Manmade Climate Change Discussion

[knocker]

Even if emissions stop, carbon dioxide could warm Earth for centuries

 

Even if carbon dioxide emissions came to a sudden halt, the carbon dioxide already in Earth's atmosphere could continue to warm our planet for hundreds of years, according to Princeton University-led research published in the journal Nature Climate Change. The study suggests that it might take a lot less carbon than previously thought to reach the global temperature scientists deem unsafe.

 

http://www.princeton.edu/main/news/archive/S38/51/51I69/index.xml?section=topstories

Edited November 24, 2013 by knocker

[knocker]

http://forum.netweather.tv/topic/76448-scepticism-of-man-made-climate-change/page-41#entry2844692

 

Totally amazing. One could even wonder whether it's fudged. Anyway...............

 

Any links to global ice gains would be appreciated. And also definite signs of cooling taking place More moisture in the atmosphere due to warming has a tendency to increase precipitation. But it's very variable.

Edited November 24, 2013 by knocker

[knocker]

Get a widget.

 

4 Hiroshima bombs per second: a widget to raise awareness about global warming

 

Our planet is building up a lot of heat. When scientists add up all the heat warming the oceans, land, atmosphere and melting the ice, they calculate that our planet is accumulating heat at a rate of 2.5x10¹⁴ Watts. This is equivalent to 4 Hiroshima bombs worth of heat per second.

 

http://www.skepticalscience.com/4-Hiroshima-bombs-per-second-widget-raise-awareness-global-warming.html#.UpLempRIcm8.twitter

[Gray-Wolf]

Do I get the feeling that the other thread is still somewhat hung up on 'temps' as the only measure of climate change? They appear stalled in a self congratulatory moment for quite a while now?

 

Apart from keeping an eye on these threads I do hope our lurkers are also keeping up with Knock's splendid work over on the other relevant threads ( focusing on other aspects of change as we improve our scientific measures of them?) and noting the lack of data that the other side insist on not keep on posting there (to offset/balance this side of the debates 'views/concerns' and highlight just how unsettled the debate still is?) .

 

Currently they appear content to play in the snow whilst avoiding questions such as 'why are we seeing changes in precipitation patterns globally?' ( not just mountain tops), what do we expect from an atmosphere carrying more moisture than 50 years ago?, If temps rise from minus 10c to minus 3c what type of precipitation do we expect?

 

They also seem to be conveniently forgetting to focus upon our 'Canary in the coalmine' so sidestepping conversations of Mass loss from ice sheets ( and how these compare to 'past predictions') and Arctic sea ice volume losses ( and how these compare to 'past predictions') earlier snow melt ( even with 'positive anomalies' to winter snow amounts) or permafrost melt ( and increase in 'super GHG CH4' emissions over the frozen north).

 

I'm only just starting to realising how it can take a Cherry to produce a Squirrel............

Edited November 25, 2013 by Gray-Wolf

[knocker]

http://forum.netweather.tv/topic/76448-scepticism-of-man-made-climate-change/page-41#entry2845205

 

I see you have become one of Mr Watts band of acolytes. It's a pity you don't abandon the boring invective and direct your thoughts to some constructive scientific reasoning for a change. Perhaps that's too much to ask as that's probably a concept you are not familiar with.

[knocker]

Lol, you mean like how you copy and paste link after link of the same old, same old. I've given plenty of scientific reasoning which I managed to do all by myself, but  some here have difficulty doing this as they like to be spoon fed theirs.

 

What an amazing mind and ego you have. You manage to delve into the complexity of climate change without the need to read scientific papers from scientists of various disciplines who might, just might, know more about the subject than you do.Anthony Watts has perfected this. I assume this also explains the invisible links as they are only connected to your ego brain. Perhaps an example of your scientific reasoning.

Edited November 25, 2013 by knocker

[Methuselah]

I've got faeries at the bottom of my garden.

[knocker]

Not at all, I just don't believe in all those fables I keep reading. As for my scientific reasoning may I suggest you read some of postings from previous threads.

 

I already have and I don't really think I can spare ten seconds to do it again. I really think you should join your fellow fantasists. Oh dear a link.

 

http://www.skepticalscience.com/skepticquotes.php.

[Devonian]

Skeptical science, another spoon feeding station for the easily led.

 

 

SI, by all means carry as you are with your content free little jibes but at least do as most of us, Knocker included now, and keep it to the ONE of the two (sceptic/manmade) possible threads...

[UV-RAY]

SI, by all means carry as you are with your content free little jibes but at least do as most of us, Knocker included now, and keep it to the ONE of the two (sceptic/manmade) possible threads...

Fair do's Dev. Just to add my rant wasn't aimed at yourself or a couple of other posters on here, just one or two.

Edited November 25, 2013 by Sceptical Inquirer

[Devonian]

http://forum.netweather.tv/topic/76448-scepticism-of-man-made-climate-change/page-41#entry2845281

 

Crikey, you've really found a site and a half there Keith  . The author, Alan Watt, must use most of the world's tin foil  . Look at the titles of some of his vids! Just lizards missing from what I can see...

Edited November 25, 2013 by Devonian

[Gray-Wolf]

Maybe we do see some good come of such 'cross thread' discussions in that it presents another opportunity for any Lurker, following the exchanges, to both research the discussion via the links provided ( and their references, in and at the end of the piece) but also to experience ,first hand, the way this type of exchange 'works' ( to help them in 'real life' instances?).

 

It is a shame that the 'rarer' of the supporting documents appear to always be the ones that are withheld from the forum's readership? No matter what individual posters proffer as 'reasons' for such censorship it must leave folk wondering about the provenance of the info they are being asked to believe?

 

One of the first rules of a good sceptical approach is the ability to check through data and methodology to satisfy your own 'doubts'. To remove this opportunity from a person leaves them with any info being assured by the poster alone?

 

I understand that we are a 'mixed ability' grouping  (spanning all age groups and experience) and so some of the science posting is well above my current level of ability and so I do rely on running through various science outlets and AGW blogs to help me better understand what I am trying to digest. I even use this place to try and broaden my understanding of new papers but that can only happen if folk help me follow the 'paper trail' they have used.

 

EDIT: " Crikey, you've really found a site and a half there Keith  . The author, Alan Watt, must use most of the world's tin foil  . Look at the titles of some of his vids! Just lizards missing from what I can see..."

 

Good grief Charlie Brown! It's quite an eye opener Dev! thanks for the legwork.

 

It's a shame that instead of discussing the subject we seem to be increasingly needed to police 'the other place' for such extremes!

Edited November 25, 2013 by Gray-Wolf

[Gray-Wolf]

So what does that have to do with man-made CO₂?

 

I think the poster was thinking that any 'warming' came from these volcanic outlets Pete? Did we not already cover this with the 'tectonics' thread? 

[knocker]

Hot Whoppers comment at the end of her critique of Walt Cunningham's talk at Warsaw rather sums up some points made earlier in the thread. And sums up my position exactly.

 

 

His final words were "Now it's up to you to come up with your own answers".  I don't agree.  If it were just up to us to come up with whatever answers that suited us we'd never learn anything.  Answers have to be grounded in evidence and fit with physics, chemistry and biology.  Just because you are anxious about your hip pocket is no reason to reject 200 years of science.

 

What is it with science denying organisations wheeling out ageing astronauts to make fools of themselves in public?

[Methuselah]

I think the poster was thinking that any 'warming' came from these volcanic outlets Pete? Did we not already cover this with the 'tectonics' thread? 

I know, Ian...I was just asking why the number 1511 (or whatever it was) has any relevance...Why not 6 or 42 or 25,002!

[knocker]

Last night I was mulling over the $64,000 question, at what point can the expense of mitigating action to alleviate the damage of GW be justified  given the level of our current scientific knowledge and the possible, probable?, irreversible damage to the environment that will impact hugely on future generations? Personally I think we are past that point but this by no means a universally shared opinion.

 

Whilst pondering this I was reminded of the arguments thirty years ago over acid pollution. A few bells started ring so I hoiked out my copy of Acid Earth-The Politics of Acid Pollution, by John McCormack. Sure enough there is a familiar ring to the story, although GW is undoubtedly more complicated, basically the principles are very similar. I won’t woffle on, I’ll leave that to the experts, but below is part of the introduction to the book.

 

In 1852, a 35-year-old Scottish chemist studying the quality of air in and around his adopted home town of Manchester found local rainfall to be unusually acidic. Long concerned about the declining quality of air and water in the British midlands, Robert Angus Smith suspected a connection between the acidity and the sulphur dioxide released when coal was burned by local factories. Twenty years later, after more fieldwork in England, Scotland and Germany, Smith published his findings in his book Air and Rain: The Beginnings of a Chemical Climatology, spelling out the link between sulphur pollution and what he called 'acid rain'. He warned that plants and materials were being damaged, showed how the acidity of rain, fog and snow could be affected by wind direction, proximity to the sea, and the amount and frequency of rain and snow, and drew up a detailed strategy for analysing the chemistry of precipitation.

 

Unfortunately, it was to be another century before his conclusions found a wider following in the scientific community. Researchers in Europe and North America found in them confirmation of the link between emissions from industry and environmental problems that began to sound an ever more familiar and disquieting litany:

 

• Trees were being killed or damaged, crop yields were declining, and soils

were becoming too acid to support plants.

• Lakes were turning acid, especially in Scandinavia and Canada.

• In smog-bound cities throughout the world, people with respiratory and

heart complaints were ailing, even dying, from acid smoke and dust pollution.

• Stone buildings were being eaten away, railway tracks and road vehicles corroded,

and even paintings and books were being damaged.

 

By the mid 1980s, acid pollution had become one of the most critical of all environmental issues, testing the ability of policy-makers to respond to the tension between the priorities of economic growth and environmental management. It showed only too clearly the flaws in the methods by which policy was developed and implemented, but also underlined the multidimensional nature of many environmental problems.

 

First, it has a scientific dimension. The basic ingredients and chemical processes involved are well understood, but confirming and agreeing the causes, effects and scale of the problem has not been easy. Scientists disagree over the primary mechanisms and effects, monitoring and data gathering systems differ from one country to the next, and new theories about cause and effect are constantly emerging. This has complicated attempts to develop workable responses to the problem; governments for many years relied on fixed percentage reductions of the pollutants involved, but there has been a shift in recent years towards fixing those reductions to the effects pollutants have on the environment.

 

Second, acid pollution has a political dimension. It is the kind of long-term problem that demands more than the business-as-usual approach of conventional political processes, limited as they are by the electoral cycle and by the need to balance the competing demands of regional and industrial lobbies, and of different social and economic sectors.

 

Finally, it has an economic dimension. How much are we prepared to pay for a clean environment? Who is going to have to pay? Can conventional cost-benefit analysis be applied to questions as big and as nebulous as air pollution? While the costs of emission controls are relatively easy to calculate, it is much more difficult to quantify the costs of dead forests, acidified lakes, lost crops, corroded buildings, and declining human health. And how are environmental management priorities logically to be weighed against other urgent problems, such as poverty, drugs, racism, or terrorism?

 

Despite all the questions and doubts, the governments of most Western industrialized states responded to air pollution problems during the 1980s, and substantial cuts were made in the emissions of several key pollutants. Public interest in acid pollution also tailed off as other more pressing issues-such as global warming and threats to the ozone layer-jostled for political attention. Since the amount of attention given to policy problems depends in large part on the media coverage they draw (and vice versa), the impression created was that acid pollution was no longer a serious problem. This, however, was a misleading impression.

 

While emissions of sulphur dioxide in most industrialized countries have fallen, the battle to reverse nitrogen oxide emissions is still far from won. New research has also shown that other pollutants-notably volatile organic compounds (VOC) and ammonia-are involved in the chemical processes that lead to acidification. More worrying, emissions of many of these pollutants are growing in much of eastern Europe, Asia and Latin America.

 

First published in 1985, Acid Earth is a study of acidification as a global public policy problem. It describes the dimensions of the problem and assesses the possible responses, arguing that acidification is ultimately a political issue that can only be adequately addressed by fundamental changes in public attitudes and public policy.

 

So today there are huge decisions to make and little room for error but personally I feel we are too late. I hope I'm wrong but I won't be around to find out.

Edited November 26, 2013 by knocker

[Gray-Wolf]

Until the folk questioning AGW impacts begin to accept that we are seeing an escalation of climate/weather events that fall broadly in line with past predictions of AGW impacts we sill be 'stalled' when it comes to discussing 'costs' of mitigation?

 

When we look at 'costs' for climate related disasters across the U.S. in the past decade surely we see that they are both far greater than merely inflationary reflections of a B.A.U. scenario and are becoming more frequent in occurrence over time?

 

If insurance companies are already getting worried about future claims to the point where certain areas are now becoming uninsurable then are we not already paying for the impacts of climate change?

 

Putting off 'payment' appears a short sighted policy merely putting greater 'costs' off to a later date. Sadly the way capitalism works means that to 'spend' money without showing profit is seen as bad business. It is only the folk 'here and now' that are 'profiting' from this mentality and leaving it to some future time ( and person) to be held responsible for the greater costs that could have been offset by mitigation now.

 

I too believe that we are already too late to save ourselves from the impacts of current global apathy and that the 'costs' from impacts (with an element of AGW driving them) will only increase over the near future ( how do I know? well I look back over recent history focussing on all the events that the misleaders jumped on to try and stop any possibility of the public linking the 'event' and forcings from a warming world and see whether they have become 'less' or 'more' common over time....lol).

 

To me it is a 'head in the sand approach' to our childrens future and even if we limited ourselves to just implementing the measures to clean up our planet and make best use of the resources at our disposal it would make a difference and not leave our generation labelled as the ones who cared only for themselves.

[Gray-Wolf]

But that doesn't answer my question...At the same time, how does the volcano 'theory' handle the 'pause' or 'missing heat'? 

 

I just get the feeling that this is someone cutting their teeth on the debate Pete? I'm sure when we come to the debate we are desperate to find 'other' reasons to offset the AGW impacts that we read we are to expect? I'm sure that we quickly move on from this 'phase', once we've properly checked out the figures and asked the basic's, to areas directly challenging the data that AGW incorporates in it's 'proofs' (UHI's, Ocean acidification, Arctic amplification etc?)?

 

By the time you have exhausted all the avenues you have engaged upon you might just find that you grudgingly accept the basic ideas even if you continue to try and find 'why' it is not such a great cause for concern/global expenditure?

 

As I've said recently we must accept that the thread is populated by a plethora of abilities/understandings/ages and maybe some of the folk that have spent longer exploring the issues can 'help' point newbies toward the resources that will help them grow in their own personal understandings and form a better, more informed, worldview ( whichever side they feel best represents them?)

Edited November 26, 2013 by Gray-Wolf

[Methuselah]

I just get the feeling that this is someone cutting their teeth on the debate Pete? I'm sure when we come to the debate we are desperate to find 'other' reasons to offset the AGW impacts that we read we are to expect? I'm sure that we quickly move on from this 'phase', once we've properly checked out the figures and asked the basic's, to areas directly challenging the data that AGW incorporates in it's 'proofs' (UHI's, Ocean acidification, Arctic amplification etc?)?

 

By the time you have exhausted all the avenues you have engaged upon you might just find that you grudgingly accept the basic ideas even if you continue to try and find 'why' it is not such a great cause for concern/global expenditure?

 

As I've said recently we must accept that the thread is populated by a plethora of abilities/understandings/ages and maybe some of the folk that have spent longer exploring the issues can 'help' point newbies toward the resources that will help them grow in their own personal understandings and form a better, more informed, worldview ( whichever side they feel best represents them?)

I agree...I was merely trying to gently encourage a habit of asking the type of questions that all ideas inevitably generate... 

[knocker]

"Smokey Joe" Barton is known for apologizing to BP after the 2010 Oil spill, and harassing climate scientists.Turns out he's also been a key connection between the tobacco industry and the climate denial industry. Archival footage from ABC News on the tobacco wars of the 90s turns up sequences of Smoky Joe in action on behalf of Big Cancer.

 

[Gray-Wolf]

I agree...I was merely trying to gently encourage a habit of asking the type of questions that all ideas inevitably generate... 

 

Sadly I'm far less eloquent than you are when I try an engage in such Pete and it always ends bad.......

[Methuselah]

Sadly I'm far less eloquent than you are when I try an engage in such Pete and it always ends bad.......

Not sure my record is that good either, Ian...

[Gray-Wolf]

"Smokey Joe" Barton is known for apologizing to BP after the 2010 Oil spill, and harassing climate scientists.Turns out he's also been a key connection between the tobacco industry and the climate denial industry. Archival footage from ABC News on the tobacco wars of the 90s turns up sequences of Smoky Joe in action on behalf of Big Cancer.

 

 

Only justed watched through this an it's very upsetting esp. if you have lost a parent/grandparent/aunt/uncle/sibling to smoking related disease only to see both faces and tactics, used back then, doing exactly the same today...... just substituting 'smoking' with 'climate change'......

 

Edit: I know some folk seem to think my acceptance of AGW 'extreme' but I fear that when folk look through the early noughties in an attempt to find out why such a rotten situation was left for them to inherit opinions, such as mine, will go to prove that even 'the common man' was able to understand the threats we faced and that they did voice their personal opinion.

 

Should my fears prove unfounded then I'm just as happy to be counted among those who wished for a planet that cared about it's utilisation of raw materials and cried out for a more 'sustainable way' of both producing our energy and using our raw materials?

Edited November 26, 2013 by Gray-Wolf

[UV-RAY]

Only justed watched through this an it's very upsetting esp. if you have lost a parent/grandparent/aunt/uncle/sibling to smoking related disease only to see both faces and tactics, used back then, doing exactly the same today...... just substituting 'smoking' with 'climate change'......

I agree he's a snake in the grass, but luckily I take about as much notice of his ilk as I do with the fanatical side of AGW supporters. Both are a waste of bandwidth and oxygen.

[knocker]

Who are the fanatical AGW supporters? Me, GW?