the short version of this is that cold winters can still happen and that this may be exacerbated by the Arctic ice melt. I'm not quite sure why this would lead anyone to be sceptical of global warming. While a small part of the world might have a harsh winter temperatures globally are still above the 20th century average. April 2014 was the warmest on record. March 2014 was the fourth warmest on record. December–February worldwide land surface temperature was 0.87°C (1.57°F) above the 20th century average, the 10th warmest such period on record. What do you think is increasing global temperatures r-j?
 
Because there are hundreds, maybe thousands of claims about winters that were made, none of which came true.
Oh dear, r-j, the idiocy of saying that there are no true claims about winters and then quoting true claims about winter :jaw-dropp!

There is one false prediction about NH high altitude winters which have not warmed as expected and there is a reason for it:
Arctic warming, increasing snow cover and widespread boreal winter cooling Cohen et al(2012)
The most up to date consensus from global climate models predicts warming in the Northern Hemisphere (NH) high latitudes to middle latitudes during boreal winter. However, recent trends in observed NH winter surface temperatures diverge from these projections. For the last two decades, large-scale cooling trends have existed instead across large stretches of eastern North America and northern Eurasia. We argue that this unforeseen trend is probably not due to internal variability alone. Instead, evidence suggests that summer and autumn warming trends are concurrent with increases in high-latitude moisture and an increase in Eurasian snow cover, which dynamically induces large-scale wintertime cooling. Understanding this counterintuitive response to radiative warming of the climate system has the potential for improving climate predictions at seasonal and longer timescales.

Same for all the predictions about temperatures rising globally.
That is an insanely ignorant statement, r-j :eek:
Most of the predictions about temperatures rising globally have been correct as shown in the various IPCC reports and the scientific literature.


True claim about winter, r-j:
“Warmer and Wetter Winters in Europe and Western North America Linked to Increasing Greenhouse Gases.”
NASA, June 2, 1999
http://www.giss.nasa.gov/research/news/19990602/

A claim about winter, r-j:
Milder winter temperatures will decrease heavy snowstorms but could cause an increase in freezing rain if average daily temperatures fluctuate about the freezing point.”
IPCC Climate Change, 2001


True claim about winter, r-j:
“We are beginning to approximate the kind of warming you should see in the winter season.”
Star News, Mike Changery, National Climatic Data Center, 11 Mar 2000

A claim about winter, r-j:
In a warmer world, less winter precipitation falls as snow and the melting of winter snow occurs earlier in spring. Even without any changes in precipitation intensity, both of these effects lead to a shift in peak river runoff to winter and early spring, away from summer and autumn.”
Nature, T. P. Barnett et. al., 17 Nov 2005

A claim about winter, r-j:
"The rise in temperature associated with climate change leads to a general reduction in the proportion of precipitation falling as snow, and a consequent reduction in many areas in the duration of snow cover.”
Global Environmental Change, Nigel W. Arnell, Geographer, 1 Oct 1999

An extreme claim about winter, r-j:
Within a few years winter snowfall will become a very rare and exciting event. … Children just aren’t going to know what snow is.”
David Viner, Climatic Research Unit, University of East Anglia, 20 March 2000

A claim about winter, r-j:
“Shindell’s model predicts that if greenhouse gases continue to increase, winter in the Northern Hemisphere will continue to warm. ‘In our model, we’re seeing a very large signal of global warming and it’s not a naturally occurring thing. It’s most likely linked to greenhouse gases,’ he said.
NASA, GISS, 2 June 1999

True claim about winter, r-j:
“We have seen that in the last years and decades that winters have become much milder than before and that there isn’t nearly as much snowfall. All simulations show this trend will continue in the future and that we have to expect an intense warming in the Alps…especially in the foothills, snow will turn to rain and winter sports will no longer be possible anymore.
Mojib Latif, Leibnitz Institute for Oceanography, University of Kiel, February 17, 2005

A false claim about claims about winter, r-j:
That now, after 6 years of increasingly colder and usually snowier winters for the NH, we see claims that global warming will make winters colder. ...snipped rant and insults....

True claim about winter, r-j:
“More heat waves, no snow in the winter… Climate models… over 20 times more precise than the UN IPCC global models. In no other country do we have more precise calculations of climate consequences. They should form the basis for political planning… Temperatures in the wintertime will rise the most… there will be less cold air coming to Central Europe from the east…In the Alps winters will be 2°C warmer already between 2021 and 2050.”
Max Planck Institute for Meteorology, Hamburg, September 2, 2008.

True claim about winter, r-j:
Researchers told Climate Central that the weather pattern driving the extreme cold into the U.S. — with a weaker polar vortex moving around the Arctic like a slowing spinning top, eventually falling over and blowing open the door to the Arctic freezer — fits with other recently observed instances of unusual fall and wintertime jet stream configurations.
More simply: AGW predicts that the polar vortex becomes weaker allowing cold Artic air to make some northern US winters colder.

That the science is not settled is for certain.
Rather ignorant and trivial statement, r-j.
Science is never settled because that is what science is - the gradual progress toward complete knowledge that is never expected to be achieved.
 
Last edited:
your conspiracy theory makes no sense at all.


It is telling that he conspicuously avoids the questions I put to him earlier, questions which are central to his support of his thesis.

(It's fun to consider that this seeming "politically-driven" idea of global warming goes back a long way. The Kyoto Protocol was signed back in 1997. The evidence was considered sufficiently compelling seventeen years ago to convince nations around the world to sign the agreement. The U.S. Global Change Research Program (USGCRP) was founded way back in 1990. That's twenty-four years ago. The IPCC was established in 1988. That's twenty-six years ago. Way back in 1973 the film Soylent Green referenced global warming/climate change. Of course, it wasn't called that in the movie; rather, it was called 'greenhouse effect'. Same thing, though.

It is truly amazing how this 'politically-driven' idea of global warming is a conspiracy that's some twenty-five years in the making. And was even mentioned in Hollywood entertainment thirty-one years ago. The sheer patience of this conspiracy is incredible!
 
what politicization ?
"The science has been politicised" was one of the founding themes of the AGW denial project, and there's precedent in other denial campaigns. It comes with the basic Fred Singer model campaign, along with the term "junk science" and the involvement of his crew (Lindzen, Soon, Baliunas, the Idsos, Spencer) all loudly denouncing whatever the subject might be - acid rain, the ozone hole, environmental lead, whatever - as politicised junk science designed to bring down the US economy.

When Singer starts denying something it's confirmation that the industry concerned has completed its research and concluded there's a real problem. With no honest case to make, Singer is the go-to guy for a dishonest one. With his Rolodex and a healthy slush-fund he can get a turnkey operation up and running in a fortnight.
 
The Kyoto Protocol was signed back in 1997.
Apologies for bringing him up, but Al Gore was there for the negotiations, doing his master's bidding in trying to beat down the targets in a quixotic attempt to get something which Congress would ratify. He was successful in getting the targets down - pushing at an open door, frankly - but obviously not in mollifying Congress. (Not even the Law of the Sea can get past Congress. They only signed up to NATO because half the Senate thought it stood for New American Territories Overseas.)
 
Last edited:
It is truly amazing how this 'politically-driven' idea of global warming is a conspiracy that's some twenty-five years in the making. And was even mentioned in Hollywood entertainment thirty-one years ago. The sheer patience of this conspiracy is incredible!
And their luck, in that the climate has indeed become warmer. Unless, of course they knew it was going to warm for some other, still hidden, reason and simply pretended that the enhanced greenhouse effect would be causing it. Otherwise they were taking a heck of a risk.

As we know, real conspiracies soon fail, succeed, or lose their point. It's the mark of a conspiracy theory that it is always ongoing and ever-expanding.
 
what politicization ?
i have read so many papers on this Topic now, and i never came across a paper that gave me the Impression of any political influence whatsoever.
i dont understand what People mean by it.

I'm talking about proposed carbon taxes, and similar... plus people saying that the effects are going to happen sooner than they're likely to with huge magnitude. Those combine into an effort to push green technology into mainstream use before it's readily affordable and able to effectively eclipse fossil fuels as the primary energy option, laws inhibiting people from being completely off grid, etc. I'm not sure if detailing this is relevant to the thread so if you feel like going in depth maybe we can start a different thread or if nobody has a problem I can post more about it when I have time?

Which is fair enough. I approach the world in a different way but I'm not going to argue it's a better one.

The way that AGW denial has become a totem of the right world-wide is an interesting phaenomenon in itself, and will no doubt be the subject of much historical debate in future, but I can (and do) keep it quite separate from the science. That approach works for me; others prefer a more holistic or subjective one, or even something scripture-based. It takes all sorts to make a good poker party.

I've seen a fair share of immediate trends with pollution that pretty much cemented my support for renewable initiatives, which is why my position in the AGW debate's been.... a little awkward to say the least. I'm sure I'll sort out my other doubts at some point, as I've done already a little bit
 
Last edited:
I'm talking about proposed carbon taxes, and similar... plus people saying that the effects are going to happen sooner than they're likely to with huge magnitude. Those combine into an effort to push green technology into mainstream use before it's readily affordable and able to effectively eclipse fossil fuels as the primary energy option, laws inhibiting people from being completely off grid, etc. I'm not sure if detailing this is relevant to the thread so if you feel like going in depth maybe we can start a different thread or if nobody has a problem I can post more about it when I have time?

non of that means that climatology is politicized.
what you are talking about are possible solutions to a problem we discovered with climatology. and as we usualy solve problems of even smaller propotions, mainly with policies, the solutions are political. mix of economics , ideology and politics.
what other way to solve the problem should we use? i dont know one.
 
It is telling that he conspicuously avoids the questions I put to him earlier, questions which are central to his support of his thesis.

(It's fun to consider that this seeming "politically-driven" idea of global warming goes back a long way. The Kyoto Protocol was signed back in 1997. The evidence was considered sufficiently compelling seventeen years ago to convince nations around the world to sign the agreement. The U.S. Global Change Research Program (USGCRP) was founded way back in 1990. That's twenty-four years ago. The IPCC was established in 1988. That's twenty-six years ago. Way back in 1973 the film Soylent Green referenced global warming/climate change. Of course, it wasn't called that in the movie; rather, it was called 'greenhouse effect'. Same thing, though.

It is truly amazing how this 'politically-driven' idea of global warming is a conspiracy that's some twenty-five years in the making. And was even mentioned in Hollywood entertainment thirty-one years ago. The sheer patience of this conspiracy is incredible!

yet a popular myth is "they changed it from global warming to climate change when the warming stopped 15 years ago."

and in reality, who tried to change the use of words?

 
non of that means that climatology is politicized.


I'm pretty sure Grizzly Bear's referring to the broader discussion surrounding climate change, not the science itself, when he refers to "it" being politicized.
 
non of that means that climatology is politicized.
what you are talking about are possible solutions to a problem we discovered with climatology. and as we usualy solve problems of even smaller propotions, mainly with policies, the solutions are political. mix of economics , ideology and politics.
what other way to solve the problem should we use? i dont know one.
What we do about AGW is political, no way around it. The Science is the science.
 
I'm pretty sure Grizzly Bear's referring to the broader discussion surrounding climate change, not the science itself, when he refers to "it" being politicized.

Policy actions and discussions are, by definition, political.
 
What we do about AGW is political, no way around it. The Science is the science.

The climate has changed for 4 1/2 billion years. In fact, poles may melt, sea level might rise but no amount of windmills, carbon taxes, solar panels , riding horses instead of driving cars is going to change that one bit. Mother Nature is gonna do what it is going to do and nothing we humans can do will stop her. The Viking called Greenland, Greenland for PR purposes and also when they saw it, it was a green land as far as they could see and stayed till they got driven out by the cold.
 
Last edited:
Projections

The previous list was in need of updating, I try to update such every couple of years. There are still a lot of more recent issues to add to this listing, but I'll spend some time on it this summer and see if I get everything into a more usable form.

Climate Projections

Climate Science, has a long and remarkable history of accurate and well-supported projections based upon the understandings that have been generated from the study and analysis of climate observations and the foundational chemical and physical interactions that together shape how the components of our planet’s surface (land, water and atmosphere) absorb, distribute and emit the impinging energy from the sun.

Listed below is a list of some of the more important, and subsequently verified, projections made by climate science researchers over the last century or two. While even the ancient Greeks speculated and discussed many climate impact issues (arguments about whether the clearing of forests might result in more, or less, rainfall, etc.,) , In order to look at the modern, mainstream climate science issues it helps to go back and look at the science discoveries and projects made regarding those discoveries over a more recent time frame (references at end):

1. In 1820s, Joseph Fourier, Performed some basic calculations of the size of the Earth, the distance from the sun, and the amount of energy the Earth was intercepting from the Sun. His calculations, however, indicated that the Earth should be much colder than it actually was. Fourier predicted that some component of the atmosphere slowed the escape of solar radiation and provided the difference between what his calculations showed that the Earth should be, and what physical observations demonstrated was the actual temperature of the Earth (widely recognized as the first proposal of what is modernly referred to as “the greenhouse effect.” (confirmation – in 1859-60, Tyndall experiments.)

2. In the early 1850s, John Tyndall predicted that certain optically transparent gas components of the atmosphere were most responsible for the “greenhouse effect” of the atmosphere through the absorption and emission of invisible infrared radiations emitted by the ground after it had absorbed the energy from visible sunlight. (confirmation – 1959-60 detailed and careful experimentation demonstrated that some atmospheric gases, the most important of which are Water vapor (H2O), Carbon Dioxide (CO2), and Methane (CH4) indeed, absorbed IR and re-emitted IR thus fulfilling the predicted role essential to the mechanism the “greenhouse effect”)

3. In 1896, Svante Arrhenius correctly predicted that increases in fossil fuel emissions would cause the earth to warm. Arrhenius was interested in ice ages; based upon Tyndall’s findings, Arrhenius calculated that if the amount of CO2 in the air was halved, that the resultant lessened greenhouse effect would lower the overall temperature by 4-5˚C (ice age range temps.). Through discussions and various calculations worked upon by colleagues who looked at how much CO2 was being generated by the burning of coal to power what was then the Steam age. Arrhenius realized that within another century or two, at the rate coal use was increasing, that the human activity could easily cause a doubling of the then current atmospheric concentration of CO2, causing the temperature to rise by 4-5˚C. (This is multipley confirmed by measurements that identify the amounts of fossil fuels burned, the isotopic ratios of the atmospheric CO2 and the amount of increasing warming measured in association with the levels of CO2)

4. In 1900, Frank Very worked out the radiation balance, and predicted the temperature, of the moon. (confirmed by Pettit and Nicholson in 1930)

5. In 1907, Robert Emden realized that a radiative-convective model could be applied to planets, and made the prediction regarding the temperatures of various planets in the solar system (Confirmed - Gerard Kuiper and others applied this to astronomical observations of planetary atmospheres)

6. In 1956, Gilbert Plass correctly predicts a depletion of outgoing radiation in the 15 micron band, due to CO2 absorption. (Confirmed by satellite measurement in the late seventies)

7. In 1959, Burt Bolin and Erik Eriksson correctly predict the exponential increase in CO2 concentrations in the atmosphere as a result of rising fossil fuel use. (confirmed by direct measurement over last 50+ years)

8. During 1961-2, Carl Sagan correctly predicts very thick greenhouse gases in the atmosphere of Venus. (The composition of Venus’s atmosphere was confirmed by NASA’s Venus probes in 1967-70)

9. In 1967, Suki Manabe and Dick Wetherald correctly predict that warming in the lower atmosphere would be accompanied by stratospheric cooling. (stratospheric cooling was confirmed in 2011 by Gillett et al. - http://nldr.library.ucar.edu/repository/assets/osgc/OSGC-000-000-003-400.pdf)

10. In 1975, Suki Manabe and Dick Wetherald correctly predict that the surface warming would be much greater in the polar regions. (The polar amplification was measured, and confirmed by Serreze et al in 2009 - http://www.the-cryosphere.net/3/11/2009/tc-3-11-2009.pdf)

11. In 1981, James Hansen correctly predicted that the potential effects on climate in the 21st century include the creation of drought-prone regions in North America and central Asia as part of a shifting of climate zones. (This has already been observed in the first decade and a half of the 21st century and is confirmed by http://drought.unl.edu/MonitoringTools/USDroughtMonitor.aspx)

12. In 1981, James Hansen correctly predicted that there would be an erosion of the West Antarctic ice sheet with a consequent worldwide rise in sea level beginning in the 21st century. (This has already been observed beginning in the first decade and a half of the 21st century and is confirmed by direct observation and measurement - http://www.eosnap.com/?s=wilkins+ice+shelf)

13. In 1981, James Hansen correctly predicted that there would be an opening of the fabled Northwest Passage allowing free passage between N. Atlantic and Bering straight. (the beginnings of this are currently being observed and are confirmed by: http://rsbl.royalsocietypublishing.org/content/8/2/270, http://abcnews.go.com/Business/story?id=3609686, http://www.businessgreen.com/bg/new...s-up-northwest-passage-to-commercial-shipping).

14. In 1989, Ron Stouffer et. al. correctly predict that the land surface will warm more than the ocean surface. (this has been confirmed by direct satellite measurement performed in the late 1990s)

These are just few of the more important predictions and projections made by Climate science which have already been well evidenced and confirmed, there are many which have not yet come to pass, or which have simply not yet been confirmed. Most current climate science projections deal with the 2050 – 2100 time frame and beyond so it shouldn’t be unusual to see them as yet, unfulfilled. What is troubling, is that many of the projections that have already come to pass were likewise not originally projected to come to pass until after the middle of the current century.
 
Last edited:
The fact that climate is impacted by natural factors and subject to change when those natural forcings drive it out of balance and it seeks to find new equilibrium within those forcings, does not make a compelling argument that human forcings cannot drive climate out of balance and make it seek new equilibrium in accord with those forcings.
 
yet a popular myth is "they changed it from global warming to climate change when the warming stopped 15 years ago."

and in reality, who tried to change the use of words?

Isn't it climate disruption now or something like that? All that word salad by the Warmer's. All the "discoveries" made - what's it got to do with GW?
 
Last edited:
The climate has changed for 4 1/2 billion years. In fact, poles may melt, sea level might rise but no amount of windmills, carbon taxes, solar panels , riding horses instead of driving cars is going to change that one bit. Mother Nature is gonna do what it is going to do and nothing we humans can do will stop her.
Fires have happened for billions of years, lightning causes them, does that mean there's no point in stopping kids fooling around with matches?

People died of lung cancer before smoking was invented, radon gas being the biggest natural cause, does that mean there's no reason to stop smoking?

The fact that something happens naturally does not mean that it can't also be caused by something we do. We know what the natural causes of climate change are, we know roughly how much climate change should be currently happening as a result of those causes, we know roughly how much additional change we would expect as a result of increasing the amount of CO2 in the atmosphere by about 40% in little more than a century, and we can observe the climate change that's actually occurring and confirm that it is indeed roughly the net sum of the two with the CO2 being by far the biggest factor. Since the consequences for us are likely to be bad, to not try to limit CO2 emissions would be as stupid as taking no care with matches or continuing to smoke.
 
Apologies for bringing him up, but Al Gore was there for the negotiations, doing his master's bidding in trying to beat down the targets in a quixotic attempt to get something which Congress would ratify.


Well, that's the Sith rule: there can only be two, a master and an apprentice! (So if Gore was the apprentice, who was the master?)
 
The climate has changed for 4 1/2 billion years.

So that's what the entire international scientific community has been missing all this time. Wow!

So what you are saying is that the climate scientists might want to look into what the previous climate conditions on the Earth were?

I think you are on to something.
 
Last edited:
The climate has changed for 4 1/2 billion years. In fact, poles may melt, sea level might rise but no amount of windmills, carbon taxes, solar panels , riding horses instead of driving cars is going to change that one bit. Mother Nature is gonna do what it is going to do and nothing we humans can do will stop her. The Viking called Greenland, Greenland for PR purposes and also when they saw it, it was a green land as far as they could see and stayed till they got driven out by the cold.

well to use your terminology.

mama nature started cooling this planet some 2000 years ago in agreement with the milankovitch cycles. this long term cooling trend can be seen in the PAGES Reconstructions and Esper et al 2012.
and that the milankovitch cycles are towards cooling has been known since atleast 1976 (Hays et al 1976)

but then the 20th century warming kicked in and has undone 2000 years of cooling in lessthan 100 years. first mainly do to increased solar activity but since around mid 20th century, anthropogenic forcings are the dominant forcings.

so mama nature not only tries to cool the planet with orbital focings, she tries to cool the planet by decreasing solar activity yet mama nature fails, because (Currently) she cannot compete with our forcings on the climate system.
 
Last edited:
Status
Not open for further replies.

Back
Top Bottom