A Republican Case for Climate Action

[Unitedwestand13]

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

the problem is not the fact that the glaciers are receding, it is because they are receding at a faster rate then anticpated.

 

[Threegoofs]

I believe the scientists.

You believe the PR men from the CAGW Propaganda Department.

They work in different parts of the building.

Then you'll be interested in this months issue of Science.

 

[code1211]

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.

As I said.

The moral of this little story is that the AGW Alarmists have noted that the surface temperature and the temperature of the entire atmosphere is cooling. As it always does every 60 years. That 60 year cycle part is not something they note.

The AGW alarmists are claiming that the warming is still occurring, but that the warming is being absorbed by the oceans.

Oops! Not the surface oceans. Oops! not the oceans down to 2000 meters.

The ocean is warming in the depths that we cannot measure, Yeah, that's the ticket. In the part that's too deep to measure. That's where the warming is happening. That's where it is.

 

[code1211]

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.

Wildfires that are difficult to maintain are also thought to be the result of not clearing away the underbrush, keeping the lumber industry from doing what they did in the past to create fire breaks and just because that's what happens in areas where it doesn't rain that much.

The encroachment of people into areas where they didn't used to be are probably another big reason and idiots who build fires in tinder box areas when they are camping for the first time because it seems like it might be fun.

What is the point you are trying to make?

 

[code1211]

the problem is not the fact that the glaciers are receding, it is because they are receding at a faster rate then anticpated.

Anticipated by whom and based on what? What is the rate of the recession and is that rate increasing. What was the state of the glaciers at any particular point in the past and what is the state today and what was the prediction in the past on which you base you assertion?

 

[code1211]

Then you'll be interested in this months issue of Science.

Why not cast a pearl?

 

[Vern]

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

mmmm, how do I put this delicately. I don't need to present 'research' on deep ocean warming. Lord tried to slip in a non fact that the deep oceans “warming faster than the atmosphere” . He should back that up that statement. But in my dealings with Lord, I know he wont. And you don't need 'research' to understand that if the atmosphere is warming that the oceans will absorb some of that heat.

 

[Occam's Razor]

As I said.

The moral of this little story is that the AGW Alarmists have noted that the surface temperature and the temperature of the entire atmosphere is cooling. As it always does every 60 years. That 60 year cycle part is not something they note.

The AGW alarmists are claiming that the warming is still occurring, but that the warming is being absorbed by the oceans.

Oops! Not the surface oceans. Oops! not the oceans down to 2000 meters.

The ocean is warming in the depths that we cannot measure, Yeah, that's the ticket. In the part that's too deep to measure. That's where the warming is happening. That's where it is.

Actually, if you take us back to the levels of pollution in the air we had sixty years ago and kept everything else the same, you'd see a radical temp spike. This was documented quite clearly on 9-11 when all air traffic was grounded. The effect of nearly eliminating the aircraft exhaust literally brightened the sky and increased the amount of sunlight striking the earths surface. There was a clear and alarming spike in temperatures. In other words, the affects of warming are being masked to a certain degree by a dimming of the atmosphere by pollutants other than co2.

This is a complex issue, and it seems that the trend is to try to distill it down to sound-bytes that support political positions, not scientific ones. There are no definitive answers, yet there are very strong trends and indicators from many branches of science pertaining to present and past climate.

But, I don't need science to know when I'm on the wrong side of history (eg: lessons learned) I wear my seatbelt and insure my car even though the chances of having a serious accident on any given trip is very low. I keep a gun even though I've never been the victim of home invasion, have little fear of foreign invasion and don't expect my gov't to deny me due process. I support conservation groups (which are often conservative groups), because I believe in leaving my family the same earth my grandparents left me, or better...

I also believe that we humans can accomplish damn near anything, though still waiting on fusion... If an asteroid were discovered on a path to earth, I don't expect we'd throw up our hands and get a keg for the end of the world orgy... we'd do something about it. This is a challenge. Humanity is at it's best when overcoming challenges. The tipping point of climate change is that asteroid. Natural or otherwise, we have a vested interest in a stable climate.

 

[code1211]

mmmm, how do I put this delicately. I don't need to present 'research' on deep ocean warming. Lord tried to slip in a non fact that the deep oceans “warming faster than the atmosphere” . He should back that up that statement. But in my dealings with Lord, I know he wont. And you don't need 'research' to understand that if the atmosphere is warming that the oceans will absorb some of that heat.

Does the warming absorbed by the oceans in your scenario somehow skip the surface and the depths to 2000 meters and manifest in the deep ocean?

How does heat do this?

 

[code1211]

Actually, if you take us back to the levels of pollution in the air we had sixty years ago and kept everything else the same, you'd see a radical temp spike. This was documented quite clearly on 9-11 when all air traffic was grounded. The effect of nearly eliminating the aircraft exhaust literally brightened the sky and increased the amount of sunlight striking the earths surface. There was a clear and alarming spike in temperatures. In other words, the affects of warming are being masked to a certain degree by a dimming of the atmosphere by pollutants other than co2.

This is a complex issue, and it seems that the trend is to try to distill it down to sound-bytes that support political positions, not scientific ones. There are no definitive answers, yet there are very strong trends and indicators from many branches of science pertaining to present and past climate.

But, I don't need science to know when I'm on the wrong side of history (eg: lessons learned) I wear my seatbelt and insure my car even though the chances of having a serious accident on any given trip is very low. I keep a gun even though I've never been the victim of home invasion, have little fear of foreign invasion and don't expect my gov't to deny me due process. I support conservation groups (which are often conservative groups), because I believe in leaving my family the same earth my grandparents left me, or better...

I also believe that we humans can accomplish damn near anything, though still waiting on fusion... If an asteroid were discovered on a path to earth, I don't expect we'd throw up our hands and get a keg for the end of the world orgy... we'd do something about it. This is a challenge. Humanity is at it's best when overcoming challenges. The tipping point of climate change is that asteroid. Natural or otherwise, we have a vested interest in a stable climate.

I agree with the idea of limiting the the effect that i have on the world around me. Despite that, i do live in a society that crates and fills land fills and that's just how it is.

I try to avoid unneeded pollution and favor electric tools over gas and so forth.

Source reduction is always the best avenue.

That said, the impact of CO2 emitted by man on the climate seems to me to be mild and perhaps nonexistent. The proof that will convince otherwise me has yet to be presented. The climate record of the past, both distant and near term does not support a strict causation of CO2 for the temperature and the warmth of today is not a great departure from warming of this particular interglacial.

Given the state of the space program, if an asteroid impact is deemed to inescapable, I will take up yoga so I will be limber enough to kiss my pitutie goodbye.

 

[Threegoofs]

Why not cast a pearl?

It's the subject of a separate thread.

 

[Lord of Planar]

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?

Not at all. When it comes to AGW, the material taught is all based on CO2 being the primary cause, when there is not definitive evidence. The scientific method used is incomplete and flawed when it comes to explaining AGW. There is so much of proper science removed in the climate scientists, it has become more a faith than a science.

 

[Lord of Planar]

Please show me where I said CO2 was the only factor in climate.

I can wait.

Your constant dismissal of other causes. It is also obvious you believe it is the primary cause.

 

[Threegoofs]

Your constant dismissal of other causes. It is also obvious you believe it is the primary cause.

I believe it is the primary cause NOW. Not the primary cause throughout the geologic history of the earth.

You seem to have trouble distinguishing that.

 

[Lord of Planar]

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

Important by what standard? If it's 10% of the warming, that is important.

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.

The facts hurt. Don't they

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.

Then why do you keep citing blogs? You say it's because they use the peer reviewed papers, but then you are still relying on their biased interpretation. Notice how I continue to say if you don;t understand the material and subject, you shouldn't be debating it. I don't rely on the blogs like you do.

 

[Lord of Planar]

er uh low, your current post disproves your first post. The lying forbes 'editorial' says there has been no warming (or at least you claimed it did) for 17 years. Your new climate hero believes in global warming. He also believes in man made global warming. He just says it wont be as bad as predicted. So can we agree that your first 'editorial' was lying?

Oh this is from Spencer in his 2010 book:
“A careful examination of the satellite data suggests that manmade warming due to a doubling of atmospheric carbon dioxide could be less than 1ºC – possibly much less.”

"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."

RealClimate: Review of Spencer’s ‘Great Global Warming Blunder’

RealClimate has an agenda. You can't trust what they say.

 

[Threegoofs]

RealClimate has an agenda. You can't trust what they say.

Funny. Many of us think that way about you,too...

 

[Lord of Planar]

I don't know if the earth is warming or cooling. After reading this article it just seems screwed up.

North Pole Sees Unprecedented July Cold

That's interesting. I wonder if, because of more exposed water, the evaporation-cooling effect is in greater quantities?

 

[Lord of Planar]

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.

If you have been following, any heretic of AGW is targeted, and someone finds a flimsy way to discredit them.

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.

So just how can the deep oceans warm so much when the greenhouse effect doesn't reach that far? The sun does, but not CO2 forcing...

 

[grip]

That's interesting. I wonder if, because of more exposed water, the evaporation-cooling effect is in greater quantities?

I read an article that theorized that when there's a temperature shift it can cause the Arctic to release more cold air out of it's climate zone having an overall cooling effect on global temps. The initial effect is warmer poles with temperatures becoming more temperate. Beyond this they didn't speculate because of the atmospheric-ocean cycling of energy though they suspected it's happened before and takes centuries or longer.

 

[Lord of Planar]

I read an article that theorized that when there's a temperature shift it can cause the Arctic to release more cold air out of it's climate zone having an overall cooling effect on global temps. The initial effect is warmer poles with temperatures becoming more temperate. Beyond this they didn't speculate because of the atmospheric-ocean cycling of energy though they suspected it's happened before and takes centuries or longer.

And that's what it amounts to. It shows we still have so little knowledge of cause and effect, yet CO2 is raised to biblical proportions.

 

[Lord of Planar]

Funny. Many of us think that way about you,too...

My agenda is clear.

Truth.

I am completely against unwarranted and mandated expenses to mitigate a problem we have no control over. I am happy with our efforts of stopping aerosol pollutants, but I am not happy with the CO2 bandwagon.

H2O is the greenhouse gas with the greatest effect. Why aren't you warmers asking to reduce atmospheric humidity?

 

[LowDown]

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."

Of course Spencer's work hasn't been discredited. It's pretty silly and careless to make a claim like that. He is getting published in peer reviewed journals on a regular basis, especially with regard to his work on estimates of climate sensitivity. He speaks at scientific meetings, before Congress, and on and on.

With regard to Arnold, he has no choice because he knows nothing about medicine. For those who know something we have no need to rely as much on the opinions of others. Ninety eight wrong doctors is 98 doctors who are wrong. The truth of science is found with whoever gets it right, not by the hordes of people who get it wrong.

Germany failed to develop the A-bomb and lost the war because they believed strongly in Arnold's rule of doctors. Their physicists, led by Heisenberg, held a consensus concerning the critical mass of U235 that was off by an order of magnitude. Or, to be more correct, Heisenberg calculated the critical mass and nobody dared to contradict him about it. Dissent was verboten, and culturally incorrect, so the opinion of the leader of the group automatically became the consensus. It led them to believe than an A bomb couldn't be built in a reasonable amount of time using U235. Meanwhile, back in the US one guy at Los Alamos who nobody ever heard of hit on the right solution and won over the others into realizing an A bomb was feasible through data collected from experimental reactors.

 

[Vern]

RealClimate has an agenda. You can't trust what they say.

that's a classic Lord of Planar post, more juvenile aspersions. Not as good as your " I used to like Scientific American but lately....". I do know this lord, I cant trust what you say based on what you've said. You have a track record. And just so you know, Real Climate is a site of actual climate scientists. Seems like a better source for climate info that a exxon funded website. They probably have an agenda too. I guess you were too busy casting aspersions to notice the 4 republican EPA chiefs saying the time for denial is over.

"RealClimate is a commentary site on climate science by working climate scientists for the interested public and journalists. We aim to provide a quick response to developing stories and provide the context sometimes missing in mainstream commentary. The discussion here is restricted to scientific topics and will not get involved in any political or economic implications of the science. "

what unbiased, no agenda source do you get your "information" from? oh that's right scientists cant be trusted. You get it from conservative political operatives.

 

[Vern]

Of course Spencer's work hasn't been discredited. It's pretty silly and careless to make a claim like that. He is getting published in peer reviewed journals on a regular basis, especially with regard to his work on estimates of climate sensitivity. He speaks at scientific meetings, before Congress, and on and on.
.

uh oh lowdown, your narratives are tripping over each other. What about the "peer reviewed" papers that show global warming is real and man made. I think there is more of them. I think the consensus is 98 % of peer reviewed papers (that expressed an opinion in the matter) say its real and man made.. Oh that's right, you wave your hand and all those peer reviewed papers are magically not true.

And get this low, being peer reviewed means he has to allow his work to be (get this) reviewed. When other scientists review his work, they are unable to to recreate his numbers. And that's the problem with peer review. He can fool conservative posters at this website but he cant fool other climate scientists. That's why he decided to write a book and take his message to the people.

""Roy Spencer has come up with yet another “silver bullet” to show that climate sensitivity is lower than IPCC estimates. I.e., he fits a simple 1-box climate model to the net flux of heat into the upper 700 m of the ocean, and infers a climate sensitivity of only about 1 °C (2x CO2). There are several flaws in his methods–inconsistent initial conditions, failure to use the appropriate data, and failure to account for ocean heating deeper than 700 m. (He fixed the last one in an update.) All of these flaws pushed his model to produce a lower climate sensitivity estimate. When the flaws are corrected, the model estimates climate sensitivities of at least 3 °C, which is the IPCC’s central estimate. ... while Spencer’s latest effort doesn’t really do any damage to the consensus position, it turns out that it does directly contradict the work he promoted in The Great Global Warming Blunder."[9]"

Roy Spencer - SourceWatch

wow, he contradicts himself. anyhoo, its good to know you think "peer reviewed" is important. I wonder if Spencer's theory on creationism was peer reviewed?