The urgency of climate change and how the President might act

Page 2 - Seeking answers? Join the AnandTech community: where nearly half-a-million members share solutions and discuss the latest tech.

LunarRay

Diamond Member
Mar 2, 2003
9,993
1
76
The great issue for America today, as I see it, is how to deal with an opposition party that is not equipped to reason. Climate change is of the huge issues Republicans are trying to prevent action on. Here's some news on this:

http://www.washingtonpost.com/opini...d2d546-6003-11e2-b05a-605528f6b712_story.html


Dealing with Climate change implies spending or worse yet... more expense. But, the there exists an immense economic opportunity rebuilding the grid and providing the use of alternative non fossil fuel power generation... vehicles and all sorts of stuff.

The Right will be on board as soon as they can see how their clients can benefit from doing something about it... real or imagined.

So... the job ought to be finding a way to convince the Right that business (like T. Boone, etc.) will gain a windfall in the process of making the US a leader in this regard.

As far as I'm concerned there exists with a confidence level of 90% a probability of 70% that the industrial nations are providing levels of gunk greater than nature can absorb into the 'air'... That ought to convince business to take the lead and invest... Well... until the angle with the sun changes again. I wonder if that has anything to do with the changes in polarity and ice ages and all that bunk.
 

SparkyJJO

Lifer
May 16, 2002
13,357
7
81
CO2 is tree food. Why do you want to starve the trees. Think of the trees! :(

Anytime anything gets politicized and/or gets government money thrown at it there should a healthy dose of skepticism, regardless of what it is.
 

LunarRay

Diamond Member
Mar 2, 2003
9,993
1
76
CO2 is tree food. Why do you want to starve the trees. Think of the trees! :(

Anytime anything gets politicized and/or gets government money thrown at it there should a healthy dose of skepticism, regardless of what it is.


Trees are fire food.... you want to further poison the air... geeze :)
 

michal1980

Diamond Member
Mar 7, 2003
8,019
43
91
Republicans will be first ones to taste the climate change. Since majority of republicans is either in southern states, which will become too hot; or in midwest, where agriculture will be affected by the droughts. We already had bad drought in 2012, and 2013 is already promising the same.

nope, hopefully it takes out the liberal coasts first with huge flooding.
 

CPA

Elite Member
Nov 19, 2001
30,322
4
0
Climate change is not a big issue. Not even close.

However, how to collect billions of taxes from the sheep in the name of climate change is a big issue.
 

monovillage

Diamond Member
Jul 3, 2008
8,444
1
0
Most of the stand still was during the down portion of the suns 11 year cycle. Plus you chart does not show temperature increases in oceans and land.

Albedo still shows an energy imbalance which means more energy into the system.

Climate sensitivity in the AR5 SOD
http://judithcurry.com/2012/12/19/climate-sensitivity-in-the-ar5-sod/

The cloud feedback remains the most uncertain radiative feedback in climate models. Observations alone do not currently provide a robust, direct constraint, but multiple lines of evidence now indicate positive feedback contributions from changes in both the height of high clouds and the horizontal distribution of clouds. Additional feedback from low cloud amount is also positive in most climate models, but that result is not well understood, nor effectively constrained by observations, so confidence in it is low.

The key point is this. The cloud forcing values are derived from climate models; we have already seen that climate models have some fundamental problems in how clouds are treated (e.g. aerosol-cloud interactions, moist thermodynamics). So, climate model derived values of cloud forcing should be taken with a grain of salt. Empirically based determinations of cloud forcing are needed. At AGU, I spoke with a scientist that has completed such a study, with the paper almost ready for submission. Punchline: negative cloud feedback.
 

Moonbeam

Elite Member
Nov 24, 1999
72,405
6,079
126
The great issue for America today, as I see it, is how to deal with an opposition party that is not equipped to reason. Climate change is of the huge issues Republicans are trying to prevent action on. Here's some news on this:

http://www.washingtonpost.com/opini...d2d546-6003-11e2-b05a-605528f6b712_story.html

Nice thread, Moonbeam. You have collected a ton of evidence here for why the President will have to use executive powers to act on climate change. The notion that those with defective brains, folk who can't help but cover their eyes when faced by threatening situations should impede the survival of the species is an anathema to rational thinking. They will simply have to be marginalized and walked over, stamped under, if need be. Support for the party that festers with this vermin now hovers around 26%.
 

Paratus

Lifer
Jun 4, 2004
16,669
13,412
146

I don't think you understand what I'm saying. Its an energy balance equation. Apparently neither does your one and only source:

http://m.guardiannews.com/environment/2012/oct/16/daily-mail-global-warming-stopped-wrong

Rose and Curry Ignore 90+% of Global Warming
Perhaps most importantly, focusing on surface air temperatures misses more than 90% of the overall warming of the planet (Figure 2).
global_warming_components.gif

You guys all say you believe that climate change is happening and that we are in a warming phase and then attack any article that shows warming regardless of whether it shows AGW or not. Wonder why that is.

I think this chart pretty much sums up most of the "skeptic" position.

skepticsvrealistsv3.gif
 
Last edited:

Jaskalas

Lifer
Jun 23, 2004
33,426
7,485
136
I think this chart pretty much sums up most of the "skeptic" position.

Too quote a good fella: "It never ceases to amaze me the way cooler temperatures are always the results of natural variation, but warmer temperatures are always the result of CO2.
I never knew that all of natures variability went one way only."

The believer position is pretty much summed up in one failed computer model after another. Because you don't have all the answers, got no clue on the natural forcing, and have been consistently WRONG on the climate since day 1.

Get your !@#$ together before preaching to us with your holier than thou !@#$.
 

themusgrat

Golden Member
Nov 2, 2005
1,408
0
0
Republicans will be first ones to taste the climate change. Since majority of republicans is either in southern states, which will become too hot; or in midwest, where agriculture will be affected by the droughts. We already had bad drought in 2012, and 2013 is already promising the same.

You guys do know that in the (relatively) near future, scientists say we're going into global cooling?
 

themusgrat

Golden Member
Nov 2, 2005
1,408
0
0
I don't think you understand what I'm saying. Its an energy balance equation. Apparently neither does your one and only source:

http://m.guardiannews.com/environment/2012/oct/16/daily-mail-global-warming-stopped-wrong



You guys all say you believe that climate change is happening and that we are in a warming phase and then attack any article that shows warming regardless of whether it shows AGW or not. Wonder why that is.

I think this chart pretty much sums up most of the "skeptic" position.

skepticsvrealistsv3.gif

I'd be interested to know where they got that data from. It wasn't long ago that climate change scientists were caught fudging data because the numbers weren't scary enough.

edit: For clarity, yes, temperatures are still rising, but many scientists are saying that there are indications that lead them to believe that there will be a period of global cooling that will begin in the next 200 or 300 years.

The idea that temperatures will continue to rise until the earth catches on fire and we all die is a pretty stupid one. There is alot to be said for being responsible with our emissions, but the earth has always had hot times, and cold times. It's very likely that the age preceding the Ice Age was rather warm. The earth will continue to warm and cool, as it always has. Undoubtedly every single human has some effect, just as every single cow's fart in some way affects the climate. The argument needs to be over how much we're influencing the climate. Unfortunately, we have no idea at all. We know we cannot be entirely responsible for the recent warming period, and we know that the idea that humans have no effect upon the climate is dead wrong. The truth, as always, lies somewhere in the middle. The problem is that we have very little data. We have no idea when this period of warming began, as nobody recorded global temperatures in the 1500s, let alone throughout recorded history. We have a very limited data set to work with, and we really have no idea what most of it means. That's why, as someone lined above, in the 80's, vastly warmer temperatures were predicted for 2012 than were recorded. We have no idea how much tolerance the climate has for our emissions, and we really have no idea how long the current period of warming will last.

The one thing that was good about the inane global hysteria due to idiots/liars like Al Gore was that it did raise awareness of our impact on the environment. We do owe it to this earth to take better care of it. That probably goes beyond CO2, it probably means limiting the number of humans to something under the ridiculous 7 billion we have today, but that's another story.
 
Last edited:

Paratus

Lifer
Jun 4, 2004
16,669
13,412
146
Too quote a good fella: "It never ceases to amaze me the way cooler temperatures are always the results of natural variation, but warmer temperatures are always the result of CO2.
I never knew that all of natures variability went one way only."

The believer position is pretty much summed up in one failed computer model after another. Because you don't have all the answers, got no clue on the natural forcing, and have been consistently WRONG on the climate since day 1.

Get your !@#$ together before preaching to us with your holier than thou !@#$.

Your projecting. Global Warming is happening. Our CO2 output has a lot to do with it.

If you want an argument try aiming at what really bothers you, what we should do about it, if anything. Which is actually the topic of this thread.
 

monovillage

Diamond Member
Jul 3, 2008
8,444
1
0
I'd be interested to know where they got that data from. It wasn't long ago that climate change scientists were caught fudging data because the numbers weren't scary enough.

edit: For clarity, yes, temperatures are still rising, but many scientists are saying that there are indications that lead them to believe that there will be a period of global cooling that will begin in the next 200 or 300 years.

The idea that temperatures will continue to rise until the earth catches on fire and we all die is a pretty stupid one. There is alot to be said for being responsible with our emissions, but the earth has always had hot times, and cold times. It's very likely that the age preceding the Ice Age was rather warm. The earth will continue to warm and cool, as it always has. Undoubtedly every single human has some effect, just as every single cow's fart in some way affects the climate. The argument needs to be over how much we're influencing the climate. Unfortunately, we have no idea at all. We know we cannot be entirely responsible for the recent warming period, and we know that the idea that humans have no effect upon the climate is dead wrong. The truth, as always, lies somewhere in the middle. The problem is that we have very little data. We have no idea when this period of warming began, as nobody recorded global temperatures in the 1500s, let alone throughout recorded history. We have a very limited data set to work with, and we really have no idea what most of it means. That's why, as someone lined above, in the 80's, vastly warmer temperatures were predicted for 2012 than were recorded. We have no idea how much tolerance the climate has for our emissions, and we really have no idea how long the current period of warming will last.

The one thing that was good about the inane global hysteria due to idiots/liars like Al Gore was that it did raise awareness of our impact on the environment. We do owe it to this earth to take better care of it. That probably goes beyond CO2, it probably means limiting the number of humans to something under the ridiculous 7 billion we have today, but that's another story.

He got it from John Cook the high school teacher and skeptical science.
 

drebo

Diamond Member
Feb 24, 2006
7,035
1
81
That just means it's been regurgitated a few times before it got to you.



I'd be happy to:
800px-mauna_loa_carbon_dioxide-en-svg.png

And that graph means what, exactly?

Those same patterns have been shown throughout the vast history of the world. They also don't even really correlate to average global temperature on a year-over-year basis.

Again, what we're seeing is par for the course as far as Earth's natural cycles. Humans are far too arrogant to think that we have any control (good or bad) over Earth's climates.

As I stated before, we can't even predict whether or not it's going to rain next week. How can we trust them to predict the temperature 5, 10, or 50 years from now?

Your response clearly shows that this is more religion than science. It'd be like me showing you a picture of the 10 commandments and using that as proof that God exists.
 

Paul98

Diamond Member
Jan 31, 2010
3,732
199
106
And that graph means what, exactly?

Those same patterns have been shown throughout the vast history of the world. They also don't even really correlate to average global temperature on a year-over-year basis.

Again, what we're seeing is par for the course as far as Earth's natural cycles. Humans are far too arrogant to think that we have any control (good or bad) over Earth's climates.

As I stated before, we can't even predict whether or not it's going to rain next week. How can we trust them to predict the temperature 5, 10, or 50 years from now?

Your response clearly shows that this is more religion than science. It'd be like me showing you a picture of the 10 commandments and using that as proof that God exists.

What you have said isn't supported by science. And for the comment about how can we trust a climate forecast if we can't predict if it's going to rain next week. Over time the small variations in weather average out. You may have a hard time predicting the exact temperature somewhere on a certain day. But the average temperature is easier. Just like flipping a coin, you have a hard time predicting a single flip but the average is easy.
 

Jaskalas

Lifer
Jun 23, 2004
33,426
7,485
136
Your projecting. Global Warming is happening. Our CO2 output has a lot to do with it.

If you want an argument try aiming at what really bothers you, what we should do about it, if anything. Which is actually the topic of this thread.

What really bothers me is the label of CO2 as a pollutant. What to do about it? Cast down the believers trying to scare us with their faux science, which they've NEVER demonstrated a competency in.

Take the people blaming Katrina and Sandy on AGW and go gator hunting with them.
 

glenn1

Lifer
Sep 6, 2000
25,383
1,013
126
What you have said isn't supported by science. And for the comment about how can we trust a climate forecast if we can't predict if it's going to rain next week. Over time the small variations in weather average out. You may have a hard time predicting the exact temperature somewhere on a certain day. But the average temperature is easier. Just like flipping a coin, you have a hard time predicting a single flip but the average is easy.

Here's a scientific prediction for you then. You may have a hard time predicting what the exact "environmental" law might be passed somewhere on a certain day. But the average is easier - on average politicians aren't going to do a fucking thing because what global warming fanatics are asking for is completely stupid.
 

monovillage

Diamond Member
Jul 3, 2008
8,444
1
0
Just some of the failed predictions.

Climate Change

Claim Jan. 1970: "By 1985, air pollution will have reduced the amount of sunlight reaching earth by one half." Life Magazine, January 1970. Life Magazine also noted that some people disagree, "but scientists have solid experimental and historical evidence to support each of the predictions."
Data: Air quality has actually improved since 1970. Studies find that sunlight reaching the Earth fell by somewhere between 3 and 5 percent over the period in question.

Claim April 1970: "If present trends continue, the world will be ... eleven degrees colder by the year 2000. This is about twice what it would take to put us in an ice age." Kenneth E.F. Watt, in Earth Day, 1970.
Data: According to NASA, global temperature has increased by about 1 degree Fahrenheit since 1970.

Claim 1970: "In ten years all important animal life in the sea will be extinct. Large areas of coastline will have to be evacuated because of the stench of dead fish." Paul Ehrlich, speech during Earth Day, 1970.
Claim 1972: "Artic specialist Bernt Balchen says a general warming trend over the North Pole is melting the polar ice cap and may produce an ice-free Arctic Ocean by the year 2000." Christian Science Monitor, June 8, 1972.
Data: Ice coverage has fallen, though as of last month, the Arctic Ocean had 3.82 million square miles of ice cover -- an area larger than the continental United States -- according to The National Snow and Ice Data Center.

Claims 1974: "... when metereologists take an average of temperatures around the globe they find the atmosphere has been growing gradually cooler for the past three decades. The trend shows no indication of reversing. Climatological Cassandras are becoming increasingly apprehensive, for the weather aberrations they are studying may be the harbinger of another ice age. Telltale signs are everywhere--from the unexpected persistence and thickness of pack ice int eh waters around Iceland to the southward migration of a warmth-loving creature like the armadillo from the Midwest. When Climatologist George J. Kukla of Columbia University's Lamont-Doherty Geological Observatory and his wife Helena analyzed satellite weather data fro the Northern Hemisphere, they found that the area of ice and snow cover had suddenly increased by 12% in 1971 and the increase has persisted ever since. Areas of Baffin Island in the Canadia Arctic, for example, were once totally free of any snow in summer; now they are covered year round."
Later in the article, "Whatever the cause of the cooling trend, its effects could be extremely serious, if not catastrophic. Scientists figure that only a 1% decrease in the amount of sunlight hitting the earth's surface could tip teh climatic balance, and cool the planet enough to send it sliding down the road to another ice age within only a few hundred years."
Source: "Another Ice Age," Time Magazine, June 24, 1974.

Claim 1989: "Using computer models, researchers concluded that global warming would raise average annual temperatures nationwide two degrees by 2010." Associated Press, May 15, 1989.
Data: According to NASA, global temperature has increased by about 0.7 degrees Fahrenheit since 1989. And U.S. temperature has increased even less over the same period.

Claims: "Britain's winter ends tomorrow with further indications of a striking environmental change: snow is starting to disappear from our lives."
"Sledges, snowmen, snowballs and ... are all a rapidly diminishing part of Britain's culture, as warmer winters--which scientists are attributing to global climate change--produce not only fewer white Christmases, but fewer white Januaries and Februaries."
"London's last substantial snowfall was in February 1991." "Global warming, the heating of the atmosphere by increased amounts of industrial gases, is now accepted as a reality by the international community."
According to Dr. David Viner, a senior research scientist at the climatic research unit (CRU) of the University of East Anglia, within a few years "children just aren't going to know what snow is" and winter snowfall will be "a very rare and exciting event." Interviewed by the UK Independent, March 20, 2000.
"David Parker, at the Hadley Centre for Climate Prediction and Research in Berkshire, says ultimately, British children could have only virtual experience of snow."
See "Snowfalls are now just a thing of the past." The Independent. March 20, 2000.
Data: "Coldest December Since records began as temperatures plummet to minus 10 C bringing travel chaos across Britain." Mailonline. Dec. 18, 2010.

Claim: "[By] 1995, the greenhouse effect would be desolating the heartlands of North America and Eurasia with horrific drought, causing crop failures and food riots ... [By 1996] The Platte River of Nebraska would be dry, while a continent-wide black blizzard of prairie topsoil will stop traffic on interstates, strip paint from houses and shut down computers." Michel Oppenheimer and Robert H. Boyle, Dead Heat, St. Martin's Press, 1990. Oppenheimer is the Albert G. Milbank Professor of Geosciences and International Affairs in the Woodrow Wilson School and the Department of Geosciences at Princeton University. He is the Director of the Program in Science, Technology, and Environmental Policy at the Wilson School. He was formerly a senior scientist with the Environmental Defense Fund, the largest non-governmental organization in the U.S. that examines problems and solutions to greenhouse gases.
Data: When asked about these old predictions Oppenheimer stated, "On the whole I would stand by these predictions -- not predictions, sorry, scenarios -- as having at least in a general way actually come true," he said. "There's been extensive drought, devastating drought, in significant parts of the world. The fraction of the world that's in drought has increased over that period."
However, that claim is not obviously true. Data from NASA's Goddard Space Flight Center show that precipitation -- rain and snow -- has increased slightly over the century.


--

How could scientists have made such off-base claims? Dr. Paul Ehrlich, author of "The Population Bomb" and president of Stanford University's Center for Conservation Biology, told FoxNews.com that ideas about climate science changed a great deal in the the '70s and '80s.

Ehrlich told FoxNews.com that the consequences of future warming could be dire.

Too bad that Moonie and Loonie didn't spend Billions or Trillions trying to stop it or Parrotboy didn't show an equation proving the world is 6,000 years old.



http://www.terry.uga.edu/~mustard/courses/e2200/pop.htm
 

Moonbeam

Elite Member
Nov 24, 1999
72,405
6,079
126
Just some of the failed predictions.

Climate Change



Too bad that Moonie and Loonie didn't spend Billions or Trillions trying to stop it or Parrotboy didn't show an equation proving the world is 6,000 years old.



http://www.terry.uga.edu/~mustard/courses/e2200/pop.htm

God you are so hopeless I can only love you. I've mentioned a number of times now that you can't think but you persist in imagining you can. There is so much wrong with your post that it would be exausting listing it all, and after I did, you would be as in the dark as before.

The essential feature of your post is that you are punching air. Have you ever watched early attempts at human flight. One brilliant mind suggested that humans would die if they went very fast. But the funniest part is when you turn your attention to me and claim I'm a global warming nut of the kind that exists in your head. You got the wrong droid.
 

Moonbeam

Elite Member
Nov 24, 1999
72,405
6,079
126
Here's a scientific prediction for you then. You may have a hard time predicting what the exact "environmental" law might be passed somewhere on a certain day. But the average is easier - on average politicians aren't going to do a fucking thing because what global warming fanatics are asking for is completely stupid.

This is a profoundly stupid post. I hope you like my reasons.