How Bad Is Global Warming?

[slimmouse]

the scenario you lay out is unfair, but more indicative of our debt-based economic paradigm, or more specifically our monetary paradigm. Perhaps if money itself were changed from debt-based to energy-based, it might solve some problems.

Indeed. Govnts should be licensed to print money based upon the volume of clean, renewable energy they produce, since energy by defiinition runs most modern economies. This might be coupled somehow, with some kind of recycling efficiency plan, since we can probably find ways of recycling most of what we produce.

Fossil fuel production needs phasing out in double quick time.

Its trying to get the psycopaths who lead us down this road to understand that,

[Ben D]

Ben, if you don't mind, would you please explain the purple line and what it represents. And then, perhaps you'll be so kind as to explain how it is that Carbon Dioxide actually traps heat. I'm sure slim would appreciate more your explaining it than he would were I to.

Sure Iam....that is the trend line...to get the CO2 on the same graph as the RSS temperature, the vertical axis is used for temperature anomaly in degrees C so the global atmospheric CO2 concentration is lost...so here is the CO2 graph on its own with the vertical axis now showing ppm. So we can work out the annual CO2 rise by subtracting say 361 from 397 ppm divided the 17 years to see it presently at about 2 ppm per year.



So far as CO2 warming of the atmosphere...I understand the principle behind it is due to the CO2 in the atmosphere permitting solar radiation of all wavelengths from the sun to pass through it to the Earth where some of it is absorbed while reflecting the longer wavelengths back into space where a proportion of it is absorbed by the CO2 and then re-radiated back down to the Earth. This then constitutes an additional source of energy impacting on the Earth that would otherwise be lost into space if the atmospheric CO2 were not present.

[DrEvil]

Ben: All the evidence you need to refute your bullshit claim has already been posted in this thread.
That you choose to ignore it because it doesn't fit with your world-view is your problem, not mine.

We are not talking about claims, this is about reality....there has been nothing posted in this thread that proves the graphs to be any other than reflecting accurately the IPCC approved and used data.

So c'mon...since you claim they are wrong, show us your expertise and point out which data points on RSS temperature and CO2 emissions graphs can be refuted as being inaccurate.

If you can't...please just man up and refrain from further obfuscation by raising strawmen or making personal attacks and calling for my banishment.

What part of "Your graph is wrong, here's the evidence" is it you don't understand?
Get back to me when you've read the article I posted. Or just google "Global warming slowdown", and pick from any number of reputable sources. I have posted refutations to your graph repeatedly, and so have others. The last time was a few hours ago, so unless you're going senile in old age your "excuses" are pretty fucking pathetic.

As for personal attacks - I'm just pointing out that you have been consistently ignoring anything that doesn't match your preconceived notions.
It's not a personal attack if it's the truth. You are a lying sack of something, and you should be banned from this forum permanently.

TO THE MODS: Please take the time to read the last 3-4 pages of this thread, and tell me Ben isn't trolling. And then ban his ass.

Edit: Is it just me, or is Ben following the playbook for a paid schill to the letter? (Not implying that he actually is. Heaven's no!)

[Ben D]

Ben: All the evidence you need to refute your bullshit claim has already been posted in this thread.
That you choose to ignore it because it doesn't fit with your world-view is your problem, not mine.

We are not talking about claims, this is about reality....there has been nothing posted in this thread that proves the graphs to be any other than reflecting accurately the IPCC approved and used data.

So c'mon...since you claim they are wrong, show us your expertise and point out which data points on RSS temperature and CO2 emissions graphs can be refuted as being inaccurate.

If you can't...please just man up and refrain from further obfuscation by raising strawmen or making personal attacks and calling for my banishment.

What part of "Your graph is wrong, here's the evidence" is it you don't understand?
Get back to me when you've read the article I posted. Or just google "Global warming slowdown", and pick from any number of reputable sources. I have posted refutations to your graph repeatedly, and so have others. The last time was a few hours ago, so unless you're going senile in old age your "excuses" are pretty fucking pathetic.

I see now where your ignorance is coming from....listen carefully and you will understand what is actually involved, it's not what you thought. There is only one way that what I have posted can be refuted and that is for the data to be shown to be corrupted...do you understand? The data and graphs derived from that data are not corrupt by the standards of the IPCC...it has got nothing to do whatsoever with what I, you, or anyone else in the world thinks or writes about about global warming climate science.

So on the basis that you now understand the graph can't be refuted by opinion....do you concede that the graphs reflect the historical reality?

Stick around DrEvil if you want to learn more...

[DrEvil]

Are you daft or something? The data is obsolete. The cut-off for data being part of the latest IPCC report was something like two years ago. There has actually been some research done since then.
I'm not supposed to accuse you of being a sock-puppet or a paid schill, but from now on I'm just going to assume you are.

You have nothing of value to contribute, so as per tradition - FUCK OFF.

PS! Mods, please ban him.

[Ben D]

Are you daft or something? The data is obsolete. The cut-off for data being part of the latest IPCC report was something like two years ago. There has actually been some research done since then.

The data is obsolete!!!! Haha....everyone reading this now and in future will be laughing at you....it's like saying the NOAA historical rain records for the USA are now obsolete because new research has been done since then... Oh a NOAA scientist says...these old rain records haven't ever changed since they were originally measured, I'll do some research on them and change them to come up with an improved new record.

So if you persist...please explain to us all how you think the 1997 to 2014 recorded RSS global temperature and Mauna Loa CO2 recorded data could become obsolete...tired electrons?

Sorry DrEvil...you are out of your depth....concede yet?

[DrEvil]

Obsolete as in: New data accounts for the "missing" warming, which, as it turns out, wasn't missing after all.

PS! Ban this filth!

[DrEvil]

Here is the full article from the economist. No need to click a link or anything:

http://www.economist.com/news/science-a ... goes-being

Who pressed the pause button?

The slowdown in rising temperatures over the past 15 years goes from being unexplained to overexplained

BETWEEN 1998 and 2013, the Earth’s surface temperature rose at a rate of 0.04°C a decade, far slower than the 0.18°C increase in the 1990s. Meanwhile, emissions of carbon dioxide (which would be expected to push temperatures up) rose uninterruptedly. This pause in warming has raised doubts in the public mind about climate change. A few sceptics say flatly that global warming has stopped. Others argue that scientists’ understanding of the climate is so flawed that their judgments about it cannot be accepted with any confidence. A convincing explanation of the pause therefore matters both to a proper understanding of the climate and to the credibility of climate science—and papers published over the past few weeks do their best to provide one. Indeed, they do almost too good a job. If all were correct, the pause would now be explained twice over.

This is the opposite of what happened at first. As evidence piled up that temperatures were not rising much, some scientists dismissed it as a blip. The temperature, they pointed out, had fallen for much longer periods twice in the past century or so, in 1880-1910 and again in 1945-75 (see chart), even though the general trend was up. Variability is part of the climate system and a 15-year hiatus, they suggested, was not worth getting excited about.

An alternative way of looking at the pause’s significance was to say that there had been a slowdown but not a big one. Most records, including one of the best known (kept by Britain’s Meteorological Office), do not include measurements from the Arctic, which has been warming faster than anywhere else in the world. Using satellite data to fill in the missing Arctic numbers, Kevin Cowtan of the University of York, in Britain, and Robert Way of the University of Ottawa, in Canada, put the overall rate of global warming at 0.12°C a decade between 1998 and 2012—not far from the 1990s rate. A study by NASA puts the “Arctic effect” over the same period somewhat lower, at 0.07°C a decade, but that is still not negligible.

It is also worth remembering that average warming is not the only measure of climate change. According to a study just published by Sonia Seneviratne of the Institute for Atmospheric and Climate Science, in Zurich, the number of hot days, the number of extremely hot days and the length of warm periods all increased during the pause (1998-2012). A more stable average temperature hides wider extremes.

Still, attempts to explain away that stable average have not been convincing, partly because of the conflict between flat temperatures and rising CO2 emissions, and partly because observed temperatures are now falling outside the range climate models predict. The models embody the state of climate knowledge. If they are wrong, the knowledge is probably faulty, too. Hence attempts to explain the pause.

Chilling news
In September 2013 the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change did so in terms of fluctuating solar output, atmospheric pollution and volcanoes. All three, it thought, were unusually influential.

The sun’s power output fluctuates slightly over a cycle that lasts about 11 years. The current cycle seems to have gone on longer than normal and may have started from a lower base, so for the past decade less heat has been reaching Earth than usual. Pollution throws aerosols (particles such as soot, and suspended droplets of things like sulphuric acid) into the air, where they reflect sunlight back into space. The more there are, the greater their cooling effect—and pollution from Chinese coal-fired power plants, in particular, has been rising. Volcanoes do the same thing, so increased volcanic activity tends to reduce temperatures.

Gavin Schmidt and two colleagues at NASA’s Goddard Institute quantify the effects of these trends in Nature Geoscience. They argue that climate models underplay the delayed and subdued solar cycle. They think the models do not fully account for the effects of pollution (specifically, nitrate pollution and indirect effects like interactions between aerosols and clouds). And they claim that the impact of volcanic activity since 2000 has been greater than previously thought. Adjusting for all this, they find that the difference between actual temperature readings and computer-generated ones largely disappears. The implication is that the solar cycle and aerosols explain much of the pause.

Blowing hot and cold
There is, however, another type of explanation. Much of the incoming heat is absorbed by oceans, especially the largest, the Pacific. Several new studies link the pause with changes in the Pacific and in the trade winds that influence the circulation of water within it.

Trade winds blow east-west at tropical latitudes. In so doing they push warm surface water towards Asia and draw cooler, deep water to the surface in the central and eastern Pacific, which chills the atmosphere. Water movement at the surface also speeds up a giant churn in the ocean. This pulls some warm water downwards, sequestering heat at greater depth. In a study published in Nature in 2013, Yu Kosaka and Shang-Ping Xie of the Scripps Institution of Oceanography, in San Diego, argued that much of the difference between climate models and actual temperatures could be accounted for by cooling in the eastern Pacific.

Every few years, as Dr Kosaka and Dr Xie observe, the trade winds slacken and the warm water in the western Pacific sloshes back to replace the cool surface layer of the central and eastern parts of the ocean. This weather pattern is called El Niño and it warms the whole atmosphere. There was an exceptionally strong Niño in 1997-98, an unusually hot year. The opposite pattern, with cooler temperatures and stronger trade winds, is called La Niña. The 1997-98 Niño was followed by a series of Niñas, explaining part of the pause.

Switches between El Niño and La Niña are frequent. But there is also a long-term cycle called the Pacific Decadal Oscillation (PDO), which switches from a warm (or positive) phase to a cool (negative) one every 20 or 30 years. The positive phase encourages more frequent, powerful Niños. According to Kevin Trenberth and John Fasullo of America’s National Centre for Atmospheric Research, the PDO was positive in 1976-98—a period of rising temperatures—and negative in 1943-76 and since 2000, producing a series of cooling Niñas.

But that is not the end of it. Laid on top of these cyclical patterns is what looks like a one-off increase in the strength of trade winds during the past 20 years. According to a study in Nature Climate Change, by Matthew England of the University of New South Wales and others, record trade winds have produced a sort of super-Niña. On average, sea levels have risen by about 3mm a year in the past 30 years. But those in the eastern Pacific have barely budged, whereas those near the Philippines have risen by 20cm since the late 1990s. A wall of warm water, in other words, is being held in place by powerful winds, with cool water rising behind it. According to Dr England, the effect of the trade winds explains most of the temperature pause.

If so, the pause has gone from being not explained to explained twice over—once by aerosols and the solar cycle, and again by ocean winds and currents. These two accounts are not contradictory. The processes at work are understood, but their relative contributions are not.

Nor is the answer to what is, from the human point of view, the biggest question of all, namely what these explanations imply about how long the pause might continue. On the face of it, if some heat is being sucked into the deep ocean, the process could simply carry on: the ocean has a huge capacity to absorb heat as long as the pump sending it to the bottom remains in working order. But that is not all there is to it. Gravity wants the western-Pacific water wall to slosh back; it is held in place only by exceptionally strong trade winds. If those winds slacken, temperatures will start to rise again.

The solar cycle is already turning. And aerosol cooling is likely to be reined in by China’s anti-pollution laws. Most of the circumstances that have put the planet’s temperature rise on “pause” look temporary. Like the Terminator, global warming will be back.

[Sounder]

Sounder! Really? Dweeb?

I must say how profoundly upsetting it is for me to see that horribly offensive word appear within lines of writing of one who so intelligently expresses their ignorance while brilliantly condemning others of being that which they are, Dupes.

This is meant to be written in green font, correct?

And this from the guy who had a meltdown when I called him a twit.

This is a curious bit of revisionist history. Let’s see, what did this ‘meltdown’ look like.

But you know, Sounder, you're right about one thing.

You're still a shithead.

Re: Cliven Bundy Ranch
by Sounder » Wed Apr 16, 2014 8:40 pm
Ah, you are good for a laugh, Iamwhomiam.

Look, I state my opinions, they run along the lines that AGW, as was the 'war on cancer', the 'green revolution', the 'war on drugs' and most other government do-gooder projects are in truth windfalls for 'leveraged players', with an added 'benefit' of scrambling peoples heads up by divorcing form from function.

That is, there was never any high level care or even desire to 'cure' the great illness at hand.

How can people think there was any real care for a 'cure' when those same folk rain DU ammunition all over the mid-east, or ignore a full nuclear meltdown, or compromise everyone's immune systems with glyphosate and GMO laden food?

But yeah, you are right Iamwhomiam, I am a shithead so pay no mind to what I just wrote.
Iam wrote...

But I have not once alluded to, even in the most vague of terms, any support for the governments actions. Not one word!

This was the funny part. Now I have no care to get into the particulars of this, but the following language seems fairly supportive of 'government actions'. Maybe that's just me though.

Iam wrote...
All I've asked for is some proof to demonstrate Bundy has legal standing to occupy land he does not own, yet none has been produced. He is a thief, admittedly so, having not paid his grazing fees over the past 21 years, which now total millions of dollars.

How long would you wait to bring a legal action against a client who refused to pay the agreed upon price once you finished your work for them?

How long do you think a landlord would tolerate a a non-rent paying squatter before seeking legal redress in a court of law, the only right our constitution truly guarantee

sounder wrote...

Great to hear from you Hunter but,

To call someone a shithead was not the slander, the slander was to suggest that I do not care about things that have need for care to be shown about,when I wrote.
along the way throwing in an outrageous slander that these things are; ‘Nothing of course you’d care about’.


Jeeze, It seems we all need work on our reading comprehension. (I know I do.)

Also it is amusing that a poster calling me a shithead and now a fucking twit, and without addressing anything I wrote, can come off as the reasonable one just because he more closely represents community beliefs.

I guess rationality does have its limits.

So, I didn’t have a ‘meltdown’, like I could be bothered to do such a thing in your honor, piffle. Also note, you called me a fucking twit, not simply a twit. Whatever.

Then you follow on with your standard negative association trick, which never seems to get old for you. You should know that I do not care for or buy into Icke or et al, but that matters not to you, given your primary need to defame by whatever means is at hand.

So, so formulaic, so pathetic, and you are calling me names? I guess that’s all you have left, still.

See, this is what fucking Icke, et al, do to people... They make the unreal real for some while making the real unreal for others. And then, their followers deem all who have not swallowed either fantasy to be shills and enablers of governmental abuses and oppressors; enemies of mankind.

Sadly, they remain comfortably ignorant that they are what they accuse others of being and therein lies our greatest danger. There is only one cure for ignorance and one must have a burning desire to overcome its blinding force to achieve success.

back to BPH

And now being as you are all uneducated and everything, you'll have nothing sensible to say.

Yeah, maybe if you can’t deal with humor you should shut up and not show yourself as some elitist that (has no choice) but associate an accent with being uneducated.

Dweeb

A person regarded as socially inept or foolish, often on account of being overly studious.

When I called BPH a dweeb it was associated with a specific statement from him and the word fit the accusation being made of him as being an elitist.

That is quite different from the words like; you dumbass, numbnuts, shit for brains fuckhead, shithead or fucking twit applied as a general marker.

[Iamwhomiam]

Sounder, I pity you, really, I do. I never showed any support for the government in what I wrote. Construe my words however you like, but anyone can see I was making the case that Bundy had no legal standing whatsoever and was robbing American citizens the pathetic little he was required to and had in the past paid, but has now for 22 years refused to pay.

I used an analogy at the time in a question I directed to you, but you avoided answering in a meaningful way, What would you do if someone you had a contract with violated its terms and refused to pay as promised? Normally people engaged in legal business would seek legal redress, the only right our constitution guarantees, to right their being wronged. Sometimes effecting the justice demanded by a court's ruling involves mandatory police presence and governmental agents to oversee and maintain peace.

Were anyone to review our history of exchanges, I believe it would be you who would be the one found to be avoiding my questions. If one was to review our history, at least on this one topic, to see who has provided evidence supporting their claims, well...

Oh, Sounder, I only write with black ink. In my experience all those I've known who composed their words using different colored inks were quite mad schizophrenics.

You sure do use green ink a lot, hmm...

But you know, Sounder, you're right about one thing.

You're still a shithead.

Excerpting this takes it out of the context in which it was offered and leaves one with less understanding than that one would have if they read the entirety of what I actually wrote. And that originated in the Bundy thread:

http://rigorousintuition.ca/board2/viewtopic.php?f=8&t=38018&p=541165&hilit=shithead#p541165

Are you really trying to mislead our RI members? If not, then why do you not quote the entire posting rather than mold their perceptions to your liking?

I hope some do review it and then offer their opinion as to whether or not they felt I was flaming out in a meltdown. You also conveniently omitted your immediate response:

But yeah, you are right Iamwhomiam, I am a shithead so pay no mind to what I just wrote.
Iam wrote...

And then all can read your claim that it is me who is the one engaging in revisionist history, which is laughable to all following this thread, excepting maybe slim and the currently missing Elihu. I'm not sure Ben would be included, but hey, he's pro-nuke, so maybe you could sell him on free energy and how to claim it. Obviously, far too late for you too patent it, but hey, it's free. You guys could start the free energy movement, though now that it's free it's lost some thrill for anarchist's.

Re: Cliven Bundy Ranch
by Sounder » Wed Apr 16, 2014 8:40 pm
Ah, you are good for a laugh, Iamwhomiam.

Look, I state my opinions, they run along the lines that AGW, as was the 'war on cancer', the 'green revolution', the 'war on drugs' and most other government do-gooder projects are in truth windfalls for 'leveraged players', with an added 'benefit' of scrambling peoples heads up by divorcing form from function.

Though we are all aware we all are sharing our opinions, some explain the rationale that has determined their opinion and share evidence from an outside source supporting it.

Your quoted text provides us with an excellent example of what's lacking from your argument, your utter failure to substantiate your claims after making them. Let's break this down...

You say you state your opinions "run along the lines that AGW, as was the 'war on cancer', the 'green revolution', the 'war on drugs' and most other government do-gooder projects are in truth windfalls for 'leveraged players', with an added 'benefit' of scrambling peoples heads up by divorcing form from function."

Perhaps sometime you'll explain yourself and offer something, anything supporting your many claims, starting with definitions of the "war on cancer," "the green revolution" the "war on drugs" and by naming the "do-gooder" government programs you've alluded to as being "most"?

Please define what the "windfalls" are and name the "leveraged players" you've referred to and please explain their inter-relationship to AGW.

Please provide us with an iota of meaningful substantiation for the formulation of your profound opinion, Sounder. We've all been waiting...

You have made yourself quite clear to me on Icke and never again will I refer to you as his fan. I suppose it's just coincidental that you believe that shape-shifting lizards rule our world, or have you modified the term to now mean "leveraged individuals"?

I apologize for misquoting myself. Thank you for correcting me. I'm sure all will be glad to learn that in truth I had once long ago called you a "fucking twit" and not a mere ordinary "twit" as I wrongly quoted.

I'm sure some will see the difficulty in defining the difference between a "Fucking Twit" and your everyday run of the mill type of twit. Sorry for the confusion and thanks again for your clarification.

We are all better people now that we know there is a difference between being called a 'fucking twit' and a regular ol' 'twit.'

If you don't want me to pay attention to what your write, perhaps you should limit your comments to a personal, private diary, rather then posting your foolishness on a public blog for all so inclined to criticize.

Lastly, I fight pollution and the corporations poisoning us all. You work for a corporation don't you, Sounder? You pay federal taxes?

I don't pay any taxes aside from sales taxes.

I am very good at what I do and have a very long list of victories, one of my most recent has saved half a million lives each year over the next few years.

What can you point to that you personally are responsible for that comes anywhere close to defeating a few of the powers that poison us daily? Please let it be more than telling us you once wore a black mask and broke a window at a demonstration or that you maybe once made and held a sign at a rally.

In fact, it is your efforts that serve only the PtB and furthers their poisoning of us. This is the very thing that really gets me about you and a few others who accuse me of aiding those who would exploit and harm us without our consent. You seem to be completely blind to how your actions and beliefs support those poisoning polluters we both despise.

You are indeed my enemy, as is any who would poison an unborn child, especially for their own personal profit. The war on cancer? Cancer is caused mostly by environmental contamination caused by those you unknowingly support. What are you doing to make this world a better place for those who will come after you, Sounder?

[Project Willow]

I have a theory there is an inverse correlation between winning an argument and intermittently calling your opponent a stupid asshole.

Please stop the name calling and flame baiting phrases. If you have to repeat a refutation now and then, or often, just do so.

Thanks.

[Iamwhomiam]

Thank you Willow. I will evermore refrain from saying that "sometimes" someone "can be a shithead." This seems to have unleashed the vulgar floodgates of late and I apologize also for my later contributions. And I have long ago apologized for my much earlier remark calling someone a "foolish twit," but once again I do so now.

[Iamwhomiam]

Ben, I'll be back later to offer you my commentary. My cat has been waiting most patiently for our daily hike and now I must go.

[conniption]

ny mag - daily intelligencer

May 9, 2014

All Science Is Wrong, Concludes Esteemed Fox News Panel

By Jonathan Chait

There is no issue where educated ignorance is on more perfect display than watching the conservative movement confront scientific evidence of climate change. Educated ignorance is not the same thing as the regular kind of ignorance. It takes real talent to master. George F. Will and Charles Krauthammer are two of the intellectual giants of the right, former winners of the Bradley Foundation’s $250,000 annual prize, Washington Post columnists, and Fox News All-Star panelists. They numbered among the select conservative intellectuals chosen to dine with newly elected president Barack Obama in 2009.

On their Fox News All-Star Panel appearance this week, both men discussed the U.S. National Climate Assessment, which they dismissed with various irritable mental gestures. Their evasions and misstatements, clothed in faux-erudition, offer a useful entrance point to study the current state of the right-wing mind.

What follows is an annotated analysis of Will and Krauthammer’s remarks, the intellectual quality of which starts off low, and grows increasingly and even frighteningly so as the program progresses. After a brief introduction of the climate report, we begin with Krauthammer:



continued...

[slimmouse]

So, as the great global warming debate continues, so does my chuckling at the sheer fucking stupidity of it all.

If any single member of this forum truly believes that in 2014 we are technologically incapable of producing clean renewable energy sources, then so be it.

What did Mike Ruppert say about money?

Many of the same people around here dont seem to get that either.

How bizzarre.

Dr Evil may be onto something after all. Maybe there are "shills" in our midst.

Kudos, Doc.