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

[Paul98]

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?

So you believe that climate change is happening and a problem?

 

[bshole]

So you believe that climate change is happening and a problem?

I believe the "supposed" cure is 100 times worse than the "supposed" problem. When you make food more expensive (as has been proven with ethanol), the people who suffer the most are the poor (especially in 3rd world nations). I would like to see a study done which quantifies the death toll for the ethanol debacle.

Climate change is happening and will always happen. Nobody denies that. Many of us deny that a warming climate is bad. It seems extremely counter-intuitive. Warming climate means more arable land, not less. We are feeding more and more people on less and less land. Crop yields have been on an uninterrupted incline for more than a century. Nobody has made a compelling case that a warming climate is a bad thing (well a compelling case to me at least).

PS. Predicting global warming trends is a completely different science than predicting the impact of those trends. All I hear is a bunch of scare mongering about how bad it will be by people who appear to be pulling crap out of their butts. If they don't have the intellectually honesty to even mention the possibility of a good thing happening (more arable land), how can we accept that they are not totally biased? Bias and science don't mix that well.....

 

[piasabird]

Carbon cycle takes 100-200 years to take the carbon out of the atmosphere and store it in rock or however else it is stored like trees or on the ocean floor.

Carbon is even created by Volcanoes. Can he defeat all the volcanoes in the world? What is he exactly going to do? Can we live without Coal? Making temporary laws or rules that hurt people is not going to help much. If people have to work longer to purchase power, that will just make more carbon. You have to be realistic. If you drive your car to your second job that puts more carbon in the air.

A lot of the cabon involves economics. People can not afford any apartment or home close to where they work so they drive out to the suburbs and this creates even more carbon. So tare down some of the houses and build apartments nearer to the center of the Cities. This is more efficient and a more effective way to reduce Carbon emissions.

Take some over the road trucks off the highways for trains and you can reduce a lot more carbon.

Move factories and power plants to the east coast.

This is just simple urban planning.

Make automakers produce smaller Lighter automobiles.

 

[piasabird]

How we currently do Urban Planning is just build houses everywhere and hope for the best! In asia the goverment makes everyone live in an apartment so they can save more farmland. It is a bit socialistic, but it serves a useful purpose. I guess people in South Korea are smarter than people in the USA.

Liberals and people on the left of politics are always pointing to Europe and Overseas and saying how they have such good ideas. However, have we really learned anything?

 

[Jaskalas]

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.

On the contrary, CO2 increases global temperature (Consensus Part 3), human emissions of CO2 raise global temperature (Consensus Part 2), but I adamantly oppose the notion that anyone should care. I'm not only counted among the 97% "Consensus", but I'm a step above the minimum requirement. Yet you'll find me as staunchly opposed to you as anyone.

What you admit to not knowing is Climate Sensitivity. How much warmer will the earth become per doubling of CO2? Yes, doubling. So we'd go from 300ppm to 600ppm to 1,200ppm to 2,400ppm. Each doubling produces less warming than the one previous, to fit the logarithmic curve of CO2.

The IPCC models have failed, they do not know the answer. It's possibly a rather low number, like 0.3-0.5C for example. Or it's the IPCC number of 2-3C. Either it's no big deal and I couldn't care less, or the world is ending. Excuse me while I back the former until it is proven otherwise.

Quick, it's summer, we need some warm weather equals climate arguments. Media is sure to have those lined up.

 

[Munky]

The religion of global warming strikes again. I thought you liberals were all for the separation of church and state...

 

[Paul98]

http://video.pbs.org/video/2334144059

 

[Paratus]

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.

So you still don't understand. The Earth will heat until energy balance is reached. We measure this with satellites. If you don't accept this basically non-controversial measurement you're basically into conspiracy la-la land.

The problem is not that this increase will destroy the planet, it's that we'll be paying for the change. 74TW can drive quite a lot of storms and weather. Moving farms will raise the cost of food. Storms and ocean level changes can cause a lot of property damage.

 

[Paratus]

The religion of global warming strikes again. I thought you liberals were all for the separation of church and state...

Science isn't for everybody. It's obviously not for you.

 

[Paratus]

On the contrary, CO2 increases global temperature (Consensus Part 3), human emissions of CO2 raise global temperature (Consensus Part 2), but I adamantly oppose the notion that anyone should care. I'm not only counted among the 97% "Consensus", but I'm a step above the minimum requirement. Yet you'll find me as staunchly opposed to you as anyone.

What you admit to not knowing is Climate Sensitivity. How much warmer will the earth become per doubling of CO2? Yes, doubling. So we'd go from 300ppm to 600ppm to 1,200ppm to 2,400ppm. Each doubling produces less warming than the one previous, to fit the logarithmic curve of CO2.

The IPCC models have failed, they do not know the answer. It's possibly a rather low number, like 0.3-0.5C for example. Or it's the IPCC number of 2-3C. Either it's no big deal and I couldn't care less, or the world is ending. Excuse me while I back the former until it is proven otherwise.

Quick, it's summer, we need some warm weather equals climate arguments. Media is sure to have those lined up.

Well we do know how much wanted the Earth has to get to equal the imbalance we are currently seeing. That's a fairly easy calculation to do and is probably the basis for the climate estimates. Hell, I could probably do those calculations. The Earth basically behaves like a black body over long enough durations.

 

[Munky]

Science isn't for everybody. It's obviously not for you.

...smugly said the global warming zealot as he turned and went back to his temple.

 

[Paratus]

...smugly said the global warming zealot as he turned and went back to his temple.

That all you got? Anger and ideology? The real question is what if anything should we do about it. But folks like you can't get past Al Gore.

 

[GaiaHunter]

So you believe that climate change is happening and a problem?

Climate is always changing and nature has always been a problem that we tamed using technology, not by abandoning our technology.

 

[GaiaHunter]

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.

I don't agree with the cause, I don't agree with the hysteria of "Repent our sins or GAIA, the almighty god will strike us with waves of both heat and water".

I've looked at the result of the models, widely available and I've looked at the average global temperature charts (even if the concept of global temperature average is a silly one).

These models have been used to justify action based on the fact the world would warm by such and such based on a claim the science is settled and there is a huge consensus about the science.

It didn't happen.

Whatever excuses for the pause, the fact is that those pauses haven't been predicted by the climate models.

 

[GaiaHunter]

So you still don't understand. The Earth will heat until energy balance is reached. We measure this with satellites. If you don't accept this basically non-controversial measurement you're basically into conspiracy la-la land.

The problem is not that this increase will destroy the planet, it's that we'll be paying for the change. 74TW can drive quite a lot of storms and weather. Moving farms will raise the cost of food. Storms and ocean level changes can cause a lot of property damage.

And that weather can create clouds that will decrease the energy we will receive.
Warmth and CO2 will increase the biomass.
Using food as fuel already increased the cost of food.

Also what you don't seem to get is that isn't exactly settled that we are getting that much more heat than we are radiating.

Additionally the heat energy is stored in the system, for example chemically, not increasing the temperature.

 

[Paratus]

And that weather can create clouds that will decrease the energy we will receive.
Warmth and CO2 will increase the biomass.
Using food as fuel already increased the cost of food.

Also what you don't seem to get is that isn't exactly settled that we are getting that much more heat than we are radiating.

Additionally the heat energy is stored in the system, for example chemically, not increasing the temperature.

It is settled. The energy budget is the easy part of all this. Understanding how all the systems of the Earth will react is the hard part. Which is why there are still so many climate scientists still doing research.

Now you specifically mentioned cloud cover. Well reflectivity of the cloud tips are taken into account when measuring the Earths albedo. Albedo shows we're out of energy balance.

As for more biomass, sure plants like warmth and CO2, but were slashing and burning more biomass for farm land so I'd be interesting seeing some research showing overall all more biomass.

Again, my concern isn't about saving the planet but about how these changes are going to affect us. That's where the debate should be.

 

[IGBT]

http://stevengoddard.wordpress.com/2013/06/30/1936-hottest-and-coldest-months-in-us-history/

1936 : Hottest And Coldest Months In US History
Posted on June 30, 2013 by stevengoddard

February 1936 was the coldest month in US history. July 1936 was the hottest. Thousands of people died from the heat that summer. The year was plagued with record heat, cold, drought, fires and floods.

 

[monovillage]

It is settled.

Liar.
http://judithcurry.com/2013/05/27/president-obama-calls-out-the-climate-change-deniers-in-congress/

The energy budget is the easy part of all this. Understanding how all the systems of the Earth will react is the hard part. Which is why there are still so many climate scientists still doing research.

Now you specifically mentioned cloud cover. Well reflectivity of the cloud tips are taken into account when measuring the Earths albedo. Albedo shows we're out of energy balance.

Another lie.
http://judithcurry.com/2011/12/14/another-ipcc-error-cloud-albedo-forcing/

http://judithcurry.com/2013/04/17/meta-uncertainty-in-the-determination-of-climate-sensitivity/

 

[Paul98]

I don't agree with the cause, I don't agree with the hysteria of "Repent our sins or GAIA, the almighty god will strike us with waves of both heat and water".

who the hell are you talking to? you are making up some sort of false point to attack.

I've looked at the result of the models, widely available and I've looked at the average global temperature charts (even if the concept of global temperature average is a silly one).

You don't even know what you are comparing in these graphs. The climate on earth is intertwined throughout. Global temperature very much does matter, especially the reasons behind the change in global temperature.

These models have been used to justify action based on the fact the world would warm by such and such based on a claim the science is settled and there is a huge consensus about the science.

It didn't happen.

Whatever excuses for the pause, the fact is that those pauses haven't been predicted by the climate models.

Yes models are used to make good and bad decisions, you have politicians and general public who has no freaking clue about this stuff.

And actually they have

 

[Paul98]

I believe the "supposed" cure is 100 times worse than the "supposed" problem. When you make food more expensive (as has been proven with ethanol), the people who suffer the most are the poor (especially in 3rd world nations). I would like to see a study done which quantifies the death toll for the ethanol debacle.

do you know how much it has to be reduced to combat the the problem? So you come up with a single "solution" and find that it's bad so that the cure is 100 times worse than the problem? There are lots of easy and doable ways to help reduce CO2 and other things going into the atmosphere. People don't want to make even small changes because they are selfish and don't want to be told what to do.

Climate change is happening and will always happen. Nobody denies that. Many of us deny that a warming climate is bad. It seems extremely counter-intuitive. Warming climate means more arable land, not less. We are feeding more and more people on less and less land. Crop yields have been on an uninterrupted incline for more than a century. Nobody has made a compelling case that a warming climate is a bad thing (well a compelling case to me at least).

Warming climate means more energy in the atmosphere so you get stronger and changing weather events, glaciers, ice sheets,... melt, and large populations depend on melting ice for drinking water. Really the total changes are hard to predict since the earth environment is so intertwined. You may get what seems like a small change in one place but a thousand miles away could be creating havoc. We have built very static structures so you get major changes to the environment you end up causing problems.

 

[GaiaHunter]

You don't even know what you are comparing in these graphs. The climate on earth is intertwined throughout. Global temperature very much does matter, especially the reasons behind the change in global temperature.

5 year averages for the tropical tropospheric temperature, climate models and observation.

As one can see, most climate models predictions are way higher than the data collected from the real earth.

So do you have any specific criticism to the graph?
Do you deny that it shows that the climate models are overestimating temperature?

If they are overestimating temperature, why do you think they are doing that?

Do you prefer the trends?

Or maybe do you prefer to see the difference between data (in this case tree core proxies) worked by the same scientist?

The first one was heavily criticised by sceptics, that claimed that if several debatable choices weren't made it would be more like the following.

But what can someone that isn't a climate scientist know about it?

The following is the current result by a climate scientist vs the results non climate scientists sceptics derived a few years ago in response to the climate scientist work of 2009.

Clearly the non climate scientists have no clue, right?

 

[Paul98]

5 year averages for the tropical tropospheric temperature, climate models and observation.

As one can see, most climate models predictions are way higher than the data collected from the real earth.

So do you have any specific criticism to the graph?

So all those climate models trying to model the tropical tropospheric 20S-20N temperature?...

Seriously you are going to keep using that and keep on editing your post?

How about you know what those words you posted mean and what that graph you posted shows. Then compare it to what the models are supposed to predict, the error confidence levels, and what they are predicting for, along with where the problems in the models can arise based on "short term" events.

 

[Jaskalas]

You don't even know what you are comparing in these graphs. The climate on earth is intertwined throughout. Global temperature very much does matter, especially the reasons behind the change in global temperature.

It does matter, and we're thankful that it has not changed much - and that the duration of the change since man "took control" was only a ~20 year span, which ended some 17 years ago.

 

[Paratus]

Liar.
http://judithcurry.com/2013/05/27/president-obama-calls-out-the-climate-change-deniers-in-congress/



Another lie.
http://judithcurry.com/2011/12/14/another-ipcc-error-cloud-albedo-forcing/

http://judithcurry.com/2013/04/17/meta-uncertainty-in-the-determination-of-climate-sensitivity/

Well Judith you're a hack:

JC comment: Exactly how does focusing on the mean surface temperature miss the point? Global warming is pretty much defined in context of the mean surface temperature. People live on the surface, not in the ocean below 700 m. Yes, warming the ocean interior will cause some sea level rise associated with thermal expansion. But this line of argument that warming in the deep ocean will change the climate (presumably due to changes in the ocean circulation) really just supports the argument for ocean circulations being a primary driver for climate (the natural variability hypothesis promoted by many skeptics).

Here she is arguing that temperatures won't rise because heat is going into ice or the ocean. I guess if I leave my ice wate outside in 100F Texas heat it won't ever raise in temperature.

Maybe you ought to try reading other sources Village

Although even she agrees with me:

“Climate always changes,” she says.
“Carbon dioxide, all other things being equal, will contribute to a warmer planet.”

Guess you'll have to find another hack to fit your ideology. C'est la vie.

 

[buckshot24]

That all you got? Anger and ideology? The real question is what if anything should we do about it. But folks like you can't get past Al Gore.

What can we do about it? I don't think there is anything meaningful that can be done at this point.