Global Warming Hysteria Building - Page 10

What they actually said back then was that if we didn't do anything soon and sart curbing our use we would reach a turning point where we couldn't reverse it. The planet would be pretty bad off in the next 50 to 60 years ( not y2k ).

And yes natural things like solar flares can affect the ozone layer as well. That doesn't negate the effect of CFCs.

I still couldn't get your first link to load properly.

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/17997788/site/newsweek/

Global warming is bunk.

Why, yes #6 of the 30 known AGW Cylons! He is of the "intellectual ownership old codger" school of AGW Cylons! Ho-Hum, Not Another AGW Nihilists op-ed (NAAGWNOE), Zzzzzzz.......

But we know there are actually 35 AGW Cylons, who are the mysterious missing 5? Why of course, we kind of know who they are, they frequent these threads, but we cannot see who they are because of their equally mysterious screen names!

Stay tuned for the 4th season of AGW Cylons Attack Earth, where the missing 5 are revealed!

SDW.

Are you starting to lose it?

There's plenty of evidence to the contrary.

" This has happened before and will happen again. "

Really? Let's see a quick summary, if you don't mind.

Visit the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) if you dare Cylon Centurion!

There are many copies. And they have a plan.

You know MP, too much of any one thing is bad for you, or so I've been told. I mean I like M&M's too, but consume too much of them, as your only "food for thought" and you get fat, lazy, and eventually get overly HYSTERICAL!

We've already "been there, done that" (as in all points made above have been addressed by the climate scientists, irregardless of what you may think, say, or do) please come up with some new material!

UPDATE, I actually went to M&M's site;



No, not that one silly rabbit, the one you linked to.

Hmm, 19 questions/statements, each of which would fall into the loaded_question or fallacy of many questions, you know like "Are you still beating your wife?" type of question/statement.

Max, could you provide links which specifically address each of these points?

I found something on UHI, here. The blogger writes that he attempted to get the datasets from the author, and did not succeed. He then goes to list reports which use this data. I'd like to see what specifically he's found that indicates UHI should be a considerable influence.

I can't seem to phrase my search well to find anything on #2.

#4 is a repeat of #3. Basically, "I don't have the data." Haven't found specifics here, except on the UHI above (where the author claims to have misplaced the diskette; not that he's attempting to hide it from critics, nor that its his personal property, to be protected privately).

There is no #5.

#6 link, please

#7: Mann's PC1. I found a category for that. The 2nd blog entry on that page mentions several studies that use, or seem to use, Mann's PC1 calculation. I don't see anything disputing the veracity of the numbers though (presumably in another blog entry).

#8 & #9 links?

Help me out here.

Gee, thanks for the link. Now here's a graph for you.



1. Care to explain the variations in temperature by as much as 10 degrees and lasting for hundreds of thousands if not millions of years? I don't recall any automobiles or carbon spewing factories being around in the Jurassic Period, do you?

2. The planet has actually not gotten warmer since 1998.

3. C02 levels have been much higher in the past then they are now, even in times prior to the industrial revolution.

4. Mankind is repsonsilbe for 3.5% of C02 emissions.

5. Global temperature readings have likely been impacted by what Max alluded to...The Urban Heat Island Effect.


Global warming is not man made. There is little to no evidence that it's man made. It's amazing though that the very same people who question everything put out by a governmental agency embrace IPCC as the Word of God Almighty.

Well I do know that during the Cretacious and Jurassic there was a lot of volcanic activity spewing out greenhouse gases. Also other natural factors that aren't present today can account for this. So there was a rise in the global temp.


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Global_warming

From the link :

" Pre-human global warming
Further information: Paleoclimatology and temperature record

Curves of reconstructed temperature at two locations in Antarctica and a global record of variations in glacial ice volume. Today's date is on the left side of the graph
Changes in climate during the Phanerozoic (the last 542 million years). The recent period is located on the left-hand side of the plot.The earth has experienced natural global warming and cooling many times in the past. The recent Antarctic EPICA ice core spans 800,000 years, including eight glacial cycles with interglacial warming periods much hotter than current temperatures. The chart also shows the time of the last glacial maximum about 20,000 years ago.

It is thought by some geologists[attribution needed] that a rapid buildup of greenhouse gases caused the Earth to experience global warming in the early Jurassic period, with average temperatures rising by 5 °C (9.0 °F). Research by the Open University indicates that this caused the rate of rock weathering to increase by 400%. As such weathering locks away carbon in calcite and dolomite, CO2 levels dropped back to normal over roughly the next 150,000 years.[55][56]

Sudden releases of methane from clathrate compounds (the clathrate gun hypothesis) have been hypothesized as a cause for other past global warming events, including the Permian-Triassic extinction event and the Paleocene-Eocene Thermal Maximum. However, warming at the end of the last glacial period is thought not to be due to methane release.[57] Instead, natural variations in the Earth's orbit (Milankovitch cycles) are believed to have triggered the retreat of ice sheets by changing the amount of solar radiation received at high latitude and led to deglaciation.

Using paleoclimate data for the last 500 million years, Veizer et al. (2000, Nature 408, pp. 698–701) concluded that long-term temperature variations are only weakly related to CO2 variations. Most paleoclimatologists believe this is because other factors, such as continental drift and mountain building have larger effects in determining very long-term climate. Shaviv and Veizer (2003) proposed that the largest long-term influence on temperature are variations in the flux of cosmic rays received by the Earth as the Solar System moves around the galaxy.[58] They argued that over geologic time-scales a change in CO2 concentrations comparable to doubling pre-industrial levels results in about 0.75 °C (1.35 °F) warming, less than the 1.5–4.5 °C (2.7–8.1 °F) reported by climate models.[59] Shaviv and Veizer (2004) acknowledge that this conclusion may only be valid on multi-million year time scales when glacial and geological feedback have had a chance to establish themselves. Rahmstorf et al. argue that Shaviv and Veizer arbitrarily tuned their data, and that their conclusions are unreliable.[60] "

SDW, wishing upon a star doesn't help the situation, and every one of your points is well known by the climatologists. Heck even I have looked into the 5 points you mentioned, and not to sound like a broken record, but it is the current/future rate of change in the Earth's climate that is important, not what past climates were like, we weren't there then, didn't have a 6.5B population (expected to be 9B+ by 2050), with greatly expanding 3rd world energy/resource needs, etceteras.

Like I previously stated, I'm not trying to turn you Cylons into humans, I trying to keep humans from turning into Cylons!

No one has suggested a totally pollution free world. This is a reductio ad absurdum argument and valueless.


Heh, sure it is...its a slogan in as much as benefits are not all reducible to a dollar value nor are all costs associated with a course of action calculable.


This is obviously ad hominem and pointless.

However, I would think that folks that believe in the primacy of cost/benefit ratios to be far more of the Soviet style mentality when it comes to deciding national policy...the Soviets weren't too keen on most things the liberal left wants...but boy did they have a bunch of economists doing centralized national planning based on cost benefit analysis for the State.


We're talking about burning oil to move around, heat homes, etc. Unless you're of the mind to engage in some Soviet style social engineering of your own to make folks live closer to where they work (and in warmer, milder places) this argument is ignoratio elenchi (red herring)...


So in your expert opinion a massive increase in oil prices because Chinese needs increase will do wonders for our own fuel dependent economy?

So lets take an example where one company (China) has invested in a more fuel efficient fleet than another (US) in anticipation of a fuel cost increase (or because in this case they understand that their influence in the Middle East is far lower than ours and wish not to depend so much on a resource the US could deny if we so choose).

Which company will be more competitive? The one that had a more efficient fleet or the one that either needs to replace their fleet with a more efficient one in the time of higher prices or stagger along with a less efficient one?

You can claim that oil prices will not rise in the future but um, you'll not be surprised that most folks are going to be skeptical.


Yes, because only economists have any understanding of the world. Another ad hominem with a whiff of ad verecundiam. Very nice.


Ignoratio elenchi

I didn't skip econ 101 but it seems you skipped logic 101. Either that or your position is so devoid of merit that you're stuck with rather weak arguments...


Or perhaps as Chinese demand increases, prices increases but because we will continue to have larger energy needs and an older, less efficient equipment our economy will suffer vis a vis the Chinese one? Their costs to build a more efficient fleet as they grow is likely faster and of a greater percentage of their base than anything we could reasonably PLAN to do...much less react to.

This seems to be a common issue for incumbent companies facing younger rivals. The pros are a deep investment in a vast infrastructure. The cons are a...deep investment in a vast infrastructure. The Chinese do not lack capital for further development of their infrastructure to fuel growth.

So perhaps one doesn't want to see a modern, well trained Chinese military funded by a healthy Chinese economy while the US military is recovering from Iraq and a moribund US economy because US transportation costs have gone through the roof? Perhaps one would prefer China NOT to have the option of pushing on Taiwan and the US having to look the other way in the 2010-2015 timeframe? Whether we would choose to do so anyway is a secondary issue...I prefer that we not HAVE to.

Therein lies the path to a fading superpower. You may wish to see the US reduced to the UK in stature...I prefer that future pushed as far outwards as possible and never mind the cost/benefit ratios.

Nah. I'm just a cliche touting, Soviet thinking, left wing tree hugger that never took any economics. I am guilty of a little argumentum ad baculum there...but given they haven't taken away my conservatives card I can do that with a straight face.


Now we understand why economists aren't often CEOs of companies or Presidents of countries...

Perhaps I prefer to keep strategic national resource available and let the middle east run dry first? That has a multitude of benefits that I'm afraid your complex economic calculus would ignore.


Hmmm...cliques? Perhaps I slept through Econ 101 and 102 because, well, econ < science...even wimpy computer science which isn't even a science but whatever as I can spell cliché.

Thanks for the stroll down memory lane. Its been a while since I bothered to try to remember the names of all the informal fallacies. Had to look a couple up. For your next post try for variety and add some ad populum and ad baculum arguments. Given your dislike of the left I would assume you'd leave off the ad misricodiam arguments. I saw a few ad ignorantiam arguments in some of your other posts so I think you're well covered there.

If you prefer that I didn't simply ridicule your (lack of) logic, perhaps you might actually discuss the topic rather than talk down to everyone...

Vinea

But that's NOT what the article says!

It says "OK, so global warming is NOT bunk... but, so what?


I'm pretty sure this is a new tactic for Lindzen.

And what, pray tell, is that future rate of change? It's all prediction which is exactly the point of the MIT scientist I linked to. We know that we're not putting out the majority of the C02 in the atmosphere. We also know that levels of C02 have been higher than they are now, even with all our dirty, dirty cars and factories...that make miniature models...of factories. That means we really aren't contributing much (if at all) to overall C02 levels.

There hasn't been much warming. I suppose I should clarify though...the Earth may warming, I just don't think we have anything significant to do with it. I also don't think that warming will be catostrophic if it occurs at all, or nearly as pronounced as the Gore-bots claim.

Head in sand.

Are you ?

Oh yes we are, at present CO2 ~ 385 ppmv, whereas ~150 YBP it was ~280 ppmv, and currently rising at ~ 2 ppmv/yr, and at an ever increasing rate. We will easily pass the 600 ppmv by 2,100, and if we continue burning (at ever increasing rates) ~500 MY of carbon deposits in say ~500 Y (~SIX orders of magnitude faster than it was deposited), why heck, homo sapiens will set the all time CO2 record that Planet Earth has EVER seen!

And remember Earth's biosphere isn't keeping up with our CO2 emissions as shown in these two figures;





Again, not to be a broken record, but we've been over this in previous AGW threads!

UPDATE: Here are some more recent graphs from the CDIAC!

Yes, but none of those have anything to do with what SDW said. He said that most CO2 is not put out by humans, not that CO2 hasn't increased.

SDW, here, is factually correct.

It's Cletter O2, not Czero2. CO2, not C02.

... for the love of Pete.

Pete Moss?

That's it. We need to start clear-cutting the old growth peat moss. It's the only way out.

"Even small, soft plants under our feet have the power to change the foundation of the global climate."
(I thought it was just conservatives and SUV drivers.)

Yes, sorry missed the "majority" part at the start! Doh!


No, to this part of his statement! So I stand by the "all time CO2 record" (We are talking about atmospheric CO2 here, aren't we?) part of my statement if we continue to burn Carbon deposits at ever increasing rates.

But really, we aren't adding any carbon to the Earth (Are we?), we are converting the existing deposits of carbon (i. e. carbon atoms in fossil fuels) through chemical reactions into gaseous CO2, and that the Earth's biosphere/oceans can not absorb this gaseous CO2 increase at an equal rate, thus the rise in atmospheric CO2 levels.

And that fact (I believe) is what most concerns climate scientists.

That is all.

Pardon my bluntness; your zealotry is undeniable, but quite frankly your talking absolute scientific nonsense.

And as for your accompanying graphs.. http://forums.appleinsider.com/showp...&postcount=380

Please, allow the voice of hard science to filter through.

For your imformation and the imformation of other readers. the graphs you offered up, all directly copy or invoke the infamously flawed Mann hockey stick, (which despite claims of having been exonerated by various Mann and IPCC afficionados) remains thoroughly discredited.

How do I know this ?

I happen to know Professor Ross McKitrick of the Geulf University. He, along with his colleague Dr Steve Mcintyre http://www.climateaudit.org/ collectively blew the whistle on Mann's sensationalist grab at environmental fame.

Theyt shot so many holes into it, that it sank like a rusty bucket. Even the Wegman report, ended up finding all the points as laid out by McKitrick and Macintyre as being absolutely right.

A copy of his recent letter to me is laid out below. My question is in italics.


Respectfully

Aquafire

WTF! REALLY!

You are referring to PC reconstructions (BTW the M&M schtick has been fully refuted by the PC community at large, ad infinitum!).

I am talking about atmospheric CO2 buildup, the CO2 data are real, the cause is known (humans) AND real! There are NO proxies in the CO2 data, they are either direct real time measurements, or direct measurements of CO2 from ice cores! I don't think any bona fide peer reviewed climate researcher questions these facts!


You make my misread of SDW's post look insignificant by comparison!

As to your purported "hard science" I see verbiage but I don't see your "hard science!" I do see a blog link though, but you need to provide some peer reviewed climate science to fully support your position (and yes I've seen the M&M schtick publications)!

Now be gone with you, AGW Cylon Centurion!

I trust you do know about the trouble with Ice cores. These are related directly to issues of pressure released Co2 distortion as well as cracked samplings.


Ditto, plenty of biased sources to support your claims. And as for me, `i haven't posted them yet. I have barely started. But I promise you, you won't go away empty handed.


Please drop the stupid name calling.

Treat your fellow posters with the respect and dignity they deserve.

Aquafire

I'm assuming of course, that whatever links you post are from well respected peer reviewed (preferably climate) scientific journals!

Otherwise, don't waste your energy!

Puntastic.

Hey! You're the one who loves to correct spelling!

For the love of Pete!

These things always come back to bite you but every grade school kid should know this one.

1Carbon and 2 oxygen. Not 2 zeros
Co2

They're a lot better than the names SDW has called other's in the past.

Doh, made a joke, and didn't even realize it!

But it is kind of funny!

No, humans add a small, possibly insignificant amount of CO2—7-15% depending on who you ask.

From RealClimate.org,


CO2 is intrinsically linked to heat, but happens ~800 years later.

If CO2 is rising, these ice cores tell us that there should have been a period of unusually high temperatures some 800 years ago... like right around, say, the Medieval warm period!

We know that current CO2 is caused almost entirely by this period. Ice cores and numerous scientists support this. RealClimate.org also says this. We also know that humans just don't pump out enough CO2 to increase levels this high. Not even close.

In order to say that humans are primarily responsible for the current CO2 buildup, you must FIRST disprove ice cores, which are consistent over spans of hundreds of thousands of years and across several, independent studies, and then you must THEN explain why somehow annual CO2 accrual exceeds, by an order of magnitude, the amount of CO2 we actually put out.

That's a tough task.

* Note: RealClimate very correctly points out that CO2 being caused by earlier temperature increases doesn't also mean that CO2 doesn't cause temperature increases itself. I'm just going to point out that this is irrelevent before you jump on it

I don't dispute your first statement. The flux of human CO2 versus the natural flux is indeed a few percent.

Where I think we differ, is in the causes of past CO2 changes versus the current CO2 changes. Maybe I'm mistaken, and I need to read up on it some more!

Anyway, WRT past histories of CO2, my understanding is the Earth's orbital motions are one natural source of temperature changes, that these temperature changes lead to CO2 changes (lags), but that at some point CO2 feedback causes further temperature changes.

In terms of the recent changes in atmospheric CO2, everything I have read suggests that these are anthropogenic in origin, and not due to changes in Earth's orbital motions or other natural causes. So that now the CO2 increases occurring will act as a feedback mechanism that causes the temperature to increase in a lagged fashion.

So what was a driver in the past, is not the same as the current driver.

Past: Natural causes of temperature increase >> Lagged CO2 increase >> Further temperature increases due to GHG/CO2 feedback effect.

Present: Anthropogenic emissions cause increased concentrations of atmospheric CO2 >> Further temperature increases due to GHG/CO2 feedback effect.

If I'm totally off base in this please provide some bona fide links from peer reviewed scientific journals, or at the very least some links at RealClimate.

Again, I could be mistaken, but I believe that all the GCM's support these CO2 temperature feedback effects.

That is all.

You are incorrect on your assumptions WRT GCM's.

All numerical models are vetted through a two step process called calibration and verification, this is SOP for numerical modelers.

Calibration is done using objective data (physical measurements) of Earth's processes (for example use data from the time period 1966 thru 1985). The empirical coefficients are then adjusted to get the best agreement with this data set.

Verification of the model is then done by simulating more recent events (the drivers) using subsequent physical measurements (say 1986 thru 2005) and looking at the responses.

These GCM models have been rather successful when compared to the recent historic physical measurements of record.

Of course, the GCM's are in continued development as we come to ever better understanding of the underlying physical processes.

That is all.