Climate Depot's Morano makes light of effects of climate change on poor nations
February 24, 2010 1:41 pm ET
From the February 18 Accuracy in Media Awards at the 2010 Conservative Political Action Conference:
Please upgrade your flash player. The video for this item requires a newer version of Flash Player. If you are unable to install flash you can download a QuickTime version of the video.
The second group (the leaders) includes primary, government funded researchers, left leaning political leaders, activist and environmentalist leadership, and, of course, the Hansens, Gores, Manns, Briffas, Pachauri, and the rest of the extremists with which we are burdened. To the surprise of those in the first group, but not at all to the rest of us, these people do not necessarily believe or, for the most part, even care if global warming is anthropogenic. And, unlike the first group, these people are not only evil and wrong but also dangerous. They are not out to save the world but to gain political power and financial control over individuals, businesses and countries.
There are legitimate environmental issues. Surly we must continue to fight for and to find a way to protect our environment, reduce stress on fisheries, manage water, land and forest resources, protect endangered species if possible and were practical, and a myriad other environmental issues and crises we face. The real tragedy of the AGW shibboleth is that it will destroy the credibility of legitimate environmental movements, divert needed funding away from them, and make the efforts of those movements even more difficult. And this is why the people of the first group, if and when they ever figure it out, should forever condemn those of the second.
Breaks your little heart, doesn't it, Concern Troll?
It is the denailists who are uniformed (ignorant), or choose to remain ignorant (that makes them stupid). By the way, learn to separate ideology from the science. Political policy = ideology. The facts supporting ACC = science.
The denialists are divided into 3 camps (which one do you belong?):
There's no climate change at all. WRONG!
"The combined global land and ocean average surface temperature for January 2010 was 0.60°C (1.08°F) above the 20th century average of 12.0°C (53.6°F). This is the fourth warmest January on record.
The global land surface temperature for January 2010 was 0.83°C (1.49°F) above the 20th century average of 2.8°C (37.0°F)—the twelfth warmest January on record. Land areas in the Southern Hemisphere were the warmest on record for January. In the Northern Hemisphere, which has much more land, comparatively, land surface temperatures were 18th warmest on record.
The worldwide ocean surface temperature for January 2010 was the second warmest—behind 1998—on record for January, 0.52°C (0.94°F) above the 20th century average of 15.8°C (60.5°F). This can be partially attributed to the persistence of El Niño across the equatorial Pacific Ocean. According to NOAA's Climate Prediction Center (CPC), El Niño is expected to continue through the Northern Hemisphere spring 2010."
http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/sotc/index.php?report=global&year=2010&month=1
It's warming, but not caused by people. WRONG!
"Stratosphere temperature data support scientists' proof for global warming"
http://uwnews.org/article.asp?articleid=6657
"An enhanced greenhouse effect from CO2 has been confirmed by multiple lines of empirical evidence. Satellite measurements of infrared spectra over the past 40 years observe less energy escaping to space at the wavelengths associated with CO2. Surface measurements find more downward infrared radiation warming the planet's surface. This provides a direct, empirical causal link between CO2 and global warming."
http://www.skepticalscience.com/empirical-evidence-for-co2-enhanced-greenhouse-effect.htm
It's cooling. WRONG!
"The warming effect from CO2 increases greatly outstrips the influence from orbital changes or variations in solar activity even if solar levels were to drop to Maunder Minimum levels."
http://www.skepticalscience.com/heading-into-new-little-ice-age.htm
"Early estimates of ocean heat from the Argo showed a cooling bias due to pressure sensor issues. Recent estimates of ocean heat that take this bias into account show continued warming of the upper ocean. This is confirmed by independent estimates of ocean heat as well as more comprehensive measurements of ocean heat down to 2000 metres deep."
http://www.skepticalscience.com/cooling-oceans.htm
"While there are isolated cases of growing glaciers, the overwhelming trend in glaciers worldwide is retreat. In fact, the global melt rate has been accelerating since the mid-1970s."
http://www.skepticalscience.com/himalayan-glaciers-growing.htm
"2007's dramatic cooling is driven by strong La Nina conditions which historically has caused similar drops in global temperature. It is also exacerbated by unusually low solar activity."
http://www.skepticalscience.com/global-cooling-january-2007-to-january-2008.htm
"The planet has continued to accumulate heat since 1998 - global warming is still happening. Nevertheless, surface temperatures show much internal variability due to heat exchange between the ocean and atmosphere. 1998 was an unusually hot year due to a strong El Nino."
http://www.skepticalscience.com/global-warming-stopped-in-1998.htm
Now, now. Let's be completely accurate. Cherry-picking one line out of context is not responsible. Here's more of the Q/A between Jones & the BBC:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/8511670.stm
B - Do you agree that from 1995 to the present there has been no statistically-significant global warming
Yes, but only just. I also calculated the trend for the period 1995 to 2009. This trend (0.12C per decade) is positive, but not significant at the 95% significance level. The positive trend is quite close to the significance level. Achieving statistical significance in scientific terms is much more likely for longer periods, and much less likely for shorter periods.
C - Do you agree that from January 2002 to the present there has been statistically significant global cooling?
No. This period is even shorter than 1995-2009. The trend this time is negative (-0.12C per decade), but this trend is not statistically significant.
And, later we see:
E - How confident are you that warming has taken place and that humans are mainly responsible?
I'm 100% confident that the climate has warmed. As to the second question, I would go along with IPCC Chapter 9 - there's evidence that most of the warming since the 1950s is due to human activity.
Achieving statistical significance in a short time period like 15 years is very unlikely. The long term trend is much more important. Matching the long term trend to known causes is even more important.
Science - it's what allows you to be here, give it some respect.
"Perversion of science, huh?"
http://www.nature.org/initiatives/climatechange/issues/
Explain that to people who get their water from glacial sources.
http://www.climate.org/topics/water.html
http://www.nps.gov/yose/naturescience/upload/ParkScience-Roche-2009.pdf
So, you have to take a position - Is it cooling? Warming? Not changing at all?
All signs point to warming. There's an impact. That impact will affect people. People will suffer.
The timing of the predicted effects may be off, but the effects will happen.
A reasonable, intelligent person knows 2+2 = 4. Morano the moron, is claiming 2+2 = -gazillion.
They concluded that the rate of change was abnormal and therefore it had to be due to man’s activities. The problem is, they ignored similar periods of time in the past where there were abrupt changes in temperature, both up and down. They say it either did not happen or could not happen naturally.
And now for 30 years we have been subjected to a constant bombardment of doomsday prophecies and proclamations of the highest temperature ever recorded, the fastest rate of melting ever recorded and on and on. They deny or ignore the magnitude of the impact of the sun, oceans and clouds on climate. They dismiss water vapor as a ‘greenhouse’ gas and try to tell us that CO2 is the predominate ‘greenhouse’ gas. Thirty years and not one of the alarmists dire predictions have proven to be true.
What they cannot deny is that climate change is natural. That we have, at best, just a few decades, of actual world wide temperature measurements, that temperatures in the past, at times, were far warmer (and colder) than today and that CO2 concentrations have been far higher in the past than today, sometimes coinciding with warm periods and other times with cold periods. Finally, they refuse to admit that overall, both plants and animals, including man, fare far better with a warmer climate with higher CO2 levels than a colder one.
"A few centuries ago, scientists observing the sun concluded that the sun orbited the earth."
Just how far back? Are you thinking maybe, 300 years ago? 400? 500?
Try about 2400 years ago. I guess by your ignorance, you never heard of Heraclides.
Nope. It wasn't the scientists who were misinformed. It was the ignorant masses, and the religious denialists.
Kinda like what we're seeing today. The polls indicate the general public is ignorant about climate science, and the religion of denialism is all set to put the climatologists on trial for heresy.
That's Aristarchus, not Heraclides.
Apparently, Heraclides was thought to have been the first to deduce this, but now it appears it was more likely Aristarchus who figured out that the earth orbited the sun.
At any rate, Copernicus was not the first one to figure this out.
Mornin' Doc. Old friend, you directed folks to the wrong Nature link. This is the perversion of science you were looking for. Fair and balanced, no?
Explain that to people who get their water from glacial sources.
Yeah, people like Rajendra Pachauri, unyielding head of the IPCC. Nice oasis he made for himself. All this and he still finds the time to write steamy romance novels. Fore! If candor be had, even you would have to admit that this is disgusting. Remember, do as I say, not as I do.
So, you have to take a position - Is it cooling? Warming? Not changing at all?
Really? I have to take a position? That is pretty telling of your tribalist nature, but I think rather than be forced to take a position as your straw man dictates, I would rather review the actual scientific evidence minus the overwhelmingly pro-AGW propaganda we have all been forced to digest over the last decade and draw the simple and logical conclusion that the evidence in support of AGW theory thus far is so very far short of "robust." The far more robust evidence supports natural variability and forcings as the primary climate drivers. Don't make me pull out Kevin Trenberth yet again. Can't resist. It's pure gold. You go on:
All signs point to warming.
As the Trenberth quote proves, we are just starting to get a grip on what the Earth itself is doing. But to think that this period is so unusual based on MWP-eliminating Mannequins and other such "evidence" from the Schneider/Hansen/Gore/Holdren/Schmidt/Jones/Pachauri alarmist crew verifies you are approaching this from an emotional rather than scientific viewpoint.
The sky is not falling. The MWP was real. Even if we are warming, we have before and we will again. We've been kicking it "modern" for about the last 10,000 years. This is what Vostok says happened over that period. Notice something? All those peaks and valleys and abrupt roller coaster rides? Nothing we did 10 or 8 or 2 thousand years ago caused those peaks and valleys. The CO2 we are adding to the atmosphere isn't doing it now.
Remember, AGW from CO2 = "negligible". That is what the actual science says despite what your man at skepticalscience says (notice he missed this recent paper?). Through all of the AGW smoke and mirrors, please remember that bottom line. CO2 does not drive temperatures as the models predict. The A in AGW has been largely falsified.
There's an impact. That impact will affect people. People will suffer.
The impact that will affect people will be due to the premature forcing of the world onto the path of sustainable development. Please get off of your green high horse and get a clue. The IPCC itself says that B1 Sustainable Development will slow worldwide economic growth by $200 trillion per year by 2100! Helloooooo! You get that? That's "trillion" with a "t" my friend.
How do you think the sustained restraint of economic activity over the next century under the B1 scenario you so desperately crave will make people suffer? Poverty already kills 10 million children per year. Your ilk claim to be progressive, but you seem to care not a bit about the prolonging of human suffering that will undeniably take place not because of AGW, but rather because of sustainable development.
There simply is no other way to interpret it other than to say this B1 scenario would make the world a much poorer place than it would be under the A1 Golden Economic Age (that reference and the references to "global governance" were of course purged from the final report).
For the poorest 80% of the world's population, those IPCC figures put B1 per capita income at only half of A1 income by 2100, and it will have taken 90 years to reach that benchmark. People will suffer all right, needlessly I might add. Here again are my favorite gems from the final IPCC report since you are so fond of the black helicopter meme:
Massive income redistribution and presumably high taxation levels may adversely affect the economic efficiency and functioning of world markets.
This is a world with high levels of economic activity (a global GDP of around US$350 trillion by 2100) and significant and deliberate progress toward international and national income equality. Global income per capita in 2050 averages US$13,000, one-third lower than in A1. A higher proportion of this income is spent on services rather than on material goods, and on quality rather than quantity, because the emphasis on material goods is less and also resource prices are increased by environmental taxation.
Cities are compact and designed for public and non-motorized transport, with suburban developments tightly controlled. Strong incentives for low-input, low-impact agriculture, along with maintenance of large areas of wilderness, contribute to high food prices with much lower levels of meat consumption than those in A1.
Thank you Señor Control Freak. I wonder if Cass Sunstein chimed in on the meat consumption quote. Actually, Obama is surrounded by a number of like-minded B1 activists, so I guess these quotes align with any number of his advisors.
Best of luck getting the world to sign onto your economic presecription. Kicking and screaming is the only way. Kind of like the denial death dance you guys are engaged in. Kicking, screaming, not yielding an inch. It's not happening so you should give it up. You grossly underestimated the reaction of the populace to the large threat to their liberty that CO2-mitigation represents. Nice try though. *sound of incoming artillery*
The timing of the predicted effects may be off, but the effects will happen.
Yeah, off by an order of magnitude. 2035, 2350, meh, what's the difference? That "voodoo science" as Pachauri called it will keep him on the links to a ripe old age. Swell.
A reasonable, intelligent person knows 2+2 = 4. Morano the moron, is claiming 2+2 = -gazillion.
A reasonable, intelligent person knows that $550 trillion - $350 trillion = $200 trillion = unwarranted depression of economic activity = prolonged poverty = half the amount of money your great grandson will have in his pocket = less control over where and how to live...where do I sign up? You had me at prolonged poverty...yeah, good luck with that.
Sorry Doc. The agenda was clear but the AGW theory failed it miserably. The deliberately prescribed and manufactured consensus that was hoped would bring about sustainable development was really not much more than a gathering of a rather small group of agenda-driven (and in many cases unbelievably arrogant) activist scientists and policymakers driving an agenda over the course of three decades.
The evidence was not there when the theory was proposed and it hasn't surfaced yet, so you guys can scream and shout from the mountaintops about your consensus, and hack and snarl at the skeptics, but your fatal flaw is that of deficiency. The house of cards is tumbling down as I had long ago predicted it would.
Why do you and so many others not see it? It really is a true case of remarkable denial on your part. So heavily invested are you in the message you were fed that you haven't the choice but to staunchly defend your ground. You were the good guys after all. But you forgot about science along the way. Correction. You thought the world would stand by idly as you attempted to replace natural science with political science. Didn't happen despite Mann's sociopathy.
And so we have reached that height of irony: it turns out fringe AGW cultists such as yourself comprise the anti-science crowd. You are the geocentric Neo-Inquisitors, the flat-Earthers, the deniers. It is sweet and the fallout is your just dessert. Start setting up your MMfA alter-ego now. It may be that you will shortly not want to be reminded of this unfortunate period in your life.
I'm bringing an unfinished conversation here, because the page it was on closed comments.
Look at all your highlighted Pielke quotes:
The first two, do not support the conclusion he drew. And go back and reread the whole section that you quoted. Pielke doesn't refute AGW - he consistently supports it. He disagrees with some of the details other scientists have put forth and he thinks too much emphasis is placed on CO2 to the exclusion of other anthropogenic causes. He also prefers the Ocean Heat Content as a measure of warming over land based models.
These scientific differences are normal and are a part of why science as a whole works so well. You posted some rants by Pielke trying to claim he was being shut out and then resigning when no one fawned over him, but oops, here he is publishing papers. Not shut out, just not working with other people with whom he obviously wasn't meshing with on a personal level if one missing e-mail could send him into conniptions.
I think gal-baby went to get his crickets.
He needs some background music to accompany his non-answer.
While we're at it, something these wackos can't seem to address either:
Is it cooling? Is it warming, but not caused by us? Is nothing happening at all? And then, cite the references.
They don't respond, because they know their "position" (if you can call it that) changes all the time.
Denying is easy. Any child can do that. It takes a rational adult to put forward a defensible position.
All gal-baby does is rant about random nonsense.
And how dense are you exactly? How many times have I told you my stance on this. By now it should be no secret, so what does your rant even mean? In my response above I say, "CO2 does not drive temperatures as the models predict. The A in AGW has been largely falsified." I also say, "The far more robust evidence supports natural variability and forcings as the primary climate drivers," among other things that speak directly to your pathetic statements.
How much more clearly do I have to spell it out? Everything you say I "can't seem to address" has been covered numerous times by me but, in your true "denier" form, you can't allow it to sink in. You really are a world class loser and AGW cultist denier.
I'll drop my rule to not "engage" you (as if ANYONE could ever "engage" a rantard), but I'll just post one thing here to explain this as simply as I can.
You are not the expert in climatology.
You act like you know all there is about climatology.
It's obvious to everyone that you don't know enough about climatology to stay on subject - which is - science.
Instead, you mix ideological rants, personal attacks, attacks against specific scientists, the IPPC "conspiracy", emails, and all that has absolutely NOTHING to do with the science of climatology.
Face it. You are an ignorant denialist who has childish, fixations on specific individuals on this site that indicates you truly do need professional help.
Get a life.
We all don't agree with your crazy notions.
Get over it.
Deal with it.
Dufus.
You prove your worth, or lack thereof, yet again here by not addressing a single issue I raised. Like it or not, the debate goes far beyond the science because your side is represented by activist alarmist scientists such as Hansen, Holdren, Schneider et al. The pro-AGW side has dragged their political agenda into what had once been a fair-minded scientific debate, so this is yet another example of projection on your part. As for getting a life, I am not the one who cruises this joint all waking hours of the day every day. That would be you.
"CO2 does not drive temperatures as the models predict. The A in AGW has been largely falsified."
Tell you what. Try to keep on the subject & cite your references that refute these (and the links within these urls). Cite peer-reviewed literature. If you cite denialist blogs like "Wattsupwiththat" (one of your favorite sites), please make sure there are links to peer-reviewed papers to back the claims.
Keep this strictly to the scientific evidence. Don't deviate off on IPCC, Al Gore, Cap and Trade, my mother, my dog, or anything else that has nothing to do with the evidence.
Perhaps we can "engage", if you follow the rules.
Ready? Go!
Claim: It's the sun! - Evidence: The Sun is Not the Cause
"In the last 35 years of global warming, the sun has shown a slight cooling trend. Sun and climate have been going in opposite directions."
http://www.skepticalscience.com/solar-activity-sunspots-global-warming.htm
"While the link between cosmic rays and cloud cover is yet to be confirmed, more importantly, there has been no correlation between cosmic rays and global temperatures over the last 30 years of global warming."
http://www.skepticalscience.com/cosmic-rays-and-global-warming.htm
“Claims that solar cycle length prove the sun is causing global warming are based on a single paper published nearly 20 years ago. Subsequent research, including a paper by a co-author of the original 1991 paper, finds the opposite conclusion. Solar cycle length as a proxy for solar activity tells us the sun has had very little contribution to global warming since 1975. In fact, direct measurements of solar activity indicate the sun has had a slight cooling effect on climate in recent decades while global temperatures have been rising.”
http://www.skepticalscience.com/What-does-Solar-Cycle-Length-tell-us-about-the-sun-role-in-global-warming.html
“although fluctuations in the amount of solar energy reaching our atmosphere do influence our climate, the global warming trend of the past six decades cannot be attributed to changes in the sun”
http://www.ucsusa.org/global_warming/science_and_impacts/science/effect-of-sun-on-climate-faq.html
“Right now, the sun is stuck in a period of extremely low sunspot activity, not unlike the "Maunder Minimum" that may have been responsible for the Little Ice Age that cooled Europe in the late 17th century as well as the fall of imperial dynasties in China. And, for the latter half of the 20th century, the sun's output remained relatively constant as global temperatures rose—ruling out our star itself as the direct source of global warming.”
http://www.scientificamerican.com/article.cfm?id=how-sunlight-can-control-climate
The upper troposphere / lower stratosphere are showing significant cooling, while the lower troposphere is showing significant warming. If the sun was driving higher temps, we should see both layers warming.
http://cdiac.ornl.gov/trends/temp/sterin/graphics/global.gif
“Stratosphere temperature data support scientists' proof for global warming “
http://uwnews.org/article.asp?articleid=6657
---------------
Claim: It's Volcanoes! - Evidence: Volcanoes Are Not the Cause
“Volcanoes emit around 0.3 billion tonnes of CO2 per year. This is about 1% of human CO2 emissions which is around 29 billion tonnes per year.”
http://www.skepticalscience.com/volcanoes-and-global-warming.htm
“A drop of volcanic activity in the early 20th century may have had a warming effect. However, volcanoes have had no warming effect in the last 40 years of global warming. If anything, they've imposed a slight cooling effect.”
http://www.skepticalscience.com/coming-out-of-ice-age-volcanoes.htm
“Volcanoes also release large amounts of water and carbon dioxide. When these two compounds are in the form of gases in the atmosphere, they absorb heat radiation (infrared) emitted by the ground and hold it in the atmosphere. This causes the air below to get warmer. Therefore, you might think that a major eruption would cause a temporary warming of the atmosphere rather than a cooling. However, there are very large amounts of water and carbon dioxide in the atmosphere already, and even a large eruption doesn't change the global amounts very much. In addition, the water generally condenses out of the atmosphere as rain in a few hours to a few days, and the carbon dioxide quickly dissolves in the ocean or is absorbed by plants.”
http://www.cotf.edu/ete/modules/volcanoes/vclimate.html
“Large-scale volcanic activity may last only a few days, although its influence on climate patterns lasts 5 years or so. Multiple eruptions (not necessarily from the same volcano) may be assumed for long-lasting spells of unusually low temperatures.”
http://earthguide.ucsd.edu/virtualmuseum/climatechange2/06_2.shtml
“On occasion, though, a volcano explodes and, to our consternation, the weather becomes even chillier than during the normal downturns. Remember the huge Mount Pinatubo blowup in the Philippines in 1991? Recall the cold weather in much of North America during the following year?”
http://www.giss.nasa.gov/research/briefs/stothers_02/
------------
Claim: It's Water Vapor! - Evidence: Water Vapor is Important, but Warmer Climate Increases Vapor
“Water vapour is the most dominant greenhouse gas. Water vapour is also the dominant positive feedback in our climate system and amplifies any warming caused by changes in atmospheric CO2. This positive feedback is why climate is so sensitive to CO2 warming.”
http://www.skepticalscience.com/water-vapor-greenhouse-gas.htm
“Water vapor feedback can also amplify the warming effect of other greenhouse gases, such that the warming brought about by increased carbon dioxide allows more water vapor to enter the atmosphere.”
http://www.nasa.gov/topics/earth/features/vapor_warming.html
“Water vapor is not only the dominant greenhouse gas, but its concentration also depends strongly upon temperature. As the climate warms from the burning of fossil fuels, the concentrations of water vapor are expected to increase. This moistening of the atmosphere, in turn, absorbs more heat and further raises the temperature. In this way, water vapor greatly amplifies the global warming projected to occur over the next century.”
http://www6.miami.edu/UMH/CDA/UMH_Main/0,1770,2593-1;41812-3,00.html
Increasing temps = increasing humidity = more extreme weather patterns
http://www.gps.caltech.edu/~tapio/papers/revgeophys09.pdf
“As the temperatures increase, the air can sustain a larger amount of water vapor, thereby increasing the greenhouse effect. This compounds the effect of other greenhouse gases that are controllable by man (CO2 for example). Thus, it is important that water vapor is understood for the formation of climate models.”
http://www.csr.utexas.edu/texas_pwv/midterm/gabor/gabor.html#anchor1928499
-------------
Claim: It's Methane! - Evidence: Methane Levels are Too Low Compared to CO2
“While methane is a more potent greenhouse gas than CO2, there is over 200 times more CO2 in the atmosphere. Hence the amount of warming methane contributes is 28% of the warming CO2 contributes.”
http://www.skepticalscience.com/methane-and-global-warming.htm
“Unusually high temperatures in the Arctic and heavy rains in the tropics likely drove a global increase in atmospheric methane in 2007 and 2008 after a decade of near-zero growth, according to a new study. Methane is the second most abundant greenhouse gas after carbon dioxide, albeit a distant second.”
http://www.esrl.noaa.gov/news/2009/arctic_warmth_increases_methane.html
----------------
Evidence: CO2 is the Primary Driver
“An enhanced greenhouse effect from CO2 has been confirmed by multiple lines of empirical evidence. Satellite measurements of infrared spectra over the past 40 years observe less energy escaping to space at the wavelengths associated with CO2. Surface measurements find more downward infrared radiation warming the planet's surface. This provides a direct, empirical causal link between CO2 and global warming.”
http://www.skepticalscience.com/empirical-evidence-for-co2-enhanced-greenhouse-effect.htm
“Even during a period of long term warming, there are short periods of cooling due to climate variability. Short term cooling over the last few years is largely due to a strong La Nina phase in the Pacific Ocean and a prolonged solar minimum.”
http://www.skepticalscience.com/co2-temperature-correlation.htm
“When CO2 levels were higher in the past, solar levels were also lower. The combined effect of sun and CO2 matches well with climate.”
http://www.skepticalscience.com/co2-higher-in-past.htm
--------
Claim: In the past, CO2 lagged warming! - Evidence: Past- CO2 Lagged Warming, but That's Not the Issue Now
"When the Earth comes out of an ice age, the warming is not initiated by CO2 but by changes in the Earth's orbit. The warming causes the oceans to give up CO2. The CO2 amplifies the warming and mixes through the atmosphere, spreading warming throughout the planet. So CO2 causes warming AND rising temperature causes CO2 rise."
http://www.skepticalscience.com/co2-lags-temperature.htm
---------
Claim: We aren't causing this! - Evidence: Warming is Caused by Humans Increasing Levels of CO2
“The CO2 that nature emits (from the ocean and vegetation) is balanced by natural absorptions (again by the ocean and vegetation). Therefore human emissions upset the natural balance, rising CO2 to levels not seen in at least 800,000 years. In fact, human emit 26 gigatonnes of CO2 per year while CO2 in the atmosphere is rising by only 15 gigatonnes per year - much of human CO2 emissions is being absorbed by natural sinks.”
http://www.skepticalscience.com/human-co2-smaller-than-natural-emissions.htm
“Oceans are warming across the globe. In fact, globally oceans are accumulating energy at a rate of 4 x 1021 Joules per year - equivalent to 127,000 nuclear plants (which have an average output of 1 gigawatt) pouring their energy directly into the world's oceans. This tells us the planet is in energy imbalance - more energy is coming in than radiating back out to space.”
http://www.skepticalscience.com/ocean-and-global-warming.htm
“Carbon dioxide (CO2) is an important greenhouse gas released through natural processes such as respiration and volcano eruptions and through human activities such as deforestation and burning fossil fuels.”
http://climate.nasa.gov/keyIndicators/
------------------
Claim: It's natural! - Evidence: Natural Cycles Do Not Correlate to Present Warming Trends
"The 1500 year cycles, known as Dansgaard-Oeschger events, are localized to the northern hemisphere and accompanied with cooling in the southern hemisphere. In contrast, current global warming is occuring in both hemispheres and particularly throughout the world's oceans, indicating a significant energy imbalance."
http://www.skepticalscience.com/1500-year-natural-cycle.htm
“The main driver of the warming from the Little Ice Age to 1940 was the warming sun with a small contribution from volcanic activity. However, solar activity leveled off after 1940 and the net influence from sun and volcano since 1940 has been slight cooling. Greenhouse gases have been the main contributor of warming since 1970.”
http://www.skepticalscience.com/coming-out-of-ice-age.htm
“Early 20th century warming was in large part due to rising solar activity and relatively quiet volcanic activity. However, both factors have played little to no part in the warming since 1975. Solar activity has been steady since the 50's. Volcanoes have been relatively frequent and if anything, have exerted a cooling effect.”
http://www.skepticalscience.com/global-warming-early-20th-century.htm
“Levels of Carbon Dioxide are higher today than at anytime in past 650,000 years. Scientists reconstruct past climate conditions through evidence preserved in tree rings, coral reefs and ice cores. For example, ice cores removed from 2 miles deep in the Antarctic contain atmospheric samples trapped in tiny air bubbles that date as far back as 650,000 years. These samples have allowed scientists to construct a historical record of greenhouse gas concentration stretching back hundreds of thousands of years.”
http://climate.nasa.gov/evidence/
Remember....
Stick to the rules, or we won't play.
Science only. No ideological rants.
All claims MUST be backed by peer-reviewed publications. We know you think you are a super genius, but your own interpretation of the literature without citations will not suffice. We just can't take your word for it.
Once you deviate, we stop playing.
Once you dismiss peer-reviewed evidence as some conspiracy to keep denialists from publishing, we stop playing.
Got it?
Now, please address each point above with real, peer-reviewed evidence. If you need time, don't worry. I'll keep a copy of this url, to remind you from time to time.
Have fun!
I could go on citing all of the reasons your near-record rant is a joke and an attempted distraction, at least in the laughable way you presented it, but I think I've made my point. I give you an A for effort and I appreciate the snarky olive branch (though I shudder to think about where it has been), but the only way to actually have this discussion is to have it be based upon equal participation and based on the actual arguments we both have made (easy for me because you apparently have gobbled up every last bite of AGW theory without question like a good little cultist).
My stance is a bit more "nuanced" than yours, to borrow a phrase from Pielke's page, so I'm on board to actually discuss those issues I have tried discussing with you in detail in the past which you, I repeat, routinely ignored. In other words, you can take your laundry list and do you-know-what with it (you already forget how to use the link function?).
If now you want to come out of hiding and set up a debate based upon our actual beliefs with the peer-reviewed science to support our arguments, perhaps we can sort that out, though the time table for that may need to be delayed. There is a very good possibility that I will be accepting a contract today that will essentially take me completely out of this "game" for 6 weeks.
That brings up another point. What a strange coincidence that you drop your "rule to not 'engage'" with me and also issue your challenge within hours of me telling rumple that he/she may not "hardly see me around these parts for about six weeks." Pure coincidence. That gut feeling I have that makes me want to predict that in two weeks you will be posting about my "non-answers" to which I also do not reply, that's just me being silly (for as conniving as you are, you are also equally transparent).
If when the time comes we do sort out an actual discussion, rest assured you will not be its sole architect, or "we won't play." For now, I have a much simpler and direct "Snarky challenge": make your statements and back them up. I have been doing it all along. What have you been up to? Since you tried monopolizing how the discussion is framed, I will at least throw you a few side challenges in the meantime that take you to some apparently uncomfortable places.
I honestly cannot recall ever having seen you yield one inch about any single facet of the AGW theory. You apparently have not one issue with the theory or with any of the pro-AGW arguments you feed upon. Your challenge is to take any single one of your many quotes from John or any other quote on his page and debate it from a skeptic's point of view. It would prove to me that you are not simply a dogmatic alarmist if you could just bring yourself to question even one of the pro-AGW arguments and find even a scintilla of evidence that might refute it, no matter how minor.
Got another one you'll love since this is another very important facet of the discussion that you are yet to yield an inch on and apparently do not like to discuss. I challenge you yet again to finally discuss the political, social, and economic ramifications of going down the path of sustainable development as is being proposed and in many places already being implemented. I want to know what you think will actually happen, the actual impacts that is on both poor and rich, were we to adopt an aggressive worldwide CO2 mitigation plan.
Ready? Go!
Big day ahead of me so I'm off. I'll have to check in tonight to see where you take this next and to get to rumple's comments. I'd ask you to wish me luck if you actually did, but since "[d]enialists are complete wastes of skin" I won't bother. Cheers!
"we'll just ignore the repeated attempts at discussing the actual peer-reviewed science I have routinely cited and which you have routinely ignored"
I'll make it easy on you. Just remind me where you posted them. I'll look them up.
--------
"Oh and we'll only discuss the topics you select, or else you "won't play," regardless of whether or not I have ever discussed the topic or whether it is a straw man I have never argued"
The only rules to play this game is to stay on topic. Discuss only the science, not the political or ideological junk you denialists typically throw up. Just stick to the science. After all, you continue to claim AGW / ACC is false. Just prove your point. How simple do I need to make this?
------------
"we'll completely separate any of the political topics from AGW"
Exactly. After all, political and ideological arguments neither prove, nor disprove the facts surrounding climate science. They are related, but not self-supporting.
-------------------
"If now you want to come out of hiding and set up a debate based upon our actual beliefs with the peer-reviewed science to support our arguments"
Don't get too distracted with your straw man argument about the peer-review process being a belief system. You have to accept the peer-review process, otherwise you are admitting that denalists don't care about anyone double-checking and verifying anything at all - especially denialists claims. You need to accept some standard. If not the peer-reviewed literature, then what? Postings on blogs? Sorry, that's not a regulated standard, and a non-starter.
---------------
"perhaps we can sort that out, though the time table for that may need to be delayed. There is a very good possibility that I will be accepting a contract today that will essentially take me completely out of this "game" for 6 weeks."
That's ok. I'll just watch for you to start reposting, then I'll remind you of this. I'll keep this link. You seem to do a good job of that youself, so I'm sure I won't need to remind you.
----------------------
"That gut feeling I have that makes me want to predict that in two weeks you will be posting about my "non-answers" to which I also do not reply, that's just me being silly (for as conniving as you are, you are also equally transparent)."
Absolutely not. Feel free to bring this up as a reminder, if I try to pull a fast one on you. I'm serious. Let's "get it on". If it takes you 6 weeks to return to this, so be it. After all, perhaps I can stand to use the time to prep myself - as you can see I've been doing. :-)
--------------
"Since you tried monopolizing how the discussion is framed, I will at least throw you a few side challenges in the meantime that take you to some apparently uncomfortable places."
Do you have another forum in mind? I just thought since you come here a lot, you may just want to make your case here. It is you and your troll buddies who keep taking this off-topic. Other than poking fun at the rantards on the right, and you trolls, I've pretty much stayed on the topic of the science of climate change. You guys keep throwing up Al Gore, the IPCC, emails, etc. But, this IS the MMFA page, so we can't dominate it. We may have to do this piecemeal. So unless MMFA give us a page where just you and I can post to conduct this, I can't guarantee others won't jump in. Just ignore them. This is between us, right?
--------------
"I honestly cannot recall ever having seen you yield one inch about any single facet of the AGW theory. You apparently have not one issue with the theory or with any of the pro-AGW arguments you feed upon ... t would prove to me that you are not simply a dogmatic alarmist if you could just bring yourself to question even one of the pro-AGW arguments and find even a scintilla of evidence that might refute it, no matter how minor."
I've yielded quite a bit. You don't see it, because you seem to feed off of emotional reactions from others. A good sign of a troll. I thank you denialists profusely. Really. You forced me to review the information on my own. I went from having doubts about this issue, to knowing that ACC is happening. There's an extremely high probability that it's caused by us. The effects of ACC are clear on many levels. The accuracy of the timing of the projected effects are still in debate, but if things continue to go the way they are going, they WILL happen. You denialists expect science to be perfect. It's not. You expect scientists to be emotionless automatons - never bringing their own emotions or biases into their work. That happens. But, that's what peer-review mitigates. It ain't perfect, but it's worked a heck of a lot better than the crap I've seen off of "Wattsupwiththat". Every time - EVERY TIME - I've double-check a denialist claim, it's FALLEN FLAT. I don't get that from the peer-reviewed literature.
------------------
"I challenge you yet again to finally discuss the political, social, and economic ramifications of going down the path of sustainable development as is being proposed and in many places already being implemented. I want to know what you think will actually happen, the actual impacts that is on both poor and rich, were we to adopt an aggressive worldwide CO2 mitigation plan."
Nope. First, let's settle the science. THEN we can discuss the physical, sociological and political ramifications. You seem confused in your posts. It looks like you and the other denialists can't tell the difference between the scientific evidence and ideological claims. Don't go all Inhofe on this.
Are you on board? If not, I'm sure everyone here would like to see if you are up to the task of addressing the science on ACC. You seem so knowledgable. It should be easy for you. So? What's the answer?
"CO2 does not drive temperatures as the models predict. The A in AGW has been largely falsified." I also say, "The far more robust evidence supports natural variability and forcings as the primary climate drivers"
So, I think we both agree that warming is occurring. You just think the "A" part is not correct. Did I interpret this correctly?
You mention "natural forcings". Can you be a bit clearer on this? What "natural forcings" do you mean? After all, there are a lot of claims by denialists about many natural reasons for warming. I just want to be sure we all know what your claims are regarding this.
And, where do the proponents of the "A" part have it wrong? Specifically, where are the claims incorrect in the literature?
Perhaps that's all we need to cover in the "debate"?
This may be much more easier that I thought.
Just keep our discussions on topic, and we're good to go.
You know, I've noticed that too. I have not once taken a position on what I think we should do as a nation or as a world community or how we should do it. I have supported clean energy sources, but I have never advocated for any particular method of getting us there - other than to observe that the US is falling behind other nations technologically because of the hold big oil has on our nation.
I find it interesting that voicing support for the science somehow translated to being pro-cap and trade in Gal and other's minds.
They confuse ideology with science, and they argue the uncertainties about the predicted timing, or predicted strength of the effects of ACC.
They do this, because the evidence supporting ACC is overwhelming.
So, I'm all for letting GL post his proofs on his stance about the science (separate from ideology).
Who knows? Maybe I'll learn something.
But I'm .... skeptical.
PS - Keep this in mind when "engaging" the denialist trolls. Keep them focused on the science. They need to define their position, or they're time-wasters. Once they deflect from the science & run off after ideological nonsense, they loose.
Did I give you this link before?
It's fun to watch, and it gives you an idea how denialists deflect from the evidence to ideological rants.
Notice how Plimer blabbers on about how Monbiot's office is located near the CRU. Like that has anything to do with Plimer backing his claims.
http://www.abc.net.au/news/video/2009/12/15/2772906.htm
Others are welcome too - I'll keep it an open group unless we start having too many spammers.
Actually, I started a blog page a few weeks ago, but have not had the time to tend to it.
I was going to propose the same thing.
But your site works for me.
Now will GL want to join in?
I'm totally serious. I admit I may have been a bit too harsh, so I'm willing to step back & deal with this rationally.
Let's debate the science, without the ideological crap.
PS - For general info, and to get me started, I find Skeptical Science to be THE best site for ACC facts.
You guys have said so much and I do not have the time now to address it all so we will need to debate this at a future date. I appreciate the offer to debate using your group, but I will not be doing so.
Whatever we need to say can be said here. If we are talking about GW in a GW thread, then we will always be on topic. If we can tie the discussion into the actual contents of the stories, all the better. Be creative.
I am out of time but a few things I just can't let go without comment. SLR, here you are right out of the gate:
I'll make it easy on you. Just remind me where you posted them. I'll look them up.
Well, umm, look up then. I cited two quite relevant peer-reviewed papers in my initial post to you on this thread. Maybe you can start there.
I just read through all of both of your posts yet again. There really is just too much and I see myself getting ready to launch into a 2-hour diatribe and cannot afford to do so. So I have to self-edit.
I can already see a few things that may be permanent sticking points, so this might not go exactly as you planned. I guess we shall see. Until then, Cheers! (yes, that was intentional)
This one bears repeating because it is important in understanding what is happening today. IN the past CO@ lagged behind the start or warming cycles, that is true. But we know that CO2 added tremendously to the warming cycle.
What we have done now, is essentially skipped the beginning natural step of the warming cycle and just started releasing the CO2 ourselves. The science is clear - CO2 in the atmosphere causes warming. It caused warming then and it causes warming now. The difference is in how the CO2 got into the atmosphere to start with.
FWIW - I do agree in one respect with those who say there is too much emphasis on CO2. In the science community this is not true, but in the political community it is. We do need to deal with the CO2 problem, but there are other factors we should be looking at as well. Methane is one. How we pave our roads and roof our buildings is another - when we create a heat island, that heat is not pulled from the surrounding area and concentrated, so ignoring the heat islands is NOT good science.
Now I am a bit confused by your follow-up but before getting to that, since you are back-tracking, please provide comment on this post to you from the same "unfinished" thread. I would have thought that that topic was far more important than Pielke and the surface temperature records.
I talked about the B1 agenda again in my response to SLR here, but again you did not comment on it. It is worth noting that he had nothing to say about it either and cites "crickets" because apparently I am too slow for his taste and do not spend the entirety of my life cruising MMfA as he apparently does (he sure does seem to have a short, cherry-picking memory in that regard, speaking of crickets and non-answers).
On to Pielke. Let's look at what we were actually talking about first. As I thoroughly explained here, ScienceBuff was asking for "data and scientific analysis" in regards to bias with the surface station temperature records and that is why I provided him with the link to the Pielke paper (I figured a peer-reviewed paper by a scientist who does not consider himself to be a skeptic titled "Unresolved issues with the assessment of multidecadal global land surface temperature records" might do the trick for Buff). In that same response I quoted from the Pielke paper and provided links to other issues he had with the CCSP. You responded with this:
Oh, yes, please, by all means read the Pielke paper. It doesn't mean what Galileonardo wants it to mean, but it is a classic example of the scientific process and the way problems with data collection and modeling are found, examined and corrected over time. It is truly an example of science at it's finest.
jmile also responded to my post with a quote from Pielke's Wikipedia page, to which I responded with some of the other Pielke quotes from the same Wikipedia page. jmile (now ghost of russell) was cherry-picking (ironically something Pielke is described as criticizing the IPCC for doing in the very next sentence after jmile's cherry-picked quote), so I elaborated with the additional quotes and links to more adequately describe Pielke's "nuanced position on climate change." You then responded, now twice, with what you say in this current thread. I don't think I missed anything but correct me if I'm wrong.
Now, what exactly is the issue? In case you didn't realize this, as I had mentioned the whole crux of this issue is CO2 and its role in AGW. On that Pielke's stance is quite similar to mine: the IPCC and the climate models it uses have exaggerated the effects of CO2 on AGW (IMO grossly exaggerated).
I don't understand how the quotes "do not support the conclusion he drew," and for that matter, where exactly do I say that Pielke refutes AGW? And what did I "want it to mean?" Please read again what I actually wrote rather than imply false conclusions.
If anyone is attributing their beliefs to it, it is you by saying the problems were or will be "found, examined and corrected over time." That was the whole point: unresolved issues. These issues have not been addressed, and as seen by the recent response of the head of the NCDC I cited, those in charge of the temperature data sets and their interpretations/adjustments are in complete denial about the implications of Pielke's work.
As for what you call Pielke's "rants," I can see by your interpretation that you really do not understand what his issues with Karl's CCSP were. His concerns that conflicted with the IPCC were in fact "shut out" from the CCSP report and that is no minor issue despite your brushing it off as him being unable to work "with other people with whom he obviously wasn't meshing with on a personal level." And to reiterate, the real issue here is CO2 forcing. As I also previously noted, these real issues with temperature records that Pielke's work highlights, while interesting, are thus largely incidental to the AGW debate.
Since you have made it quite clear that you aren't actually reading the responses to your posts, and I'm tired tonight, I think I'm going to say why bother about the rest of your post. Maybe tomorrow I'll feel more generous.
Oh, wait, you responded to that post. Perhaps you meant to include a link to the one below it?
You keep insisting we are following the B1 scenario somehow. When I ask how and where you point me to Copenhagen where no binding agreement was reached. The end result of Copenhagen seems to be a bunch of countries agree that "it's a good idea to do some of this stuff but we don't want to actually commit to it or anything."
Your response has managed to confuse me again. It must not be that hard. The post I linked to was the 2/20 6:40 am post you were unable to reply to before the thread closed, so I think I got it right. Regardless, that isn't the issue. The rest of your statement is.
You keep insisting we are following the B1 scenario somehow.
You incorrectly paraphrase what I have said and it gives me another opportunity to ask you the question you haven't yet answered. What scenario of the four "alternative images of how the future might unfold" is in your opinion the course being proposed and acted upon?
It isn't that "we are following the B1 scenario somehow." The world has been, and continues to be, steadily nudged and pushed in the B1 direction for the last near 20 years with the AGW alarm being sounded a full 15 years prior to that.
Of course nations have implemented CO2 mitigation strategies to varying degrees, but nearly every country in the world is already on their way toward B1 or has proposed jumping onto the B1 path. That is an absolute inarguable fact (remember that 187 countries signed and ratified the Kyoto Protocol). The fact that you say a bunch of countries "don't want to actually commit to it or anything" tells me that you are not aware of what has been/is going on in the UK, Germany, and many countries around the world.
B1 will me a monstrous, painful disaster. Sanity lies between A1 and B1. I am absolutely on the A1 end of the curve so perhaps slightly insane in being hopeful that the continued technological breakthroughs will allow us to continue our trajectory. The B1 end of the curve is pure insanity.
By the IPCC's own numbers, 80% of the world has their pay cut in half through B1. How exactly can that be justified? The only way to justify it is to accept that you are willing to allow the poorest among us to stay poor for longer than they otherwise would have. This sounds alarmist but accurate: many millions of people will die needlessly, mostly children, if we go full-blown B1.
Rio, Kyoto, Copenhagen. This history is important, and the failure of Copenhagen is a historic triumph for someone like me. I hope AGW-induced B1 dies a sudden and painful death. How about sane development? Hold up the CO2 white flag so we can move on and direct our resources correctly. The fastest route to eventual environmental sustainability is through A1 IMO. There really is no comparison in my eyes.
Considering how important politics and the political landscape of the future are to this debate, I wonder why some good doctors refuse to even discuss these issues. I guess some people are just more open-minded than others. Running out of time. Onto the next one.
Now that I have a few minutes, what exactly do you think that e-mail conversation proves? I suspect it doesn't say anything close to what you think it says.
This is Trenberth's response to the emails.
http://www.cgd.ucar.edu/cas/Trenberth/statement.html
Troll-la-tardo swings & misses again.
What are we on now, strike 300?
It doesn't take much brain power to find fault in everything. But, it is a sign of intelligence to take a position & produce evidence supporting that position. Trolls think they're intelligent, but they're simply simpletons.
Oh, and it would help if you could dig up a statement on the correct and far more fruitful quote. You know? The one about not being anywhere close to balancing the energy budget. Here, since you begged to be dope-slapped with it yet again:
How come you do not agree with a statement that says we are no where close to knowing where energy is going or whether clouds are changing to make the planet brighter. We are not close to balancing the energy budget. The fact that we can not account for what is happening in the climate system makes any consideration of geoengineering quite hopeless as we will never be able to tell if it is successful or not! It is a travesty!
Yeah, I've been swinging for a long time now and I'd say it's a pretty safe bet that I am far ahead of you in all of the positive stats (more projection from you I think). My bat is getting worn from all of the hits I've managed against your precious theory. Rarely do I not make contact. You on the other hand rarely do, though I have seen you and Dully get an occasional intentional walk out of pity.
I agree with you on one point though, your mirror moment: it is a sign of intelligence to take a position & produce evidence supporting that position. Perhaps you can follow your own advice so that you can avoid your longstanding trend of looking like such an idiotic denier (though you and some of the other AGW cultists may be beyond ever possibly exhibiting signs of intelligence Doc).
Scroll up from the one you quote and look at Trenberth's response to Mann's question regarding the one you quoted.
The first thing you seem to not notice is that they are talking about the short term variability in the system, not the long term trend.
The second thing you seem to be missing is that Trenberth is not saying that they can't account for the cooling at all. He is saying that the heat has to be going somewhere and there are two possible directions that the eat could go and they can't quantify how much is going where because we just don't have good enough sensors. and it may be important later to know which direction is the correct one. See, if most of that heat is radiating away into space it buys us more time. But if a lot of that is being sequestered deep in the ocean, that will have negative effects on the overall climate - so it is important to try to quantify that data.
This is one of those honest moments you get in friendly email banter. The AGW faithful publicly say "the debate is settled" and "the science is in" and "consensus." I say "we are not close to balancing the energy budget" and "we can not account for what is happening in the climate system." Which interpretation do you think more closely resembles reality?
The most important work done in the history of climate science has taken place over just the last 20 years. No matter how many times the word "robust" is used to describe the evidence for AGW, the science really is in its infancy in regards to having a comprehensive picture of how all of these variables work together. Someday, just not today. Off again.
Just read my post to you above.
I'm calling you out for the "galatardo challenge".
Please address each of my claims with peer-reviewed evidence of your own.
Don't break the rules, or we stop playing.
Time to step up to the plate with that bat of yours.