Obama to address Climate Change in speech - It's About Damn Time.

[GaiaHunter]

translation: YOUR scientific illiteracy prevents you from understanding what is going on... how embarrasing it must be

Mine and the planet.

If only the planet followed the climate models, how easier it would be...

 

[Jaskalas]

Short term cooling trends are expected and observed. This is the up and down escalator. Also, how can you base anything on a such a short period of time.

Short term warming trends are expected and observed. How can you base Climate Sensitivity on such a short period of time?

Man "took control" in the 1950s. We DID NOT have warming in the 1960s or 1970s. Back then we spoke of cooling, of an impending ice age. After that it warmed during the 1980s and 1990s.

So for all the "long term trend", the Global Warming Climate Change claim only applies to ~20 years of observed warming. As the Chariman of the UN IPCC admits, it has since been 17 years without warming. Essentially a repeating pattern with 2 decades of warming, 2 decades without.

All the hype with doom and gloom, all those lovely and FAILED "settled science" computer models were derived from the ~20 years of warming in the 80s and 90s. They do not take into account REAL Climate Sensitivity and I submit that their warm biases stem from warming activists using short term warming trends to their advantage.

Well now the shoe is on the other foot.

 

[Matt1970]

So if they force Carbon Trading on America to solve the "problem" of global warming, what will be the end result? I imagine the end result will be the exportation of the few remaining manufacturing jobs in America to China. Why does that make a lick of sense?

I am impressed you see that. And then of course they will blame the corporations for the outsourcing.

 

[werepossum]

planet = life support system
who needs that?

LOL +1

But aren't we, the ones that have been industrialized the longest, living more years and more comfortably than the ones before us that lived in that "idyllic world" before CO2 emissions?

And was that planet so stable?

Do we want to lower the CO2 emissions because it will lead to a better human life or because it will lead to an idyllic planet?

But wasn't that idyllic planet actually worse for our species?

I think we want to lower CO2 emissions because it will result in less environmental damage. I do think that CO2 levels lower than what we currently have are more stable. If we were discussing rolling back industrialization I'd agree that we'd be making the planet less ideal for ourselves, but we're only discussing making industrialization cleaner. Although as Bshole points out, there is a danger that if implement this wrong we can actually drive manufacturing to countries with much worse environmental practices, resulting in net damage to the environment. That danger is very real, but not I think inevitable.

 

[Paratus]

Thank goodness, otherwise we would be dead.

So now it's obvious you have no clue how thermal systems work.

Here's heat mass transfer 101 just for you:

When an object receives more power then it loses it warms until it radiates as much power as its receiving.

So the Earth is receiving more solar energy then it radiates away therefor the Earth is warming. We measure this with satellites and is indisputable.

The difficult part is translating that excess energy into temperature changes of land, water and air.

 

[GaiaHunter]

So now it's obvious you have no clue how thermal systems work.

Here's heat mass transfer 101 just for you:

When an object receives more power then it loses it warms until it radiates as much power as its receiving.

So the Earth is receiving more solar energy then it radiates away therefor the Earth is warming. We measure this with satellites and is indisputable.

The difficult part is translating that excess energy into temperature changes of land, water and air.

I didn't say earth isn't warming.

Obviously it has been warming since the last ice age, with cooling and warming intervals, like the little ice age that ended in the 1800s.

What you need to prove is that the warming is caused by human emitted CO2 and not something else.

Fact: The climate models have been overestimating the climate sensitivity to CO2.

 

[Jaskalas]

What industry's have been burned so far?

Cross quoted to avoid going further off topic in that other topic.

Keystone XL ring a bell? How about the coal plants that are being shut down? A war against American energy is this President's approach to CO2 emissions. Not something dangerous like heavy metals, but CO2.

I'd call it fearmongering and equate it to witch burning.

 

[OGOC]

George W. Bush had big plans for immigration reform then had to dump them because his party was more racist than his ideas.

Or maybe his party thought it's illogical to reward people for breaking the law and illogical to give amnesty before securing the border.

As for Obama, someone let me know when his highness puts the taxpayers' money where his mouth is and he stops jetting around the country and world and "destroying the climate" more in one day than other people will do in their entire lives.

 

[BlueWolf47]

So now it's obvious you have no clue how thermal systems work.

Here's heat mass transfer 101 just for you:

When an object receives more power then it loses it warms until it radiates as much power as its receiving.

So the Earth is receiving more solar energy then it radiates away therefor the Earth is warming. We measure this with satellites and is indisputable.

The difficult part is translating that excess energy into temperature changes of land, water and air.

They cant comprehend that CO2 causes us to irridate less heat than we absorb as solar energy. There for increaseing the energy within the system(earth). They think because we cant predict exactly how temperatures will change that the acience is flawed.

 

[GaiaHunter]

They cant comprehend that CO2 causes us to irridate less heat than we absorb as solar energy. There for increaseing the energy within the system(earth). They think because we cant predict exactly how temperatures will change that the acience is flawed.

We talking about 0.58 W/m^2 of imbalance (not exactly sure how someone measured that to 3 significant digits).

As we can see there is more going on than just CO2 or the other green house gases.

Since we don't know how the weather patterns will shift and change other components of it, like clouds, and since we don't know the climate sensitivity of CO2, clouds, aerosols, etc, it is hard to say anything.

Or it should be.

 

[Paul98]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hC3VTgIPoGU

Largest calving event ever caught on video... It is amazing

 

[Paul98]

The problem debating people about scientific subjects is the lack of knowledge on the subject. Someone will read some news or blog assume what it says is correct and that they understand it. Where most have no real knowledge, and the articles they quote are ether incorrect or doesn't say what they think it does.

Then instead of learning the actual science and trying to understand it they continue to fight that they are correct and the science is wrong.

 

[Fenixgoon]

The problem debating people about scientific subjects is the lack of knowledge on the subject. Someone will read some news or blog assume what it says is correct and that they understand it. Where most have no real knowledge, and the articles they quote are ether incorrect or doesn't say what they think it does.

Then instead of learning the actual science and trying to understand it they continue to fight that they are correct and the science is wrong.

that assumes that our science is 100% correct, which it isn't. and considering we know that the earth has been both hotter and colder than present day, global warming (now global climate change) is to a degree fear mongering. 40 years ago scientists claimed we'd be in the next ice age if we weren't careful.

now, if you simply want to keep the earth clean and not destroy our rivers and make our land unusable due to waste dumping, by all means do so and push for it, but don't parade that idea around through some apocalyptic message.

 

[Bowfinger]

So if they force Carbon Trading on America to solve the "problem" of global warming, what will be the end result? I imagine the end result will be the exportation of the few remaining manufacturing jobs in America to China. Why does that make a lick of sense?

Ironically, China is much more advanced in tackling climate change than the U.S. China is now instituting a cap and trade system, has a carbon tax coming, and is investing far more in renewable energy than we are: http://www.slate.com/articles/techn...untry_may_lead_the_global_climate_change.html

Americans should be ashamed that once again, thanks to a propaganda campaign by a very powerful and wealthy few, we're being dragged backwards while countries like China move ahead. I'm concerned about the America my children are inheriting thanks to the self-destructive behavior of a fiercely, proudly ignorant segment of our population.

 

[Paul98]

that assumes that our science is 100% correct, which it isn't. and considering we know that the earth has been both hotter and colder than present day, global warming (now global climate change) is to a degree fear mongering. 40 years ago scientists claimed we'd be in the next ice age if we weren't careful.

now, if you simply want to keep the earth clean and not destroy our rivers and make our land unusable due to waste dumping, by all means do so and push for it, but don't parade that idea around through some apocalyptic message.

No it doesn't, it assumes you have to understand the science to come to any sort of conclusion about it. You can't refute something if you have no understanding about what the science says.

40 years ago a small number of scientists claimed we were going to experience global cooling, while the majority were talking about global warming. As we got a better understanding and more data, the number talking about global cooling has become even smaller, where as global warming is the vast majority.

Care to explain how the earth being warmer or cooler in the past means that man made climate change now not a problem for us?

 

[Paul98]

Ironically, China is much more advanced in tackling climate change than the U.S. China is now instituting a cap and trade system, has a carbon tax coming, and is investing far more in renewable energy than we are: http://www.slate.com/articles/techn...untry_may_lead_the_global_climate_change.html

Americans should be ashamed that once again, thanks to a propaganda campaign by a very powerful and wealthy few, we're being dragged backwards while countries like China move ahead. I'm concerned about the America my children are inheriting thanks to the self-destructive behavior of a fiercely, proudly ignorant segment of our population.

Hopefully the rest of the world can pull us along, what is going on now in the USA is really sad. I have a hard time seeing it getting any better unless we have some major change.

 

[Fenixgoon]

No it doesn't, it assumes you have to understand the science to come to any sort of conclusion about it. You can't refute something if you have no understanding about what the science says.

40 years ago a small number of scientists claimed we were going to experience global cooling, while the majority were talking about global warming. As we got a better understanding and more data, the number talking about global cooling has become even smaller, where as global warming is the vast majority.

Care to explain how the earth being warmer or cooler in the past means that man made climate change now not a problem for us?

it means that life continued to flourish despite those climate changes. the earth isn't a barren rock.

i'm not saying we shouldn't do something about our pollution. i'm saying that parading it as the apocalypse is disingenuous.

 

[WelshBloke]

it means that life continued to flourish despite those climate changes. the earth isn't a barren rock.

i'm not saying we shouldn't do something about our pollution. i'm saying that parading it as the apocalypse is disingenuous.

Just because life flourishes it doesnt mean its great or even good for us and our way of life.

 

[Paratus]

We talking about 0.58 W/m^2 of imbalance (not exactly sure how someone measured that to 3 significant digits).

As we can see there is more going on than just CO2 or the other green house gases.

Since we don't know how the weather patterns will shift and change other components of it, like clouds, and since we don't know the climate sensitivity of CO2, clouds, aerosols, etc, it is hard to say anything.

Or it should be.

Hmm so .58w/m^2 x pi x 6371000m^2. So only

74TW (Terra watts)

Nope not much power at all.

 

[Paul98]

it means that life continued to flourish despite those climate changes. the earth isn't a barren rock.

i'm not saying we shouldn't do something about our pollution. i'm saying that parading it as the apocalypse is disingenuous.

That has nothing to do with us, we weren't around with huge populations on the coast, or have major cities. No one is saying that all life will die due to global warming, the problem is the effect on our lives.

This is the exact problem I was talking about earlier. People have no clue on the science

 

[GaiaHunter]

Hmm so .58w/m^2 x pi x 6371000m^2. So only

74TW (Terra watts)

Nope not much power at all.

And all that power translate into 0.58W/m^2.

The Earth is big.

OF course the error for that measure is +- 1W/m^2.

 

[GaiaHunter]

No it doesn't, it assumes you have to understand the science to come to any sort of conclusion about it. You can't refute something if you have no understanding about what the science says.

40 years ago a small number of scientists claimed we were going to experience global cooling, while the majority were talking about global warming. As we got a better understanding and more data, the number talking about global cooling has become even smaller, where as global warming is the vast majority.

Care to explain how the earth being warmer or cooler in the past means that man made climate change now not a problem for us?

It is important to know why it is happening and how we going to adapt.
Reducing CO2 emissions is extremely expensive, making the humanity much poorer.

Being poorer means we will struggle to adapt to global warming and other problems humanity face.

The worse thing we can do is reduce emissions of CO2 becoming poorer and the climate still changes.

In fact, even if the shift in the climate is caused by human CO2 emissions (which by the way are a 2 orders of magnitude smaller than the natural CO2 emissions) it probably makes more sense to prepare for the challenges caused by the climate change in other ways.


Finally, the scientists talking about global warming (now climate change) also made predictions and build computer models based on the "science".

Those models and predictions have so overestimated the warming and any consequences of the warming, meaning the predicted cataclysm is further away in time, which gives more time to prepare.

So, no, one doesn't have to have a PhD in climate science to look at the computer models and point out "look the predict results are wrong so whatever where the scientific assumptions is fair to assume they were incorrect".

 

[GaiaHunter]

That has nothing to do with us, we weren't around with huge populations on the coast, or have major cities. No one is saying that all life will die due to global warming, the problem is the effect on our lives.

This is the exact problem I was talking about earlier. People have no clue on the science

And what is better for the human beings - reinforce the coastline and/or start to build further inland or impose CO2 restrictions that will make people poorer, especially impacting countries that are already poor?

 

[monovillage]

In his defense, I don't see how he could have accomplished anything on this issue. In fact, I seriously doubt he still can.

That's because you're an ignorant Canadian.
http://www.newyorker.com/reporting/2010/10/11/101011fa_fact_lizza

Obama had his chance in 2010 in a bipartisan solution and he fucked it up like he has most everything else during his administration. At least this time it was a benefit to the country.

On April 20, 2010, Senators John Kerry, Lindsey Graham, and Joseph Lieberman, along with three aides, visited Rahm Emanuel, President Obama’s chief of staff, at the White House. The legislators had spent seven months writing a comprehensive bill that promised to transform the nation’s approach to energy and climate change, and they were planning a press conference in six days to unveil their work.

So you ignorant clowns can just this other fact to your litany of climate ignorance.

 

[Paul98]

It is important to know why it is happening and how we going to adapt.
Reducing CO2 emissions is extremely expensive, making the humanity much poorer.

Being poorer means we will struggle to adapt to global warming and other problems humanity face.

The worse thing we can do is reduce emissions of CO2 becoming poorer and the climate still changes.

In fact, even if the shift in the climate is caused by human CO2 emissions (which by the way are a 2 orders of magnitude smaller than the natural CO2 emissions) it probably makes more sense to prepare for the challenges caused by the climate change in other ways.


Finally, the scientists talking about global warming (now climate change) also made predictions and build computer models based on the "science".

Those models and predictions have so overestimated the warming and any consequences of the warming, meaning the predicted cataclysm is further away in time, which gives more time to prepare.

So, no, one doesn't have to have a PhD in climate science to look at the computer models and point out "look the predict results are wrong so whatever where the scientific assumptions is fair to assume they were incorrect".

So it is a problem...

Really you seem to be arguing both sides...

What climate models did you look at, do you know anything about them? This is the very problem that I was talking about, you know nothing about the models and say oh it didn't line up with that model the science is wrong.

You can look at lots of other estimates where they are have been sorely wrong in the other direction. This is why there is analysis and error predictions and chances based on different things.

As for lowering our CO2 output making us poor, that is just a load of shit.