STUDY: 'Global warming' has made weather better for most in USA...

[bubbabgone]

A friend once said, that the only thing that kept Y2K from getting to be a good crises,
was it had an expiration date!
The boundary conditions of the AGW issue have always been fuzzy,
and I don't think that is an accident.
There really is enormous uncertainty about how all the variables work together.

Yeah. Nature has a way of screwing with humans.

 

[MrT]

But what does it take for the alarmists to consider the possibility that they could be being force fed a lot of hooey on this stuff?

Scientists recognize that their predictions might be wrong. Alarmists recognize that scientists might be wrong. However, when you collect an extensive amount of scientific knowledge from reputable experts and that knowledge is double checked, and triple checked by independent sources, then the chances that we are "just being fed a lot of hooey" becomes increasingly unlikely. But what does it take for a denier to consider the possibility that they could be being forced a lot of hooey on this stuff? After all, we can trace a lot of denier talking points to dark money.

We've been seeing these dramatic predictions now since the 1980's and none of them--count that again NONE of them--ever turn out as the scientific computer models predict.

Setting aside the fact that the models are not monolithic - there are dozens or hundreds in fact - and the fact that the models, like EVERYTHING that predicts the future about a complex system where not all of the variables are known, have built in margins of error, your statement is fundamentally wrong.

Already the scientists realize their spiel re global warming has fallen apart so consistently that they have had to change the language to keep their funding coming in on schedule. So instead of global warming, the code word is now "climate change."

The use of the term "climate change" dates back to 1975 when Wallace Broecker of Columbia University's Lamont-Doherty Geological Observatory wrote the article: "Climatic Change: Are We on the Brink of a Pronounced Global Warming?" Before that time, studies on the human impact of climate was referred to as "inadvertent climatic modification."

The ice caps were supposed to have been gone years ago, remember? But they're still there.

Only the most extreme iterations of the most extreme models predicted anything remotely like that one.

The Arctic ice cap grows and recedes as it has done for millions of years. The Antarctica ice cap has grown steadily since the 1980's.

That's inaccurate.

The sea levels were supposed to be a terrible problem now, but they aren't are they.

They are rising faster than at any time in the past 2800 years.

And this despite the fact that the CO2 levels are much higher now than they were in the 1980's.

The impact of CO2 on Global Temperatures is delayed by about 40 years. The impact on sea levels would take even longer.

We were supposed to have been devastated by a huge increase in hurricanes, and instead they have decreased.

The prediction was that we would see an increased frequency of the more intense hurricanes. Something on the order of 2-11% by the end of the 21st century. The jury is still out on that prediction.

Sometimes it might be a good idea to step back and realize that the people trying so hard to sell the whole AGW or Climate Change schtick are enriching and empowering themselves greatly, but so far they have not merited a great deal of confidence or credibility with what they are pushing.

Sometimes it might be a good idea to step back and realize that the people trying so hard to defeat the whole AGW or Climate Change Science are enriching and empowering themselves greatly, but so far they have not merited a great deal of confidence or credibility with what they are pushing.

 

[MrT]

So are you going to address the data? The "math" is straight forward, you can try to point out any error if you like! Once again, GISS J-D column
http://data.giss.nasa.gov/gistemp/tabledata_v3/GLB.Ts+dSST.txt
1910 anomaly temperature -42 or,-.42 C 1944 anomaly temperature 25 or, .25 C Difference .67 C, time elapse 34 years or 3.4 decades. (still with me? I know the "math" is difficult.) .67 C / 3.4 decades= .197...C per decade. Same thing for recent warming. The rates are not that different! Also did you find any sharp sea level accelerations? anything even close to doubling the rate of the rise?

I am not going to engage in a statistical analysis debate with you.

 

[AlbqOwl]

Al Gore predicted an ice free arctic by 2013.
What does that show?
For one thing, it shows Al Gore got fat on hooey.
So what can we conclude?
I'd say for those like fat Albert, hooey can become an acquired taste ... perhaps even an addictive one.

An expensive, and very lucrative taste at that.

On July 5, 1989, Noel Brown, then director of the New York office of the United Nations Environment Program, warned of a “10-year window of opportunity to solve” global warming “entire nations could be wiped off the face of Earth by rising sea levels if the global-warming trend is not reversed by the year 2000. Coastal flooding and crop failures would create an exodus of ‘eco-refugees,’ threatening political chaos.” Well, it is now 27 years later and despite the massive increase in CO2, it didn't happen.

In 2007, the chief of the U.N. Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) said, “If there’s no action before 2012, that’s too late. What we do in the next two to three years will determine our future. This is the defining moment.” Well it is now five years later, and because none of the IPCC predictions have come even close to the disastrous circumstances predicted what do they do? Just move the goal posts further along.

On Jan. 19, 2009, James Hansen, head of NASA’s Goddard Institute of Space Studies up until last year, firmly declared that President Obama “has only four years to save the Earth”. Back in 2006, Al Gore told us that we had only “10 years” to solve the global-warming problem. It is now 10 years later and they are still telling what we must do in the next 10-20 years or whatever. But President Obama must have already saved us, yes? We're still here. But they still want billions of our dollars and to take away more of our liberties, choices, options, and opportunities to 'save us' from ourselves.

Come on folks. Isn't it time to get a whole lot less gullible about this stuff and get a little bit smarter?

 

[longview]

I am not going to engage in a statistical analysis debate with you.

Will not or cannot? Besides it is just simple math not statistical analysis.
You said,

Listen, GW doesn't matter to you. It matters to your kids and their children. If you don't care about the rest of the world, care about your children because the current rate of climate change, while it may be "cyclical," is currently undergoing a cycle that is roughly 50-100x faster than what would occur naturally. Put another way, changes that might normally take 500 years to occur will now take place in 100.

When you say climate change is currently undergoing a cycle roughly 50-100x faster than what would occur naturally,
You have to cite an example, or your statement is just rhetoric.
I have shown you with Jim Hansen's own data set (GISS) how rate of warming in the first half of the 20th
century, was very close to the rate of warming since 1978.
Can you show or cite an example of climate change that is 50-100X faster than that which would occur naturally?

 

[MrT]

Will not or cannot? Besides it is just simple math not statistical analysis.
You said,

When you say climate change is currently undergoing a cycle roughly 50-100x faster than what would occur naturally,
You have to cite an example, or your statement is just rhetoric.
I have shown you with Jim Hansen's own data set (GISS) how rate of warming in the first half of the 20th
century, was very close to the rate of warming since 1978.
Can you show or cite an example of climate change that is 50-100X faster than that which would occur naturally?

I gave you multiple examples and multiple articles. You answered by citing to two specific time scales (from after the 1900s) in the data log, then said, "see they are accelerating, but not by as much as you said." And that's fine. That's evidence that the rate of acceleration is slower. But then I am comparing the rate of change of a time period from before human impact - more than ten thousand years ago - to the rate we are experiencing today.

So you are attempting to refute a claim by using some relatively irrelevant evidence.

 

[MrT]

An expensive, and very lucrative taste at that.

On July 5, 1989, Noel Brown, then director of the New York office of the United Nations Environment Program, warned of a “10-year window of opportunity to solve” global warming “entire nations could be wiped off the face of Earth by rising sea levels if the global-warming trend is not reversed by the year 2000. Coastal flooding and crop failures would create an exodus of ‘eco-refugees,’ threatening political chaos.” Well, it is now 27 years later and despite the massive increase in CO2, it didn't happen.

In 2007, the chief of the U.N. Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) said, “If there’s no action before 2012, that’s too late. What we do in the next two to three years will determine our future. This is the defining moment.” Well it is now five years later, and because none of the IPCC predictions have come even close to the disastrous circumstances predicted what do they do? Just move the goal posts further along.

On Jan. 19, 2009, James Hansen, head of NASA’s Goddard Institute of Space Studies up until last year, firmly declared that President Obama “has only four years to save the Earth”. Back in 2006, Al Gore told us that we had only “10 years” to solve the global-warming problem. It is now 10 years later and they are still telling what we must do in the next 10-20 years or whatever. But President Obama must have already saved us, yes? We're still here. But they still want billions of our dollars and to take away more of our liberties, choices, options, and opportunities to 'save us' from ourselves.

Come on folks. Isn't it time to get a whole lot less gullible about this stuff and get a little bit smarter?

You realize that the time scales you keep citing for action is because the problems are projected to get worse without action now, right?

None of those individuals said or tried to imply that inaction would result in our destruction at the end of their time period. Only that the problem will become worse and worse - with 2100 being the standard measuring stick, although we are already experiencing some of the problems now.

 

[AlbqOwl]

You realize that the time scales you keep citing for action is because the problems are projected to get worse without action now, right?

None of those individuals said or tried to imply that inaction would result in our destruction at the end of their time period. Only that the problem will become worse and worse - with 2100 being the standard measuring stick, although we are already experiencing some of the problems now.

They all proclaim without qualification that if we do not act as they say, "it will be too late." And they put those time frames on it without qualification. And they seem totally unembarrassed when their alarmist declarations fail to come remotely close to their predicted time line and predictions. They just move the goal posts on down the road with similar new predictions of doom and gloom.

How gullible must the people be before they catch on that these people are not utilizing any form of honest science, but are manipulating us for their own benefit?

 

[Lord of Planar]

Whoa. You're using actual data? Okay. Well, if you rotate those graphs 90 degrees to the left, they paint an entirely different picture now, don't they? Yup. A line straight up, almost. We'll all be under water in a couple of weeks at that rate.

That's what's so laughable when the alarmists use GWP (global warming potential.) It is calculated from RE (radiative efficiency.) RE is effectively the strait line tangent to the point on the slope. The definition requires you to take the line from the first data point, and adding 1 ppb. Then you take strait line slope from these two points.

Example, from I believe AR4 numbers:

The graph doesn't show exactly what the IPCC claims, but shows an approximation very close to what they use. I have not been able to generate an exact match with the methodology and formulas they claim. Only close. The graph shows the following slopes, the next numbers are from AR4 page 33:

CO2 0.0168 / 1.4 x 10E-5
CH4 0.4598 / 3.7 x 10E-4
N2O 2.6572 / 3.03 x 10E-3

Please note that my calculated 0.0168 is the slope using ppm. Using ppb on the X axis instead of ppm, it would be 0.0000168, or 1.68 x 10E-5

This is where they get the "alarming" numbers for methane being so much worse than CO2. 0.4598/0.0168 = 27.369. this is how they claim the CH4 is ~25 times worse than CO2. Then when they convert to GWP, the math changes slightly because they use a change per ton. Not per molecule. Since CH4 is lighter than CO2, the GWP gets even scarier. It takes 2.75 times more CH4 molecules to equal the mass of 1 CO2 molecule. This is how they claim CH4 is ~75 times stronger than CO2. Of course, GWP also changes by time as they attempt to account for the different decay rates of the molecules in the atmosphere. But as a start, CH4 is claimed to be about 75 times stronger than CO2.

What a bunch of horse pucky, as the graph clearly shows, CO2 is more than five times stronger as CH4.

 

[longview]

I gave you multiple examples and multiple articles. You answered by citing to two specific time scales (from after the 1900s) in the data log, then said, "see they are accelerating, but not by as much as you said." And that's fine. That's evidence that the rate of acceleration is slower. But then I am comparing the rate of change of a time period from before human impact - more than ten thousand years ago - to the rate we are experiencing today.

So you are attempting to refute a claim by using some relatively irrelevant evidence.

No need to refute, Our proxy data lacks the resolution to say one way or the other if recent changes
are significantly different.
But showing if the rate is different from 1500 years ago is not necessary, as we have the rates from 90 years
ago that predate the effects of AGW, that show the rates are roughly the same.

For sea levels we have good records going back into the 19th century,
Do you deny that these records are accurate?

 

[MrT]

They all proclaim without qualification that if we do not act as they say, "it will be too late." And they put those time frames on it without qualification. And they seem totally unembarrassed when their alarmist declarations fail to come remotely close to their predicted time line and predictions. They just move the goal posts on down the road with similar new predictions of doom and gloom.

These types of sentences are examples of confirmation bias and dogmatic statements that are almost always easy to disprove. Please, I encourage you to try and actively look for policy predictions made by scientists that do not claim the problems will be too difficult or that that place qualifications on their predictions.

I promise you will find a great deal of such examples.

 

[MrT]

No need to refute, Our proxy data lacks the resolution to say one way or the other if recent changes
are significantly different.
But showing if the rate is different from 1500 years ago is not necessary, as we have the rates from 90 years
ago that predate the effects of AGW, that show the rates are roughly the same.

For sea levels we have good records going back into the 19th century,
Do you deny that these records are accurate?

No, I am saying that AGW has been in effect for longer than 90 years and that the application of AGW is not constant, but has accelerated over time.

 

[Lord of Planar]

Record floods in Texas, 500 year drought in California, blizzards in the North East, and record heat in the Pacific Northwest.

Oh, sure, the weather is just great.

Nice way to spin the facts.

The more and less rain have not been records. As we urbanize the wild west, we restrict the natural flow of streams and rivers. We cover land that soaks water with concrete, asphalt, buildings etc. and this rainwater then goes to storm sewers that are never built with enough capacity to handle such rare events.

Same with the droughts. It isn't that we have record low rainfall. We simply have more people trying to use a limited resource.

When you try to suggest our changing of weather changes these events...

I don't know if I should call you intellectually deceptive, of real ignorant.

It most certainly suggests your strings are being pulled by the AGW puppet-masters though.

 

[Lord of Planar]

I am not going to engage in a statistical analysis debate with you.

Maybe you should stop debating in other areas you don't understand as well...

Just saying...

Some of us get tired of you parroting what the domga says. We already know that!

Have any actual insight?

 

[joG]

ince Americans first heard the term global warming in the 1970s, the weather has actually improved for most people living in the U.S. But it won't always be that way, according to a new study.

Research shows Americans typically — and perhaps unsurprisingly — like warmer winters and dislike hot, humid summers. And they reveal their weather preferences by moving to areas with conditions they like best.

A new study in the journal Nature has found that 80% of the U.S. population lives in counties experiencing more pleasant weather than they did 40 years ago.
Global warming has made the weather better for most in U.S. -- but don't get used to it, study says - LA Times

I live now.

 

[KLATTU]

That's what I get for thinking that I can do math in my head.

But you're right, it is even more dramatic than I originally posted. As for those who would like some evidence to support the 50-100x claim, I would point you to the ice core data regarding CO2 concentration, which goes back 850,000 years. The last time that the CO2 concentration rose 80 points (the amount that it rose from 1900 to 2000), it took approximately 5000 years.

I'm sure you know, we can't verify verify or falsify any proxy data from 850,000 years ago and common sense tells us ( us meaning those not in the warmist echo chamber) that it's inherently inaccurate.

 

[AlbqOwl]

These types of sentences are examples of confirmation bias and dogmatic statements that are almost always easy to disprove. Please, I encourage you to try and actively look for policy predictions made by scientists that do not claim the problems will be too difficult or that that place qualifications on their predictions.

I promise you will find a great deal of such examples.

All you have to do to refute my statements is to show me where they qualified their predictions in any way.

 

[MrT]

All you have to do to refute my statements is to show me where they qualified their predictions in any way.

Do you understand that margin of error is a type of qualification?

 

[Dittohead not!]

Nice way to spin the facts.

The more and less rain have not been records. As we urbanize the wild west, we restrict the natural flow of streams and rivers. We cover land that soaks water with concrete, asphalt, buildings etc. and this rainwater then goes to storm sewers that are never built with enough capacity to handle such rare events.

Same with the droughts. It isn't that we have record low rainfall. We simply have more people trying to use a limited resource.

When you try to suggest our changing of weather changes these events...

I don't know if I should call you intellectually deceptive, of real ignorant.

It most certainly suggests your strings are being pulled by the AGW puppet-masters though.

Typical of AGW denialists, young Earth creationists, and anti vaxxers: Call anyone who you don't agree with ignorant and deceptive. The use of ad hominem attacks automatically excludes you from the list of people I'd want to debate with, at least on this subject.

 

[AlbqOwl]

Do you understand that margin of error is a type of qualification?

Show me the margin in the examples I used.

 

[longview]

No, I am saying that AGW has been in effect for longer than 90 years and that the application of AGW is not constant, but has accelerated over time.

Again, if you make a statement, you must cite a reference that shows significant
amounts of AGW have been going on for more than 90 years.
Most sources say the per 1940's warming was natural.
I feed dirty for using skeptical science as a reference, but,
What caused early 20th Century warming?

Before 1940, the increase in temperature is believed to have been caused mainly by two factors:

1. Increasing solar activity; and
2. Low volcanic activity (as eruptions can have a cooling effect by blocking out the sun).

also the idea that the effects are accelerated over time is contrary to physics.
The effects of each unit of CO2 is less then the unit before it.
Straight from the IPCC's key concept document.
http://www.grida.no/climate/ipcc_tar/wg1/pdf/tar-01.pdf

If the amount of carbon dioxide were doubled instantaneously,
with everything else remaining the same, the outgoing infrared
radiation would be reduced by about 4 Wm−2. In other words, the
radiative forcing corresponding to a doubling of the CO2
concentration would be 4 Wm−2. To counteract this imbalance,
the temperature of the surface-troposphere system would have to
increase by 1.2°C (with an accuracy of ±10%), in the absence of
other changes. In reality, due to feedbacks, the response of the
climate system is much more complex.

This paragraph is the core of the science behind AGW,
but what it says is that each doubling would add 1.2°C of direct warming.
This means the change from 280 to 560 ppm of CO2 would cause 1.2 °C of direct warming,
the next 1.2 °C of direct warming would require a change in the CO2 level of 560 ppm to 1120 ppm.

 

[MrT]

Show me the margin in the examples I used.

Margin in the example you used? What example? You mean the quotes that you used?

 

[MrT]

Again, if you make a statement, you must cite a reference that shows significant amounts of AGW have been going on for more than 90 years. Most sources say the per 1940's warming was natural. I feed dirty for using skeptical science as a reference, but, What caused early 20th Century warming?

also the idea that the effects are accelerated over time is contrary to physics. The effects of each unit of CO2 is less then the unit before it.
Straight from the IPCC's key concept document. http://www.grida.no/climate/ipcc_tar/wg1/pdf/tar-01.pdf

Only if you assume that CO2 is the only greenhouse gas that we are adding to the atmosphere/the only source of global warming or that the
decreased influence of each added unit of CO2 is not countered by the increasing rate at which CO2 was added to the atmosphere over that time period.

 

[bubbabgone]

An expensive, and very lucrative taste at that.

On July 5, 1989, Noel Brown, then director of the New York office of the United Nations Environment Program, warned of a “10-year window of opportunity to solve” global warming “entire nations could be wiped off the face of Earth by rising sea levels if the global-warming trend is not reversed by the year 2000. Coastal flooding and crop failures would create an exodus of ‘eco-refugees,’ threatening political chaos.” Well, it is now 27 years later and despite the massive increase in CO2, it didn't happen.

In 2007, the chief of the U.N. Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) said, “If there’s no action before 2012, that’s too late. What we do in the next two to three years will determine our future. This is the defining moment.” Well it is now five years later, and because none of the IPCC predictions have come even close to the disastrous circumstances predicted what do they do? Just move the goal posts further along.

On Jan. 19, 2009, James Hansen, head of NASA’s Goddard Institute of Space Studies up until last year, firmly declared that President Obama “has only four years to save the Earth”. Back in 2006, Al Gore told us that we had only “10 years” to solve the global-warming problem. It is now 10 years later and they are still telling what we must do in the next 10-20 years or whatever. But President Obama must have already saved us, yes? We're still here. But they still want billions of our dollars and to take away more of our liberties, choices, options, and opportunities to 'save us' from ourselves.

Come on folks. Isn't it time to get a whole lot less gullible about this stuff and get a little bit smarter?

Oh yeah? Weeellll, if it wasn't for those 6 million Priuses all those predictions would have happened.
Whew!

Seriously, when a cooling period begins the climate cabal will take credit it.

 

[AlbqOwl]

Margin in the example you used? What example? You mean the quotes that you used?

The quotations are pretty good example of the hype used to hook the gullible into the whole AGW schtick. You said they were qualified. I asked for the qualifications. You said margin of error was a qualification. I asked you for the margin of error they put into those statements.

At some point I think thinking people ask themselves how many time they are willing to be fooled or misled or manipulated or flat out lied to before they figure out those they have trusted are not trustworthy.