global tepid

[P E Schoen]

"Tunderbar" wrote in message

As a citizen of the North, I welcome a warmer climate. I'll take that
1.6C anytime.

Typical selfish remark from denialists, or more accurately, sociopaths. Such
behavior is defined by being motivated totally by self-interest and having
no compassion for (or even logical comprehension of) the deleterious effects
on others. Moreover, the average temperature rise has apparently manifested
itself as more extreme weather patterns, which are far more destructive than
a homogeneous change as you apparently interpret this to be.

Paul

 

[Bill Sloman]

Sure I have a newsreader and I have a brain. You only have one of those.



It's a twelve year sequence in the face of DRAMATICALLY RISING CO2!

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Mauna_Loa_Carbon_Dioxide-en.svg

It went up from 370ppm to 385ppm over the period - 4%. From 270ppm
before the start of the Industrial revolution (roughly 1750 and
earlier) today has been good for about 0.8 degrees Kelvin of warming,
barely enough to show above the noise. 15ppm would be about 0.1K, if
the relationship were linear (which it isn't).

If your "Radiative forcing" theory is correct, then this data is bullshit.

Too noisy to mean anything except that short term global temperature
measurements are noisy..

Right?

No. Just irrelevant.

So your idea is to just wait, for the next statistical up-tick and then
start screaming GLOBAL WARMING!!!!! WE TOLD YOU SO!!

It's a bit more sophisticated than that.We've seen enough warming over
the past century to be confident that the rising CO2 levels are
warming the planet, and the geologists have done enough work getting
data from the past to be confident that we can now explain what
happened during the past few interglacials and ice ages.

Granting that, it's pretty easy to predict that keeping on burning
fossil carbon and dumping the consequent CO2 in the atmosphere is
going to make the planet even warmer. At the last IPCC report, the
high emission scenario gave us something between 2.4K and 6.4K over
the next century. The modelling has got a little better, and that now
more like 3.5K to 6.5K.

The scientist involved would prefer to see us getting closer to or
below the low emission scenario - 1.1K to 2.9K - because getting over
2K looks as if it might make life a lot more complicated.

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

You obviously not only have no knowledge nor education nor honesty nor
ethics, so none of this means anything to you.

My Ph.D. in Physical Chemistry accidentally included enough on infra-
red vibrations and rotations to mean that I know quite a bit about the
greenhouse effect. For the rest, I read occasional papers in the
Proceedign of the (US) Academy of Sciences to have a reasonably good
idea of what it's all about.

If I was dishonest and unethical, I might be able to get money out of
Exxon-Mobil and other players in the fossil-carbon extraction industry
to say the sort of silly things that that you are saying here, but
they seem to like more flamboyant nutters.

http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php/Christopher_Monckton

But then you are doubtless also an evolutionist

Correct. Darwin was almost certainly right - his hypothesis was a bit
premature when he first published "Origin of Species" but since then
we've learned a lot more about the nuts and bolts of the process he
imagined, and there's no immediate prospect that his hypothesis is
going to be falsified.

and morality, ethics, honesty or legality mean nothing to you as they are "fairytales".

You seem to have adopted the moderate enlightenment position - people
have to be frightened into good behaviour by the threat of punishment
in a hypothetical after-life.

Spinoza and the radical enlightenment figures that followed him
thought that there were perfectly good rational arguments for behaving
ethically and morally and conforming to a set of sensible laws that
applied to everybody equally. There have been some interesting animal
experiment in recent years that make it clear that the higher apes
have ideas about fairness, without benefit of religious instruction.
Spinoza seems to have got it right.

No doubt he's your hero making millions off of the AGW scam he's promoted
for so long.

How is he making millions? Al Gore is claimed to be involved in some
carbon-trading business, but Hansen's just a civil servant.

Too bad all his dire predictions turned out wrong like all those predictions of the end of the world.

He's not predicting the end of the world, just minor climate changes
which might just be severe enough to end civilisation as we know it.

During the end of the last ice age, when the climate wasn't warming
anything like as rapidly as it is now, the Gulf Stream seems to have
stopped twice. The second shut-down - the Younger Dryas,- was
relatively brief at 1300 years and started and stopped within about a
decade

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

Nobody is predicting anything quite as interesting, not because it
couldn't happen, but because that kind of event is hard to model. You
might want to think about how we'd cope with a re-run of the Younger
Dryas, if that happened again.

 

[P E Schoen]

"Mickey Langan" wrote in message

You can't even make it a sentence without an ad-hominem. Is
it any wonder that global warming proponents have completely
lost the PR battle?

You are probably getting all of your "facts" from media sources that are
biased to massage your delusions. But even seven years ago Fox News reported
that 77% of Americans believe in global warming:
http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,175070,00.html

Now it may be closer to 85%, in spite of massive right-wing propaganda:
http://environment.about.com/od/globalwarming/a/timepoll.htm
http://www.reuters.com/article/2011/09/15/us-usa-poll-ipsos-idUSTRE78D5B220110915
http://www.redorbit.com/news/science/1877674/many_americans_still_believe_in_global_warming_poll/

although some polls show otherwise:
http://www.gallup.com/poll/126560/Americans-Global-Warming-Concerns-Continue-Drop.aspx
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2009/11/24/AR2009112402989.html

Many of these are not very recent, but I found this from October 2012.
Sandy, anyone?
http://blog.pe.com/environment/2012/10/18/climate-change-more-people-believe-in-warming/

Paul

 

[Unum]

Why not? Sure it's designed to cover a wider range, but if you look
closely at the end you get the SAME flat line for the last decade.
Obviously it SHOULD since it's supposedly from the same data.

The running mean levels off at about mid-decade. So what? There
aren't any straight lines anywhere on the graph. Did someone
promise you there would be? The 'dramatic temperature rise' you
told us wasn't happening is clearly evident, more than .5C since 1980.

And while you are at it take a good look at that period from 1940 to
about 1975. MORE than 30 years of FALLING temperatures while CO2
continued to rise! So much for the CO2 is the ONLY cause of global
warming theory.

I don't remember seeing anyone make the claim that CO2 is the only
thing that affects climate. I don't think you have either but if
so bring it on out or STFU.

We won't even get into how this data has been fudged to produce apparent
warming and even with the cheating it STILL shows the AGW theories to be
fake!

I'm not interested in your unsubstantiated opinions.

Just who do you guys think you are fooling?

So you've got absolutely nothing?

 

[[email protected]]

Hell, *I* believe in warming. But that isn't the issue, is it? The
issue is CAGW, i.e. Catastrophic Anthropogenic Global Warming. All
your polls about people, or even scientists, believing warming is
happening are completely meaningless, because warming is not the
issue. Any fool can see that the world has warmed since 1850.

It just kills me when you try to say "there's warming, I've proved
my point!" No, you haven't proved a thing. And most people are
smart enough to understand this at least on a gut level. They
see what warmists do and say to themselves, "People who are winning
an argument don't behave in this fashion...."

It's pretty obvious the earth is warming, has been for a long time.
Why, not that long ago, North America was buried under a mile of ice.
Trapped a bunch of wooly mammoths, it did.

I like it better this way. Mammoths would too.

 

[[email protected]]

"Tunderbar"  wrote in message



Typical selfish remark from denialists, or more accurately, sociopaths. Such
behavior is defined by being motivated totally by self-interest and having
no compassion for (or even logical comprehension of) the deleterious effects
on others.

Careful, that logic works in reverse, too--stipulating to your
assumptions, why would you deny food, transport, medicine, and comfort
to Africans, Indians, and Chinese? Warmer winters for Canadians?

Moreover, the average temperature rise has apparently manifested
itself as more extreme weather patterns, which are far more destructive than
a homogeneous change as you apparently interpret this to be.

Not AFAICT. Until Sandy--which wasn't particularly remarkable itself
except for unluckily meeting a nor'easter--we've had years of below-
average activity.

When a source forever relates the costs of a thing, but never possible
benefits, it's prima facie evidence of bias. When events are
continually cherry-picked, ditto.

Rational decisions require weighing of costs and benefits. If those
aren't fairly, openly presented, the source has an agenda other than
science.

 

[P E Schoen]

"John Larkin" wrote in message

The only thing that's more extreme is the reporting. Weather has always
been
variable. Have some compassion for the billions of terribly poor people
who
want a better life; a warmer climate, higher crop yields, availability of
energy
and petrochemicals and transportation will all make their lives better. If
fracking produces natural gas in/for energy-poor countries, it will be the
greatest gift to the poor in world history.

But if at also permanently pollutes the water supply, when the frackers
abandon the wells and show the poor people the fine print in their hastily
signed agreements, they will be SOL. It is much better for the environment
to use solar, wind, and geothermal, and also teach people how to live
comfortably with much less energy consumption.

Today's alarmist mantra is "Of course, climate change can't be blamed for
any
specific weather event" followed by doing exactly that.

The weather phenomena taken individually cannot be specifically linked to
global warming, but the frequency of major catastrophes has been increasing,
which shows statistical correlation. I don't think we need absolute proof to
take prudent action.

AGW panic is just another doomsday fad. It will go away eventually and
silly
people will find something else to worry about.

At issue is really what needs to be done to protect civilization against the
catastrophic effects of global warming ("weather" or not it has been caused
by human activity). A climate scientist whom I know personally stated that
the effects of global warming would continue to worsen even if caused by the
burning of carbon fuels, and would probably not show improvement for many
decades or even centuries if we stopped using fossil fuels today.

The measures we need to take should be to take preventive measures, such as
building seawalls and coastal buffers and reinforcing buildings and burying
power lines and servicing dangerously deteriorated gas lines and other
infrastructure investments. And we need to reduce energy usage so that
sustainable sources can be used, and natural resources such as oil can be
used for more appropriate things like plastics and pharmaceuticals. We are
already at the point where the "low hanging fruit" has been exhausted and
the real cost of crude oil extraction will drive costs dramatically if we
continue to burn it at present rates.

Paul

 

[[email protected]]

No doubt he's your hero making millions off of the AGW scam he's promoted
for so long. Too bad all his dire predictions turned out wrong like all
those predictions of the end of the world.

Nope, Al Gore's his guy.

I measure my own energy use in milliGores, 1 Gore being Al Gore's
average electrical use at his Nashville house (just one of many, one
might add, and neglecting his natural gas bill) = 18.6 MWHr/month.

For a while I was at 3 milliGores, drifted up to 10 for a while, but
last month I got by on 3.2 mG.

(IOW, I'm a conservationist. Not like those global cooling deniers.)

 

[[email protected]]

Actually, Mr. Sloman seems to be unaware that while it is indisputable
that CO2 is a greenhouse gas and is responsible for some of the warmth of
the earth, doubling it won't have much effect, due to the fact that the
CO2 IR window is totally blocked. You may see a TRIVIAL amount of warming
due to a raise in the sidebars, but you'd also see a decrease due to
CO2's absorption band in the sun's spectral output to the earth.

This is well known - and it is why so many "climate scientist" are
looking for a "positive feedback mechanism" as IR bands alone do NOT
explain the claimed warming (which is due, in part, to the claimed
warming being a big fat lie... a lot of it is UHI and due to not
following their own methodology!)

When someone says something stupid and then backs it up with "I have a
PhD!" all they're really doing is pissing on their own degree and proving
they shouldn't have one. Appeals to authority are a big fail.

Particularly when that "authority" is in a completely different field,
which might just as well be in 15th century Ethiopian literature.

 

[WoolyBully]

They arn't fooling, their smokin, want a toke? I do some of
my best work when stoned. Your milage may vary.

Now there is a vapor we should all be filling the air with!

 

[Bill Sloman]

If that is the case -- and I am far from telling you that I believe
you -- why do you resort to using cheap non-words like "denialist"?

http://www.amazon.com/Merchants-Doubt-Handful-Scientists-Obscured/dp/1608193942

It's not the only information available about what's going on, but it
does set this latest round of big business trashing inconvenient
scientific evidence in it's historical context.

You've been suckered by a well-financed public relations campaign
directed by the same people who earlier told you that smoking wasn't
actually all that bad for your health

Denying what? Denying that the models of certain theorists showing
a climate sensitivity of 3+ degrees C are gospel?

Religions have gospels. Science just has evidence, and not-yet-
falsified interpretations of that evidence. If you were sensitive to
the scientific content of the propositions that you seem to be
objecting to, you'd identify - and quantity - the variable that was
going to create the 3+ K variation. As a clue, it's usually a doubling
of the atmospheric CO2 level from the pre-industrial 270ppm.

Your enthusiasm for typing out phrases that you clearly don't
understand puts you squarely in the "gospel-pushing" camp.

<snipped more rubbish>

 

[Bill Sloman]

Actually, Dr. Sloman seems to be unaware that while it is indisputable
that CO2 is a greenhouse gas and is responsible for some of the warmth of
the earth, doubling it won't have much effect, due to the fact that the
CO2 IR window is totally blocked.

The "fact" that the CO2 IR window is "totally blocked" - it isn't -
doesn't have the significance you imagine. You need to get your head
around the concept of "effective emitting altitude" which is
wavelength dependent number. Below that altitude, most of the
radiation emitted at the wavelength is re-absorbed within the
atmosphere. At that altitude, half of it makes it out into outer
space.

It's the temperature at that altitude that thus determines the amount
of IR radiated to outer space at that wavelength. More CO2 pushes it
higher, where the atmosphere is colder. Since the IR emitted has to
balance the essentially constant IR flux from the Sun, the
temperatures all the way down to the surface have to warm up to keep
the temperature at the emitting altitude a bit warmer than it used to
be.

You may see a TRIVIAL amount of warming
due to a raise in the sidebars, but you'd also see a decrease due to
CO2's absorption band in the sun's spectral output to the earth.

The sun is lot hotter than the earth, and most of it's energy comes in
above the CO2 absorbtion bands. Look up Plancks Law.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Planck's_law

This is well known

It isn't, because it doesn't happen to be true.

- and it is why so many "climate scientist" are
looking for a "positive feedback mechanism" as IR bands alone do NOT
explain the claimed warming

Wrong. And water is another greenhouse gas, and makes a significant
difference. As the earth surface gets warmer, the 70% of it covered by
water sustains a higher partial pressure of water in teh atmosphere.
It's one of the positive feedback mechanisms. Everybody - except you -
has known about it for years, so nobody is "looking for it" at the
moment.

(which is due, in part, to the claimed
warming being a big fat lie... a lot of it is UHI and due to not
following their own methodology!)

You obviously haven't got a clue about the physics involved and your
claims about "lies" and "not following their own methodology" are
simply evidence of your ignorance.

When someone says something stupid and then backs it up with "I have a
PhD!" all they're really doing is pissing on their own degree and proving
they shouldn't have one. Appeals to authority are a big fail.

Perfectly true. Sadly for your rhetoric, I haven't said anything
stupid, and you've made lots of stupid errors. I've not been appealing
to authority, I've been exercising it.

 

[Bill Sloman]

Particularly when that "authority" is in a completely different field,
which might just as well be in 15th century  Ethiopian literature.

Krw doesn't know much about physical chemistry, and less about my
Ph.D. project. He probably doesn't know much about 15th century
Ethiopean literature either.

He obviously doesn't know anything about climate science, or he might
have picked up a few of Marvin the Martian's solecisms. I was
particularly amused by

"you'd also see a decrease due to CO2's absorption band in the sun's
spectral output to the earth."

 

[Bill Sloman]

More logical fallacies.

There no logic involved, merely an exposition of historical fact.

In this case, a red herring combined with a non-sequitur.

Dream on.

Smoking has nothing to do with this, and you bringing
it up means you have nothing in the way of a point.

On the contrary, the technique for devaluing scientific information
that was invented by the tobacco companies to preserve their right to
keep on damaging their customer's health for a few more years, are
exactly the same techniques, occasionally applied by exactly the same
people, that are being used to cloud your thinking about anthropogenic
global warming.

More ad-hominems.

Scarcely. The phrase he used was scientifically illiterate - not even
wrong, to borrow Dirac's phrase, and there's no way of pointing this
out without belittling him.

When that's all you have, people don't
believe you.

That's scarcely all I have

http://www.aip.org/history/climate/summary.htm

offers rather more.

That's your problem; even if you have a winning
argument you have adopted the tactics of a loser.

So, how would a winner have coped with such a fatuous counter-
argument?

But if you had a winning argument, you'd advance it.

I do and did. The AIP web-site gives chapter and verse. If you are too
dim to get your head around it, that makes you the loser, not me.

You don't, so everyone knows you are a loser. See the problem the warmists have?

With people who can't do joined up logic? You do exhibit the nature of
the problem depressingly well.

 

[Bill Sloman]

What's clear is that people intuitively can tell they have no
real argument by the tactics they constantly use.

That should be true of the denialist propaganda, but it does seem to
be fooling some of the people - Mickey Langan included - all of the
time.

That is why they have lost and faded into irrelevance.

The denialist propaganda machine has done what it was intended to do -
to buy a little more time for the fossil carbon extraction industries
to make a lot more money. It may have done enough to guarantee a human
population crash in a generation or two - it's certainly done enough
to make avoiding such a crash a lot more difficult.

Doha was a joke, and no one even tried to pretend it wasn't. All because they use these
stupid tactics that a child can see through.

Not exactly. The problem was that they kept on presenting the
scientific evidence, and the "merchants of doubt" know how to get the
child-minded to under-value it.

 

[Bill Sloman]

OK, you can have the 1.6, as long as the skiing isn't affected.




The only thing that's more extreme is the reporting. Weather has always been
variable. Have some compassion for the billions of terribly poor people who want
a better life; a warmer climate, higher crop yields, availability of energy and
petrochemicals and transportation will all make their lives better. If fracking
produces natural gas in/for energy-poor countries, it will be the greatest gift
to the poor in world history.

Pollyanna Larkin see only the positive effects of global warming, and
expects global warming and more CO2 to do more for crop plants than
for weeds.

Today's alarmist mantra is "Of course, climate change can't be blamed forany
specific weather event" followed by doing exactly that.

Not exactly. They do note that extreme weather events ahve become more
frequent since we started giving the atmosphere a little more energy
to play with.

AGW panic is just another doomsday fad. It will go away eventually and silly
people will find something else to worry about.

Whereas sensible people will continue to pay attention to serious
science, rather than the denialist propaganda peddled by the fossil
carbon extraction industry. Nobody is panicked by anthropogenic global
warming - it's a slow-moving threat that just gets progressively more
troublesome. We may find something else more serious and immediate to
worry about - brain-dead right-wing Americans do make zombies look
benign - but anthropogenic global warming does seem to have staying
power.

 

[Bill Sloman]

Careful, that logic works in reverse, too--stipulating to your
assumptions, why would you deny food, transport, medicine, and comfort
to Africans, Indians, and Chinese?

Not necessary. Solar energy is going to be cheaper than energy
obtained by burning fossil carbon in a decade or so anyway. Why not
get them started off right, rather than stuck with 6% efficient coal-
fired generators (which the Chinese are now shutting down at a great
rate, at the same time as they are ramping up their photo-voltaic
production capacity, bringing the cross-over date forward ).

 Warmer winters for Canadians?

But hotter summers?

Not AFAICT.

You haven't been paying attention to the literature, Extreme weather
has become significantly more likely - more water vapor in the air
above the oceans is more energy for every weather system to play with.
Some don't play nice.

 Until Sandy--which wasn't particularly remarkable itself
except for unluckily meeting a nor'easter--we've had years of below-
average activity.

That's statistics for you. The unexpected "black swan" always comes as
a surprise.

When a source forever relates the costs of a thing, but never possible
benefits, it's prima facie evidence of bias.  When events are
continually cherry-picked, ditto.

That's what peer-review is designed to detect. On simple questions
like that, peer-review works well.

Rational decisions require weighing of costs and benefits.  If those
aren't fairly, openly presented, the source has an agenda other than
science.

And which source did you have in mind?

 

[Bill Sloman]

In a chaotic system, everything changes everything. Sure you can blame
AGW for hurricane Sandy. You can just as logically blame my burning a
pile of oak leaves in 1968 for Sandy.

We painted the roof of our building with nice shiny aluminum paint. In
20 years or so, that will change everything.

It changes weather, not climate - climate balances the energy coming
in from the sun with the energy re-radiated out to the rest of the
universe from the upper reaches of the earth's atmosphere.

Weather - and ocean currents - shift some of the energy from the
equator, which gets lots, up to the poles which get less. The exact
routes the energy takes vary from day to day and - to a lesser extent
- from year to year, but conservation of energy makes climate a lot
more predictable than weather.

We tell John this from time to time, but he doesn't know enough to
make sense of what we are telling him.

 

[RipeCrisbies]

It has the advantage of being benign. It is not a semantic tarbrush like
"denier", intended to evoke images of holocaust denial.

I think that is something going on in your mind, most people know that
the word denier refers to nylons.

As to your creation of the word 'warmist' it is precisely a "semantic
tarbrush" (ugh!), http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Warmist



--
M0WYM
www.radiowymsey.org

Sales @ radiowymsey
http://stores.ebay.co.uk/Sales-At-Radio-Wymsey/

 

[Bill Sloman]

Nice assertion. Anything to back it up in the way of evidence? Just
point out the fallacious nature of some arguments made.

"What's clear is that people intuitively can tell they have no real
argument by the tactics they constantly use."

The tactics have no logical connection to the reality of the
arguments. Most of the people who understand and accept the scientific
evidence for anthropogenic global warming are well aware that
the denialists and their gullible disciples couldn't care less about
the scientific evidence, and that educated minority get bored with
knocking down the same nonsensical propositions time and time again.

Find your nonsensical proposition and Ill knock it down for you, but
you'll get your deserved measure of derision in the process.

See, there you go. Conspiracy theories.

Not theories. Facts. Sourcewatch collects it all into a neatly
organised website.

http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=Exxon_Mobil

The "evil carbon-funded denialist
machine". Except no one has ever found the funding -- it doesn't exist.

Numerous journalist have found Exxon-Mobil's contributions in their
published company accounts. There's plenty of other evidence.

http://www.amazon.com/Merchants-Doubt-Handful-Scientists-Obscured/dp/1608193942

It's not the only book on the subject, but Oreskes and Conway have
documented it better than most.

Now if you want to talk funding which is incontroverible and self-
evident, how about the scientists who have ridden the "climate change"
gravy train for the past three decades.

Some gravy train. They get the same kind of university jobs as every
other academic, earn the same kind of money, and get shat on by the
denialism industry. Oreskes and Conway do mention the ways that the
denialism lobby has made itself unpleasant from time to time.

Love this cartoon:

       http://duxmail.com/latest.jpg

You would. You are too dim to realise that if greenhouse gases had no
effect, it's not only the climate scientists who'd be out of a job,
but every physicist as well - the laws of physics would have just
renegotiated themselves, and we'd be back to propriating the gods.

Perhaps you are subject to that one yourself. I can see the conundrum
of the climate scientist. It must be galling to have studied a long
time only to find out the train you have chosen to ride seems to have
run out of fuel.

Pity about your grasp of reality.

These apocalyptic end-of-the-world forecasts would be more chilling if
the GTA had been cooperating with the dire predictions of the past. So
far, I'll take comfort in the knowledge that apocalyptic end-of-the-
world forecasters are so far 0 for 100,000. Oh, 100,001 now that we
have hit Dec 22.

You are confused. Anthropogenic global warming doesn't involve the end
of the world, merely a progressive change in climatic conditions. If
you know so little that you can confuse it with the apocalyptic end-of-
the-world forecasts that you get from potty religious sects, you have
to be monumentally dim and ignorant.

See? You prove my point every time you speak.

Your point being that you are a gullible sucker for the denialist
propaganda machine? And that you don't like having this pointed out?
What a pity.

You can't help but make these types of claims, it seems to be in your DNA.

Actually, it's in my nervous system; the DNA laid the ground work, but
if I'd been fed on junk food and exposed to junk education, the best
DNA wouldn't have been able to put together a nervous system that
could profit from a decent scientific education. You don't seem to
have been as lucky.