A Republican Case for Climate Action

[code1211]

Most of the state of Florida, New York City, DC, Norfolk, Charleston, SC and the Bay Area in California, London, most of the Netherlands and countless other places would likely disagree.

They can disagree all they like.

In the future, the moon will have receded far enough from the earth so it actually leaves Earth's orbit. It is likely the interactions that currently exist between these two bodies will end before then and the entire ecosystem will be devastated.

What are the people who think they can control nature doing to stop this?

 

[Unitedwestand13]

Then it should be easy for them to provide the proof that backs their claims.

Why is the globe a full degree cooler right now than it was 8000 years ago?

so if the globe is a degree cooler, why is the united states having so many gigantic wildfires since the year 2000.

 

[code1211]

You appparently havent been reading this thread. Let me point out post #20 by your buddy denier, Code1121.

For ease of reading, here it is. Whenever confronted with facts, ol' Threegoofs calls names:

"Such a firm belief and not a fact to stand it on.

Where does the data for deep ocean warming come from? There is no reliable or consistent method of data collection from this depth in the ocean. The Argo Array let you down and did not support the hysteria for the ocean warming to the 3000 meter depth.

The world has cooled according to every data collection agency on the planet over the last decade.

Of the last ten years, 2013 has more ice than five and less ice than five. It has more ice than the most recent five. Sounds like the cooling is being represented by the ice extent in the Arctic."

 

[code1211]

They can't get published if they don't chant the dogma. Besides, it does not disagree with what I said.

Yes, the acidity increases with CO2. Are you too blind to see that if a 0.01 pH increase is due to CO2, and a 0.1 pH increase by other forces, that the statement is still true?

Why not quote this part?

At least he's learning a trade.

Do Cherry Pickers make minimum?

 

[Threegoofs]

For ease of reading, here it is. Whenever confronted with facts, ol' Threegoofs calls names:

Which was the name? Buddy? Or Denier?

Do you object to either?

 

[code1211]

so - if the doctor told you that based on your lifestyle you were heading for major health problems in the future, you'd just say - there's nothing I can do about it, no matter what the evidence to the contrary?

Why do you continuously compare this notion of AGW to actual science?

AGW is not even past the point of being a hypothesis.

 

[Unitedwestand13]

For ease of reading, here it is. Whenever confronted with facts, ol' Threegoofs calls names:

"Such a firm belief and not a fact to stand it on.

Where does the data for deep ocean warming come from? There is no reliable or consistent method of data collection from this depth in the ocean. The Argo Array let you down and did not support the hysteria for the ocean warming to the 3000 meter depth.

The world has cooled according to every data collection agency on the planet over the last decade.

Of the last ten years, 2013 has more ice than five and less ice than five. It has more ice than the most recent five. Sounds like the cooling is being represented by the ice extent in the Arctic."

I think the glaciers in glacier national park disagree with your global cooling assesment

Retreat of Glaciers in Glacier National Park | Northern Rocky Mountain Science Center (NOROCK)

In Glacier National Park (GNP), MT some effects of global climate change are strikingly clear. Glacier recession is underway, and many glaciers have already disappeared. The retreat of these small alpine glaciers reflects changes in recent climate as glaciers respond to altered temperature and precipitation. It has been estimated that there were approximately 150 glaciers present in 1850, and most glaciers were still present in 1910 when the park was established. In 2010, we consider there to be only 25 glaciers larger than 25 acres remaining in GNP. A computer-based climate model predicts that some of the park’s largest glaciers will vanish by 2030 (Hall and Fagre, 2003). This is only one model prediction but, if true, then the park’s glaciers could disappear in the next several decades. However, glacier disappearance may occur even earlier, as many of the glaciers are retreating faster than their predicted rates.

 

[code1211]

so what you are saying is that you don't understand the difference between religion (based on myth) and the "scientific method" which is based on empirical and measurable evidence and the testing of hypotheses.

is that correct?

AGW is not based on empirical measurements. It exists only in the world of computer models.

 

[code1211]

If you read the abstract, it plainly states that CO2 is an important climate driver.

You whine about how I don't post links, then when I post one, you actually interpret it to be the exact opposite of what it says.

In case you haven't noticed,BTW, my viewpoint is the established scientific one. Yours is the one that derives science from Blogs, Monckton, and the Heartland Institute.

There are many, many important climate drivers. Other papers have called CO2 the "Prime Driver". This paper obviously has backed away from that.

Does being one of many fulfill the Catastrophic part of your charge that this will result in CAGW?

You have posted a link to a paper that opposes your point of view.

 

[code1211]

what do you think the American Academy for the Advancement of Science is?

in 2006 the organization published as statement on climate change and has consistently published statements since that time that reinforce this.

Do they also have a published prediction of future climate that is both 30 years old and accurate?

If this is based on real science, there should be plenty of accurate, 30 year old predictions to choose from. I'm only asking for one of them.

 

[code1211]

chalice of AGW ? ever the melodramatic Lord of Planar seems to just get the facts wrong again. Instead of working on your euphemisms you work on your facts. No Lord, a lot of cons are still stuck on Republican Lie #1: its a hoax. You should poll your fellow cons (see the Forbes "editorial" lowdown posted). Some like you seemed to have moved on to Republican Lie # 2: Its real but natural. And the latest republican hero Spencer is already starting with the next Republican Lie #3. Its real and man made but wont be as bad as predicted. (sadly I hoped he was right but since his work was so easily discredited I feel its okay to call that Lie #3)


ah, the simplistic question designed to prove years of research from thousands of scientists is all wrong. But I wish you would use your 'brain power' to fact check your own posts instead of casting juvenile aspersions. See how how Lord slips in “warming faster than the atmosphere” into his question as if its a fact. (he does that a lot) Other than you Lord, who says that? (he wont answer)

Anyhoo Lord, I’ll explain why the deep oceans are warming. CO2 traps heat. Energy that would have dissipated into space stays in the atmosphere. (am I going too fast?). The oceans are giant thermal batteries. As the atmosphere warms up, the oceans absorb the heat. Its just another part of the climate models actual climate scientists use. But based on your never ending “falsehoods” about the volt, I know your agenda is to obfuscate the facts.

Present the research on the deep ocean warming. This should be good.

 

[code1211]

and that's pretty much what Spencer is saying. the problem is that his work has been discredited. Again Arnold says it best

" As Arnold Schwarzenegger said about the diversity of views of climate scientists, if your child is ill and 98 out of 100 doctors call for life-saving surgery and 2 say it is not necessary, your decision is obvious."

During the Holocene, the temperature has stayed within about a two degree range of temperature. We are currently just about smack dab in the middle of that range.

What is the imminent cause for the panic that you recommend?

View attachment 67151496

 

[Occam's Razor]

No, there is considerable doubt that 1) Predictions of future climate are correct and 2) Anything that can be done by man that is financially or politically fesible will have any effect on the climate.

All action along that line will be a boondoggle and a waste of resources.

The average global temperature stopped rising 17 years ago and the rise still hasn't resumed. Whether the warming trend eventually continues at some point (your guess is as good as anyone's on that) isn't as important as the fact that the climate models people are relying on to make predictions about future climate completely failed to predict this pause in warming.

By the way, the remark about the deep oceans warming is probably not correct.

Different reports show that, overall, 2005 was hotter than 1998. What's more, globally, the hottest 12-month period ever recorded was from June 2009 to May 2010.

Though humans love record-breakers, they don't, on their own, tell us a much about trends -- and it's trends that matter when monitoring Climate Change. Trends only appear by looking at all the data, globally, and taking into account other variables -- like the effects of the El Nino ocean current or sunspot activity -- not by cherry-picking single points.

There's also a tendency for some people just to concentrate on air temperatures when there are other, more useful, indicators that can perhaps give us a better idea how rapidly the world is warming. Oceans for instance -- due to their immense size and heat storing capability (called 'thermal mass') -- tend to give a much more 'steady' indication of the warming that is happening. Here records show that the Earth has been warming at a steady rate before and since 1998 and there's no signs of it slowing any time soon.



Land, atmosphere, and ice heating (red), 0-700 meter ocean heat content (OHC) increase (light blue), 700-2,000 meter OHC increase (dark blue). From Nuccitelli et al. (2012).

As for your "probably not correct" link, Dr Roy has been thoroughly discredited again and again. Posting his crap again wins you no debate points. Dr. Creationist - Don't worry, God won't let it happen" is an embarrassment to NASA and science. At best, he's a fringe kook.

In the end, the only thing that matters is that the deep oceans ARE increasing in temp. This is critical because of the methane hydrites on the ocean floor.

 

[code1211]

Were I a cynical sort I would suspect that Trenberth is blaming the deep ocean for soaking up all the heat energy because he knows that there are no comprehensive measurements of deep ocean temperatures to contradict his suppositions. And that's all they are. Trenberth used a computer model to show how transfer of heat to the deep ocean could explain why heat is missing from the climate system, he didn't prove that is actually happening. As it is, it's impossible to either prove or disprove the idea because we are talking about changes in deep ocean temperatures that would be impossible to measure even if the instruments needed to make the measurements existed and were in place. The changes in temperature predicted would be on the order of one one hundredth of a degree.

As Spencer points out, there has been no increase in ocean winds, so that mechanism can't explain why the transfer of heat energy to deep oceans increased. Nor is there any other likely explanation for it. There is no reason known for the ocean to suddenly start sucking up heat energy just over the past 15 years or so.

Excellent post.

Again, the AGW Diehards are using unprovable supposition dressed up like data to prove that which does not exist by using that which cannot be observed.

 

[code1211]

Oh my god. You are such a tool.

If you read the study, you'll see that it was a survey of 'institutional resistance' of petroleum engineers, to better understand how they can be smart enough to understand the science, but how resistant they are to change.

Here's a paragraph from the actual study, not the Forbes fabrication.

---------------------------
To address this, we reconstruct the frames of one group of experts who have not received much attention in previous research and yet play a central role in understanding industry responses – professional experts in petroleum and related industries. Not only are we interested in the positions they take towards climate change and in the recommendations for policy development and organizational decision-making that they derive from their framings, but also in how they construct and attempt to safeguard their expert status against others. To gain an understanding of the competing expert claims and to link them to issues of professional resistance and defensive institutional work, we combine insights from various disciplines and approaches: framing, professions literature, and institutional theory. This addresses the call from Zald and Lounsbury (2010, p. 970) for a systematic re-engagement ‘of the critical and expanded role of experts and communities of expertise – especially the international dimension … [as] opportunities for scholarship in Organization Studies’. Using a qualitative methodology and induction, we find a variety of frames and the strategies used to promote them. Our study demonstrates that the majority of ‘command posts’ (Zald & Lounsbury, 2010, p. 963) within organizations, especially in the petroleum industry, seem to be manned with opponents to the IPCC and anthropogenic climate science who are actively engaged in defensive institutional work

So people who are paid to support AGW, CAGW as you like to call it, are reliable.

Those who actually make livings do real world work with this stuff are not reliable even though by their occupations, we may be assured that they are the absolute most knowledgable people that money can buy.

The real experts in this are the ones that actually work on this stuff and make real world predictions that form the basis to spend real world money, lots of it, on where to drill and what will be found.

 

[code1211]

so if the globe is a degree cooler, why is the united states having so many gigantic wildfires since the year 2000.

Because they are burning?

Is this a trick question?

 

[code1211]

Which was the name? Buddy? Or Denier?

Do you object to either?

I object to neither, Buddy. Especially from a Denier who thinks that CO2 is the only driver of temperature and denies the impact of the other 49 or so factors. You know, the ones that dominate the forcing from CO2.

 

[code1211]

I think the glaciers in glacier national park disagree with your global cooling assesment

Retreat of Glaciers in Glacier National Park | Northern Rocky Mountain Science Center (NOROCK)

So the glaciers will likely disappear.

When did they originally form? I would guess that they formed after the 5000 years ago mark. Could be wrong.

What does the article say?

View attachment 67151497

 

[Threegoofs]

During the Holocene, the temperature has stayed within about a two degree range of temperature. We are currently just about smack dab in the middle of that range.

What is the imminent cause for the panic that you recommend?

View attachment 67151496

Hey, did you get that information from a scientific journal?

I thought you didn't believe in that stuff...

 

[Threegoofs]

So people who are paid to support AGW, CAGW as you like to call it, are reliable.

Those who actually make livings do real world work with this stuff are not reliable even though by their occupations, we may be assured that they are the absolute most knowledgable people that money can buy.

The real experts in this are the ones that actually work on this stuff and make real world predictions that form the basis to spend real world money, lots of it, on where to drill and what will be found.

You really live in bizarroland, don't you?

Where the scientific papers mean the opposite of what they say, where the guys who work in an industry threatened by AGW are somehow less effected by it than academics, and where scientific consensus is the opposite of what is accepted.

 

[code1211]

As for your "probably not correct" link, Dr Roy has been thoroughly discredited again and again. Posting his crap again wins you no debate points. Dr. Creationist - Don't worry, God won't let it happen" is an embarrassment to NASA and science. At best, he's a fringe kook.

In the end, the only thing that matters is that the deep oceans ARE increasing in temp. This is critical because of the methane hydrites on the ocean floor.

Any data collected on the temperatures of oceans prior to the Agro Array of buoys being deployed is suspect because it was not done systematically or with well calibrated and coordinated instruments nor was it systematically collected or analyzed.

The data from Argo to the depths that the buoys reach shows ocean cooling.

The data from the deep oceans does not exist.

Argo (oceanography) - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

 

[code1211]

Hey, did you get that information from a scientific journal?

I thought you didn't believe in that stuff...

I believe the scientists.

You believe the PR men from the CAGW Propaganda Department.

They work in different parts of the building.

 

[Occam's Razor]

Any data collected on the temperatures of oceans prior to the Agro Array of buoys being deployed is suspect because it was not done systematically or with well calibrated and coordinated instruments nor was it systematically collected or analyzed.

The data from Argo to the depths that the buoys reach shows ocean cooling.

The data from the deep oceans does not exist.

Argo (oceanography) - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Direct temperature collection does not exist... however, thanks to science and cross discipline research, we know that certain chemical and biological processes happen in certain temperature ranges. These can be determined from sediment analysis.

And... by your own admission, going solely on temp record collection only, you do not have enough data to plot a trend yet. And if you try to include data from other sources, your model quickly fails... so you call it unreliable or ignore that it exists at all.

 

[code1211]

You really live in bizarroland, don't you?

Where the scientific papers mean the opposite of what they say, where the guys who work in an industry threatened by AGW are somehow less effected by it than academics, and where scientific consensus is the opposite of what is accepted.

There is no world wide conspiracy to support the need for use of Fossil fuels. It as needed to our society as is air or water.

Without it there is world wide famine, pestilence, plague and death on a scale undreamed of by even the most dedicated Islamist.

The oil companies spend less than a fraction of one percent of their profits to minimize the hysteria of CO2 propaganda.

There is no world wide conspiracy on this. You can relax.

 

[Unitedwestand13]

Because they are burning?

Is this a trick question?

there are concerns about wildfires nowadays because they are gigantic, there was a a wildfire in the bear wallow wilderness Arizona in 2011 that burned a area of 500,000 acres, it was the largest wildfire in arizona's history.

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

there are concerns that wildfires on the same size and scale of the wallow fire will become more commonplace because climate change is setting the stage for such disasters.

higher temperatures, widespread drought, earlier snow melt and spring vegetation growth, all are contributing to the increased severity of wildfires.