Global Warming Called: Time for Believers to Pay Up!

[GaiaHunter]

You shouldn't confuse the fact that everyone who has tried to falsify the theory has failed with a theory being unfalsifiable. That's actually something you should be happy about from a scientific perspective, when a theory can be so robust that it stands up to such intense testing over time.

If increases in CO2 levels did not lead to an increase in total thermal energy retained by the earth's climate that would falsify the theory. There is no evidence that this is not the case. You mentioned deep ocean warming; not only is it not unmeasurable, but preliminary measurements are showing just the sort of warming that was predicted.

Climate change deniers are not interested in science, they are interested in not accepting climate change. I pray for the day that they return to science.

The best ocean data set is ARGO.

Argo has been online since the early 2000s. Prior to data our ocean temperature data is laughable.

Argo is considered full Ocean coverage since 2007.
Argo has 3556 floats.
The oceans cover 361 million square km.
That means each float covers 101000 square km.

Not only that the Argo floats aren't very reliable.

As bad as it is Argo is the our best instrument and it didn't find the 0.8 W/m2 of the missing heat.

But if you know of better instruments to measure Ocean temperature be my guest.

 

[Jaskalas]

Climate change is not a dichotomous variable, it's a continuous one. All reductions are helpful. The fact that we might not be able to stop one foot of sea rise might make it seem like it's not worth the trouble, but maybe try asking someone who lives 1.5 feet above sea level if we should just not try to stop 2 feet.

The path is already one of using every available tool, which includes R&D. While the overall policy debate is about determining what works best for everyone, we are sadly still at the stage of attempting to convince people to accept basic science. It's shameful.

What works best for everyone... well telling the rest of the world they cannot develop, they cannot enjoy an industrial standard of living via an industry fueled by CO2 is a non starter.

You can already see that they do not accept it. They want our CO2 fueled industry to pay them for the poverty we wish to inflict upon them. It's a ridiculous situation, either our CO2 will pay for them not to produce their CO2... or we cut back and they do it anyway.

Sea Level rise? Check some things first.

1: Will CO2 emissions / per person equal or surpass today's measurement by the year 2100?
2: Will the world population increase?

If either are genuinely true, we are destined and guaranteed to surpass 600ppm and (if your guys are right) have an ice free planet. What I'm saying is the maximum sea level rise is already guaranteed.

Short of declaring war against human life and prosperity IT WILL HAPPEN.

We are not ready for a carbon free industry. It's time to move off the beach.

 

[monovillage]

If you like your climate, you can keep your climate.* Period.




*Annual payments of $100,000,000,000.00 per year to the UN not included in the other costs associated with this plan.

 

[Doc Savage Fan]

I'm surprised that progressives haven't yet started a reparations charity motivated purely by their noble convictions...then again, maybe not....they don't seem to roll like that.

 

[ralfy]

I know what you are trying to do and I don't really care. I don't feel like going through the whole site so here is the example I found there yesterday on the first page I read...

On the how reliable are climate models page there is a citation backing up the statement

Followed by this citation. The actual article doesn't say that. The climate sensitivity has a range of about 2 - 4.5C. Okay thats fine. The probability breakdown (search the document for a % character to find it easily, there are only 11 of them) is actually a 90% probability that the sensitivity is over 1.5C and a 66% probability to be between 2 and 4.5C. There was a consensus estimate at 3C. That place jumps to conclusions way too easily on consensus = fact. There is still a 10% chance it would be under 1.5C. Thats not really that good. Especially 66% probability in a range from 2 to 4.5C. That just screams "We don't really know" to me.

I don't really like the study that much to begin with under the "Estimates from comprehensive models and process studies" heading, the last paragraph conclusion to that section mentions that the models from three different studies that were compared for statistical accuracy/error were all using the same model.

Just seems off to me. When you check the same models output from three different studies against itself I would really hope you'd get a small margin of error considering its the same model. Then again the article is honest and discloses this up front, so to me it is fair game. Not a fan of the article but at least its honest. The article is fine, whoever writes that website is messed up.

One common theme the review article was trying to address was

So its super ironic they cite that article and say "Doubling CO2 raises temperature 3C" like its fact. The entire article talked about the uncertainty of climate sensitivity.

It did make me lol... :awe:

I'm just assuming all their citations are hyperbole.

The first point is not convincing because it doesn't prove your claim that every citation is a misquoting.

About other studies that need to be shown, why not share them? Or at least consider the fact that the site gives a "basic" and an "intermediate" view of the matter.

Also, your example doesn't support your second point, because it encourages further studies.

As for your final point, you do realize that climate sensitivity works both ways?

In conclusion, I am not satisfied with your proof that shows that the site is the "worst" one to visit. My sense is that you are looking for a site with more advanced material, and it's obvious that Skepticalscience is not it. But that doesn't lead to your conclusion.

 

[ralfy]

Oh yea, skepticalscience.com is theeeee source to go. Next time I want to some reasoning for why same-sex marriage should be banned, I'll go to a Republican.

Actually, it's the studies referred to by the site. Of course, you are free to look at any independent study funded by skeptics. For details, read

"Oil industry-funded 'BEST' study finds global warming is real, manmade"

http://www.wunderground.com/blog/Je...st-study-finds-global-warming-is-real-manmade

 

[ralfy]

What works best for everyone... well telling the rest of the world they cannot develop, they cannot enjoy an industrial standard of living via an industry fueled by CO2 is a non starter.

You can already see that they do not accept it. They want our CO2 fueled industry to pay them for the poverty we wish to inflict upon them. It's a ridiculous situation, either our CO2 will pay for them not to produce their CO2... or we cut back and they do it anyway.

Sea Level rise? Check some things first.

1: Will CO2 emissions / per person equal or surpass today's measurement by the year 2100?
2: Will the world population increase?

If either are genuinely true, we are destined and guaranteed to surpass 600ppm and (if your guys are right) have an ice free planet. What I'm saying is the maximum sea level rise is already guaranteed.

Short of declaring war against human life and prosperity IT WILL HAPPEN.

We are not ready for a carbon free industry. It's time to move off the beach.

You're right. The problem is peak oil.

 

[ralfy]

If you like your climate, you can keep your climate.* Period.




*Annual payments of $100,000,000,000.00 per year to the UN not included in the other costs associated with this plan.

But multiple organizations, and not just the UN, are warning of the effects of climate change. Examples include

http://www.lloyds.com/news-and-insi...ts/climate-change/climate-change-and-security

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/renee-parsons/climate-change-national-security_b_1929398.html

 

[ralfy]

The best ocean data set is ARGO.

Argo has been online since the early 2000s. Prior to data our ocean temperature data is laughable.

Argo is considered full Ocean coverage since 2007.
Argo has 3556 floats.
The oceans cover 361 million square km.
That means each float covers 101000 square km.

Not only that the Argo floats aren't very reliable.

As bad as it is Argo is the our best instrument and it didn't find the 0.8 W/m2 of the missing heat.

But if you know of better instruments to measure Ocean temperature be my guest.

FWIW,

http://www.argo.ucsd.edu/global_change_analysis.html

 

[ralfy]

If climate change is a big deal, then the government needs to make a law that lets me telecommute and receive my full regular pay.

This is inevitable, together with other measures, due to peak oil. More details here:

http://www.worldenergyoutlook.org/publications/weo-2010/

The catch is that to maintain economic growth, fossil fuel use must continue. Given peak oil, though, more renewable energy must be used.

The optimistic view is that peak oil will lead to lower CO2 ppm, but energy returns for alternative sources might not be good enough to maintain economic growth.

In which case, the global population will have to adjust accordingly whether or not most acknowledge AGW, simply because of peak oil and generally the threat of a resource crunch.

 

[ralfy]

There is a thing called Return of Investment (ROI).

If I need to solve rat problems I can get some poison, some cats, rat traps or I can demolish the house.

All will solve my problem with rats, but one is much more costlier.

Also, rat traps and cats will be reusable. Demolishing the house over and over will be a PITA.

Also, adapting to climate will work regardless of the cause of the climate change.

Reducing CO2 will only work (and barely at that) if CO2 is the cause.

Don't forget EROEI. Charles Hall gives more details in this interview:

http://www.scientificamerican.com/a...ll-will-fossil-fuels-maintain-economic-growth

 

[ralfy]

The fact that the earth isn't globally warming is proof that global warming is a social construction and not science.

It's actually warming. See the NAS final report for details.

 

[ralfy]

Lol...I'm not really in this round of things. Did it really? Cause thats funny if true. I assumed the GW types weren't that good at reading research papers. The hype around the papers always seems to be overstating the papers actual conclusion. I have no problem with the research but the doom and gloom over MMGW is coming purely from the "followers."

Actually, it's coming from various organizations, from multinational finance institutions to intelligence groups.

 

[ralfy]

It would be nice if some people realized that the main energy industry is COAL, not OIL.

As much as Big Oil loses with GW, Big Coal loses much more which in fact makes Big Oil get their loses back and more.

In fact Big Oil is all for AGW because no one will stop driving their cars and no Government in the world will stop charging insane taxes on fuel. Closing Coal plants on the other hand...

Oil is not only used for driving cars.

 

[GaiaHunter]

FWIW,

http://www.argo.ucsd.edu/global_change_analysis.html

An estimated change in temperature of 0.06*C.

Estimated since 1960.
Estimated based on I don't know what. Probably some models.

A temperature measure in the hundredths of degree Celsius.
Seems legit.

 

[GaiaHunter]

Oil is not only used for driving cars.

If oil was only used for transportation it wouldn't be a competitor with coal, would be?

 

[monovillage]

But multiple organizations, and not just the UN, are warning of the effects of climate change. Examples include

http://www.lloyds.com/news-and-insi...ts/climate-change/climate-change-and-security

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/renee-parsons/climate-change-national-security_b_1929398.html

It's all about the money.

Here is what the new paper concludes based on its examination of weather-related losses from the Munich Re global dataset from 1980 to 2008 (emphasis added):

[At a global scale] no significant trend is discernible. Similarly, we do not find a significant trend if we constrain our analysis to non-geophysical disasters in developed countries . . .

Convective events, i.e. flash floods, hail storms, tempest storms, tornados, and lightning, deserve closer attention since these are likely to be particularly affected by future global warming (Trapp et al. 2007, 2009; Botzen et al. 2009) and there is some evidence that past climatic changes already affected severe thunderstorm activity in some regions (Dessens 1995; Kunz et al. 2009). Figure 7a shows that there is no significant trend in global insured losses for these peril types. Similarly, there is no significant trend in insured losses for storm events (Figure 7b), tropical cyclones (Figure 7c) or precipitation-related events (Figure 7d).

http://rogerpielkejr.blogspot.com/2011/11/new-study-on-insured-losses-and-climate.html

 

[fskimospy]

It's all about the money.

http://rogerpielkejr.blogspot.com/2011/11/new-study-on-insured-losses-and-climate.html

I know! Remember when Judith curry was bought and paid for to make that study?

I was as shocked by her low moral character as you were. I then vowed never to trust someone who would produce bought and paid for studies, as I'm sure you have.

 

[monovillage]

I know! Remember when Judith curry was bought and paid for to make that study?

I was as shocked by her low moral character as you were. I then vowed never to trust someone who would produce bought and paid for studies, as I'm sure you have.

Of course she was paid for her work, there's nothing wrong with being paid for your work in a capitalist society. Idiot.
Now tell me how forcing western nations to pay $100,000,000,000.00 to the UN every year is going to solve the perceived problem ?

 

[fskimospy]

Of course she was paid for her work, there's nothing wrong with being paid for your work in a capitalist society. Idiot.

Lol. Yeah that's totally what you meant.

I'm sure it had nothing to do with you dismissing ideologically inconvenient studies without reading them by impugning the motives of the authors only to find that one of them is someone you frequently cite.

 

[monovillage]

Lol. Yeah that's totally what you meant.

I'm sure it had nothing to do with you dismissing ideologically inconvenient studies without reading them by impugning the motives of the authors only to find that one of them is someone you frequently cite.

It is what I meant, and you're still an asshole.

 

[Paul98]

It is what I meant, and you're still an asshole.

awww, someone struck a nerve

 

[ralfy]

An estimated change in temperature of 0.06*C.

Estimated since 1960.
Estimated based on I don't know what. Probably some models.

A temperature measure in the hundredths of degree Celsius.
Seems legit.

From there, one can look at "Ocean temperature and heat content" and subsequent sections in the page.

 

[ralfy]

If oil was only used for transportation it wouldn't be a competitor with coal, would be?

Indeed. Hence,

"It Will Take 131 Years To Replace Oil, And We've Only Got 10"

http://www.businessinsider.com/131-years-to-replace-oil-2010-11

 

[ralfy]

It's all about the money.

http://rogerpielkejr.blogspot.com/2011/11/new-study-on-insured-losses-and-climate.html

The irony is that some deniers actually call for further studies of the matter, and that entails money.

More important is that more money is at stake with denialism, as much of manufacturing and food production is geared towards the use of fossil fuels. Hence,

"Climate Risks Have Been Underestimated for the Last 20 Years"

http://www.alternet.org/environment/climate-risks-have-been-underestimated-last-20-years

The phenomenon is not difficult to understand: governments rely on businesses for tax revenues, and businesses can only maintain operations and grow given continued use of oil. The bad news is peak oil:

http://www.worldenergyoutlook.org/publications/weo-2010/