Slashdot Mirror

After some really cold winters, they stopped calling it 'Global Warming', which sounded stupid in the context, and started calling it 'Climate Change'.

Wrong. The term "Climate Change" has been in use for more than 50 years. https://skepticalscience.com/c...

Not bullshit. Here's a nice explanation as to why: https://skepticalscience.com/97-percent-consensus-robust.htm

Gosh, that is quite hilarious. Presumably you have heard of Ice Ages large and small and the Holocene optimum. Why has natural variation in temperatures ceased just because we are on the scene?

Because you apparently don't know this: the long term natural trend is towards lower temperatures. Looking at the historical record, we see a significant upwards spike at the end of each glacial period followed by a slow decline (10-20 thousands years) into the next glacial period. Our post-glacial spike period ended thousands of years ago and the earth has been in a slow slide into the next glacial period since then. While there is some natural variability, over relatively short time scales (20 years) that variability tends to negate itself, and the longer term variability is actually currently net negative, meaning it's cooling the earth and slowing down climate change.

So when the natural factors are a net negative trend then human activity, by elimination, is responsible for 100% of the net positive trend. That's not even science, it's just math.

And once again, what does the musings of a Law Professor in 1970 have to do with the state of the science in 1970? I don't give a flying f--- about 1970 climate zeitgeist. That's not the claim. The claim is clearly that climatologists in the 1970s believed the world was entering a new glacial period soon.

According to Skeptical Science, there were something like seven research papers in the period mentioning cooling, as opposed to over forty talking about temperature rises due to CO2. https://skepticalscience.com/i...

The Skeptical Science entry goes further to suggest that some of the reasons some researchers were positing cooling was due to SO2 releases at the time. One can debate whether those releases would have slowed temperature increases, but seeing as that SO2 limits were put in place, that's rather a moot point.

So what we have is a few alarmist articles of the period, little of their content apparently based on climatology research even at the time, and the usual anecdotal claims of "I remember my professor/teacher/some guy on TV saying the ice age was coming." In other words, no, few if any climatologists actual thought there was an ice age, and by that point, even 45-47 years ago, global warming due to human CO2 emissions was seen as a real phenomenon.

Climate change predicts a lot of things such as more extreme weather events becoming more common.
The California drought is the worst that's happened in the state in the last 1000 years.
If anything, many of the predictions were overly conservative.
In 2001 the IPCC predicted that sea level would rise 2mm/year. It's actually rising 3.3mm/year. They predicted that the arctic ice sheet would melt in 50-70 years in 2006. It's now predicted to melt by 2052.

Here are some predictions that came true:

1. The sea level is rising in most places, though at the high end (or higher) than original predictions (3.2mm/year vs 2mm).
2. The sea level fell near Greenland as predicted due to the loss of mass and the gravitational pull of that mass.
3. Extreme weather events were predicted to become more common with climate change. This is happening as "about 25% of moderate daily hot extremes can be attributed to warming.".
4. The predicted radiative forcing effect from CO2 has been observationally confirmed.

Volcanoes [...] let out more greenhouse gases than all human created machinery - from cars to planes to everything that emits carbon dioxide

Eh, no: "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."

The direction of the adjustment makes no difference to the trend (this has been tested by running it both ways) and the new NOAA series puts 7x more weight on the Argo buoy data where available. It's been further tested by constructing an unadjusted buoy-only record which shows the same trend (see https://skepticalscience.com/b...).

The logarithmic response is correct, but the current best estimates put the warming at 3C per doubling of CO2. https://www.skepticalscience.c...

And, just in case you're the least bit interested, there is an explanation as to why the differential between CO2 PPM increases and observed surface temperature rises, largely because of that substance that covers 2/3s of the planet:

https://www.skepticalscience.c...

But I'm sure you will handwave that away. Once again some random poster on the Internet with no actual ability to assess the data thinks they're moronic strawman somehow topples an entire field of research.

... the amount of Greenhouse Gases produced by Mankind far outweigh the Pollutants naturally produced by the Earth 2.4 MILLION pounds of Co2 are released by us every second -- that's 207.36 BILLION pounds of CO2 every day. http://www.cbsnews.com/news/ca... That amount DWARFS the amount of CO2 the Earth produces naturally -- in fact the Earth now produces less than 1% of the CO2 in the atmosphere
https://hvo.wr.usgs.gov/volcan...

Okay, take a breath, now humans add 29 gigatons of CO2 a year, but natural sources add 771 gigatons, Humans add a little less than 4% of the total emissions. The CBS link wasn't wrong, but they just threw out a big scarry turd to be sensational, and the USGS link was just talking about volcanoes not all natural sources.

Yes. Science is supposed to be an adversarial process. Whining that others may try to disprove your conclusions is decidedly unscientific.

And the scientists had no problem with showing the data when they present it (like they do in all papers). The problem they had was giving raw unfinished data to people who were felt entitled to it and were biased against it. It was the equivalent of you asking for all the lab results from your doctor because you don't believe him or her on their continuing diagnosis. It's not that you'll give the results to some other doctor; no you'll give it to a foundation based on spiritual healing that needs it to "prove" that modern medicine is quackery.

“I can’t see either of these papers being in the next IPCC report. Kevin and I will keep them out somehow — even if we have to redefine what the peer-review literature is!”

Perhaps you'd like to do some research before you proceed.

- in fact, the estimate you cite is absurd;

We've been tracking at the very highest end of that projection for the last few decades. Perhaps reality is also absurd.

you couldn't out-crawl even if your crutches floated away?

How fast do buildings run? The real question is "What is the cost of adapting to projected sea level rise?", or worse, as you are suggesting, "what is the cost of abandoning the beach front properties?"

That is complete nonsense. We're on track to have between half a meter and 1.5 meter sea level rise by the end of the century. That's on average - there will be less SLR near Greenland and more near USA. And we're currently tracking at the very high end of IPCC projections - so it looks like that number may be underestimated.

That is complete nonsense. We're on track to have between half a meter and 1.5 meter sea level rise by the end of the century. That's on average - there will be less SLR near Greenland and more near USA. And we're currently tracking at the very high end of IPCC projections - so it looks like that number may be underestimated.

Great quotes!

But no references. So I have too find them myself? You're not saving me much work!

What am I supposed to say when someone like this guy claims the first Hansen quote "doesn't mean what you say it means"?

https://www.skepticalscience.c...

JFC your grasp of thermodynamics is weak.

you may not notice your room heating because it's not a perfectly enclosed system. it has substantial losses to the surrounding house via convection.

the earth in contrast is much closer to the ideal enclosed system for the same reason that heat sinks don't work very well in space: no convection.

note however that in fact burning a candle in your living, if it were sealed and approximated an enclosed system, would in fact warm it measurably.
because thermodynamics.

some of these folks were kind enough to actually do some of the thermo math and work it out: https://www.reddit.com/r/asksc... , but the gist is, yes, actually, a candle can raise the temp of your room by roughly 1 degree, which is a significant or measurable amount.

similarly the human output of CO2, which is over 40 billion tons annually, does has a measurable impact despite its relatively small proportion of the atmosphere, in no small part due to a positive feedback loop involving water vapor (increase temp a lil bit via co2, more h20 in air, which is also a GH gas, which causes more warming, which causes more h2o in the air, which causes more warming....until the system reaches equilibrium and the warming stops...which right now cannot happen because were are still pumping several orders of magnitude more CO2 and methane into the atmosphere than the planetary system is capable of adjusting to.)

further readings: "It's only a trace gas."

Also note, that you are actively choosing to side with a nuclear physicist in the belief that he knows more bout climate science than actual climate scientists.
Do you also then get home repair quotes from your car mechanic, or vice versa? How about heart surgery from a pediatrician? Steak tartare from your plumber? How deep does your silliness of valuing non-subject-matter-experts over subject-matter-experts go?

1) Lamar Smith for one. He's the one who raised the issue, an issue also known about by everyone involved in the science. And they've now completed their work accounting for it, and presenting their finding back to him.

See, you (and Lamar Smith) are trying to do this:

Skeptic (Denier): What about X? Does X not disprove your entire conclusion?
Scientists: We are aware of X, and studying its impacts on the data so that it can be accounted for.
~~time passed~~
Scientists: We have finished studying X and have accounted for it. However it's effect is negligible, and our original conclusion still stands.
Skeptic (Denier): Well who gives a s*** ?! You're all liars and the climate is fine.

Also:
No, it's not a small amount of warming
No, more CO2 isn't necessarily the boon to the environment you think it is. Problems associated with increased heat and/or CO2 include reduced agricultural output, increased pest infestation of crops, and crops that turn toxic , and others.

2) No, they are not. The devices used to measure have accuracy in the range of 0.001 degree, or better. And even less accurate devices (say, +/-0.1) can still show a trend. The accuracy of the device relates more to each individual reading in a vacuum, not to a series of readings. That is to say, errors are typically linear or progressive in measurement equipment; non-linear or random inaccuracy does occur, but is uncommon (has a lot to do with the type of instrument too....geared instruments, like dial indicators, can more easily appear non-linear if the multiple errors are on a gear that only rotates a single time; note that if the gear rotated twice, you would see the error as cyclical). IE, say your thermometer is rated as +/-0.1 degree accuracy. So when measuring 20.1C, the "true" could be between 20.0 and 20.2. Then say you take a 2nd measurement, of 21.6. The true value is between 21.5 and 21.7. BUT, assuming the true value of measurement 1 was 20.2....it would be very unlikely that the true value of the 2nd measurement is below the indicated value. IE, the trend is still visible. (source: several years of metrology and instrumentation experience)

Climate scientists haven't established Human caused global warming is real.

You are wrong. It's not even really a debate among climate scientists at this point. So far all the data seems to clearly show that humans are a key factor in recent climate change. And even just on the face of it the notion that we could be dumping so many billions of tons of CO2 and other pollutants into the atmosphere without any effect or consequence is just absurd. If you want to argue that we are still pinning down the exact extent of the effect of our activities then you might have an argument. But to pretend that our activities have had no effect on global climate is ridiculous.

That said, it doesn't really matter anyway. Even if hypothetically speaking humans weren't responsible at all for climate change we still would need to take action to deal with the reality of it. It's going to affect food supplies, energy resources, ecosystems, pollution, geopolitics, etc. The US Department of Defense (hardly a bastion of liberal thinking) considers it real and a significant threat to national security.

So far we just have a gently upward trend starting about 400 years ago, very similar to the previous upward trends that were entirely natural.

Yeah sorry but the data is just a tad more complicated than your little made up and cherry picked sound bite.

This is a completely anti-scientific statement.

Yes, that was rather the point. But empiricism is not the only path to truth, and there is no particularly good basis with which to say it is the best path to truth. Rationalism is a completely acceptable alternative. And it is my contention that a large portion of the US population, especially those engaged in AGW denial, are not empirical, have no interest in being empirical, and have no notion that this could be a bad thing.

The IPCC made a specific prediction that the TLT would warm faster than the surface, this is the 'smoking gun' of AGW

There are a number of key predictions of AGW, but I don't recall that having been one offhand. Firstly it predicts global warming, and the observed warming must be considered the "smoking gun". Secondly it predicted the the warming effects would be more extreme at the poles, and for nighttime temperatures. It also predicted stratospheric cooling. All of these things have been observed. But again, the core evidence is the properties of CO2 and water vapor. Small inaccuracies in the year-to-year temperature changes of specific parts of the atmosphere can not be considered evidence for or against global warming. The wikipedia article on the UAH dataset doesn't seem to support the idea of a large divergence.

Much of the difference, at least in the Lower troposphere global average decadal trend between UAH and RSS, has been removed with the release of RSS version 3.3 in January 2011. RSS and UAH TLT are now within 0.003 K/decade of one another. Significant differences remain, however, in the Mid Troposphere (TMT) decadal trends.

I would imagine .003 K/decade is pretty close to the error bars there.

I have to assume that by "TCS" you are referring to some measure of climate sensitivity, but I have no idea from the context whether you're talking about the transient (TCR) or equilibrium (ECS) temperatures. Frankly I'm not sure what you think is a particularly massive difference. It looks like they're pretty close. Also, from wikipedia:

As estimated by the IPCC Fifth Assessment Report (AR5) "there is high confidence that ECS is extremely unlikely less than 1C and medium confidence that the ECS is likely between 1.5C and 4.5C and very unlikely greater than 6C."[4] This is a change from the IPCC Fourth Assessment Report (AR4), which said it was likely to be in the range 2 to 4.5 C with a best estimate of about 3 C, and is very unlikely to be less than 1.5 C. Values substantially higher than 4.5 C cannot be excluded, but agreement of models with observations is not as good for those values.[5] The IPCC Third Assessment Report (TAR) said it was "likely to be in the range of 1.5 to 4.5 C".[6]

This again does not seem to fit with your description. It would also not be sufficient to invalidate AGW if it were true, although it could lead to some interesting new science. We need a strong negative feedback, a change in the properties of CO2/H2O, or a new way to radiate energy to space. None of these things are especially likely, but that's science for you.

To (1), see this and this and this and the obligatory xkcd. Important take home message - it's not just the raw scale of increase, but the rate of increase. It's well outside of a natural timescale which those same historical records indicate is on the order of thousands of years. What's happening now is 8x faster. Also, we know what natural causes drive global temperatures (Milankovitch cycles, ninos, volcanic eruptions, and other things) and can model that. When we take those into account, the observed warming is NOT recovered. Only including the effects of increased CO2 and CH4 levels accounts for the observations.

To (2), see this, and this and a lot of other refs if you google it. Main take home point: in the past, natural global warming (which should take place over thousands of years, see above links), has lead to the further emission of CO2 coming out of the oceans and other places (see here, hence the lag. This was predicted to be the case by Hansen et al before the lag was discovered.

The 6 meters of sea-level rise

Even the IPCC says it's between 60-150cm over the next 100 years.

Do you even know how large a centimeter is (not)?

That is a max of 1.5 meters - over a 100 year span! Do you seriously think coastal areas will not be able to deal with that incredibly slow rise? Do you not seriously think warming will be greatly abated as inevitable update of technologies like solar and nuclear power slows down warming, even over the next 50 years???

Again what really bugs be about you warming cultists is how much you think your unwavering opinions are based on science when most of it is based on utterly irrational groupthink, without any ability to predict anything that will occur.

You should check Hansen's 1988 predictions. They were off by a wide margin, greater than one-hundred percent off.

What a strange way to spin it...

again you post completely wrong information.

They refuse to release un-'adjusted' data sets, even going so far as to attempt to use copyright claims on publicly-funded research

Wrong.
https://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/data...
https://www.newscientist.com/a...
http://berkeleyearth.org/data/

Also, BS on the copyright claim.

They will not release the actual programs, algorithms, and data used in their computer models,

Wrong.
https://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/data...

which still are unable to both track past climate changes while modeling the future global temperature rise rates claimed.

Wrong.
http://www.skepticalscience.co...
https://www.wunderground.com/c...

Models which most accurately track past changes do not show the predicted increases,

Wrong.
See above.

while models that show predicted increases in global temperature averages do not track against past climate records.

Wrong.
see above.

In order to assume this is reason enough to greatly disrupt the US national economy (guaranteed other nations like China, Russia, and India will not harm *their* economies b/c of CAGW alarmism) requires a 'leap of faith' equal to that of a religion.

That is a completely BS talking point.
No one is harming anyone's economy as a result of fighting this.
The idea that this somehow requires harming your economy is complete BS.

China and India are already more committed to it than the US is, and have, relatively, done more. And China's economy is both the largest in the world, and fastest growing, growing at a whopping 8% GDP every year for the past decade and a half, including during the global recession (ie, they weren't even hit by the recession), and while they are enacting more and more environmental regulations to do their part.

And in the US the "Green Energy Revolution" has created thousands of jobs and economic opportunity.
But that's what happens when a new industry grows; the naysayers (like you) who said it would be different this time, that it would harm people, were idiots.

It requires faith without any more proof than Christians have to believe in the God of Abraham. The way that CAGW alarmists have been acting has not been that different from the Westboro Baptist Church nutters.

This only shows that you are ignorant about both groups of people.

They try to shout-down and silence opposing voices, substituting outrage, anger, and argument/appeal from/to authority for reason and logic.

No, that's what you're doing.

Even their precious IPCC/Dr. Roy Cook "97% scientific consensus" is bullshit. The "97%" includes scientists who think humans have *some* effect on climate, which humorously includes many on the "Denier(TM)"-side.

Not sure what your point is here.
Best I can tell is that you're disproving your own point and not even realizing it.

This is essentially what you just did:
-You said gravity wasn't real
-You threw an apple in the air
-It hit you on the head.
-You then said "See? Gravity is BS."

Hell, *I* believe humans have *some* effect, I've simply seen no evidence that justifies massive immediate changes

Well, the willfully ignorant typically remain that way until forced into action.
Especially when they are as determined to ignore reality as you are.

True enough. Scientists have been fighting fake news for decades. Peter Sinclare documents the birth of a climate denial meme here: https://youtu.be/khikoh3sJg8 . The meme was picked up and echoed by the supposedly legitimate media despite the fact a cursory review of the source material would quickly dispel the myth.

It's no wonder there is such a disparity between the public perception of the scientific consensus and the actual scientific consensus.. How could the general public be expected to understand the basic science when the media isn't even bothered to perform a quick source check.

Global CO2 emissions will stop when the fossil fuels are all extracted from the ground, not a moment sooner.

Global carbon emissions are around 801Gt, of which 30Gt are anthropogenic, and the 30Gt is divided between fossil fuel burning and land use changes, so humans account for slightly less than 4% of CO2 emissions. Therefore any change when fossil fuels run out will be minuscule, likewise any change due to reducing CO2 emissions from burning fossil fuels will be even less effective.
Considering the Earth has a solar cross-section of 3.16991481822e+13 m^2, solar Total solar irradiance is 1361 w/m^2 and the radiative imbalance is 1.5 w/m^2; we would only have to shade 34,834,228.771.7m^2, we're about as likely to build a solar shade that big as we are to reduce CO2 emissions enough to make a difference.

What caused the several centuries long mega-droughts in California in the last 2000 years before Manmade Climate Change?

Previous California mega droughts coincided roughly with the medieval warm period and "caused the collapse of that continent's most advanced pre-Inca empire, the rich and powerful state of Tiwanaku". That warming coincides with a period of higher than average solar radiation and less volcanic activity - both natural factors that would cause warming. Man made global warming has driven modern temperatures well above the relatively high temperatures observed at that time - in spite of the fact the sun is now at its dimmest in a half century. If the droughts are in fact related to global temperatures then California ought to look at making some drastic changes to their water management. It's only going to get hotter from here.

Climate models that are calibrated to accurately 'predict' weather conditions in the past are not proven to be as accurate in predicting conditions for which they haven't been calibrated, so knowing very well that this will attract a lot of flak from the usual AGW-zealots, and acknowledging that my karma will be reduced based on their disagreeing with me--which means that slashdot effectively already does have the 'fake news' filter that facebook is only still talking about--I will not be compelled to hold back my opinion.

Run-on sentence much? Anyway, for about the bazillionth time, climate != weather.

The AGW people are not zealots, they're scientists, and those who understand how science works. What you seem to interpret as zealotry is actually a genuine concern for the future of the human race.

All models are a compromise, because they attempt to express in mathematics and algorithms the essential parts of a complex real world. They can make wrong predictions in both directions. But the practice of science works to correct this by observing discrepancies and producing better models. And guess what? Models keep improving, and they are becoming quite accurate:

http://www.skepticalscience.co...
https://www.theguardian.com/en...
https://www.theguardian.com/en...
http://www.ucsusa.org/publicat...
http://e360.yale.edu/feature/c...
http://phys.org/news/2015-02-g...

Whether you accept what the models say or not, the essential take-away is that CO2 and methane are greenhouse gasses, and humanity is responsible for adding a significant amount of them to the atmosphere since the dawn of the industrial revolution. Enough to cause a problem that we must face and solve, or risk significant global hardship. Temperature is trending upwards. Polar ice is melting. Sea levels are rising. These are observed facts.

And maybe, in fact perhaps quite likely, efforts to reduce greenhouse-gas emissions will be a net benefit for economies, rather than a hardship.

>> There's no evidence that humans are causing global warming or that the warming is due to anything other than poorly sited instruments. Grow up.

How about you get a clue instead of just brainlessy insulting people as AC because you're too gutless to post as yourself and stand by your own words.

http://climate.nasa.gov/eviden...
https://www.skepticalscience.c...
http://www.ucsusa.org/global_w...
https://www.nwf.org/Wildlife/T...
https://www.epa.gov/climate-ch...

Using either SkepticalScience or Wattsupwiththat as a reference is generally inflammatory

What? The SkepticalScience.com link references 8 published papers all showing a strong consensus. If you don't like Skeptical Science then maybe read the published papers. The site is always well sourced.

Claims that a Consensus is somehow relevant in scientific endeavors is nonsensical.

The parent didn't claim that the consensus was relevant to the science. The consensus is informed by the science, not the other way around. The parent just pointed out that the science shows that man made global warming is real and that any crazy hand waving about a Chinese conspiracy is, well, crazy.

More like "Look at the results of scientific inquiry, it's right. If you don't agree, AND don't give data that refutes it, fuck you." http://www.skepticalscience.co...

been there.
done that.
debunked these zombies before.

Heat Islands:
short Answer: data from rural areas only, ie data that excludes city heat islands, shows an identical increase in temperatures as the total dataset.
longer answer: https://www.skepticalscience.c...

Satellites:
short answer: no, the satellite data does in fact show warming
longer answer: https://www.skepticalscience.c...

Thanks for the links. Good to know.

been there.
done that.
debunked these zombies before.

Heat Islands:
short Answer: data from rural areas only, ie data that excludes city heat islands, shows an identical increase in temperatures as the total dataset.
longer answer: https://www.skepticalscience.c...

Satellites:
short answer: no, the satellite data does in fact show warming
longer answer: https://www.skepticalscience.c...

Thanks for the links. Good to know.

been there.
done that.
debunked these zombies before.

Heat Islands:
short Answer: data from rural areas only, ie data that excludes city heat islands, shows an identical increase in temperatures as the total dataset.
longer answer: https://www.skepticalscience.c...

Satellites:
short answer: no, the satellite data does in fact show warming
longer answer: https://www.skepticalscience.c...

been there.
done that.
debunked these zombies before.

Heat Islands:
short Answer: data from rural areas only, ie data that excludes city heat islands, shows an identical increase in temperatures as the total dataset.
longer answer: https://www.skepticalscience.c...

Satellites:
short answer: no, the satellite data does in fact show warming
longer answer: https://www.skepticalscience.c...

No correlation at an annual timescale. Seasonal factors drive CO2 over that timescale. CO2 goes down in the northern hemisphere summer (as plant growth absorbs CO2) and up during northern hemisphere winter as plants die off and release CO2. The cause of the long term trend however is obvious and confirmed with carbon isotope analysis.

No correlation at an annual timescale. Seasonal factors drive CO2 over that timescale. CO2 goes down in the northern hemisphere summer (as plant growth absorbs CO2) and up during northern hemisphere winter as plants die off and release CO2. The cause of the long term trend however is obvious and confirmed with carbon isotope analysis.

We're talking about the *net CO2 increase*. Human activity is responsible for more than 100% of that.

For sure, everybody know that magic fairies sort out the 801 Gigatons of CO2 from natural sources and puts them in a separate bin so Gaia's green goodness can digest it, but totally reject the 30 Gigatons of nasty anthropogenic CO2!

AC Said "I've read one estimate where the global, yearly CO2 generation is 800Gt (Giga tons). Human actions account to 30Gt (~4 % )." you replied

Whoever gave you that number was lying through their teeth.

30/ (439 + 332 +30) = 0.037~, OBTW (439 + 332 +30) is 801 ; so round-off error is hardly "lying through their teeth", the numbers that SkepticalScience used are from Figure 7.3, IPCC AR4.
Most of us irredeemable deplorable climate deniers consider SkepticalScience to be a pack of rabid Climate Alarmists, it's kind of apropos that they blow your argument out of the water.

The Earth may be warming, but we should take any claimed models or predicted outcomes with a HUGE block of salt, especially since climate scientists claimed that higher temperatures lead to more tornadoes and other extreme weather events. The facts show that the trend for tornadoes and hurricanes are both falling...

Nothing adds carbon to the atmosphere like volcanoes, meteor impacts, ocean venting, and natural lightning fires. Oh, wait, I meant Humans. We're the only thing that "adds carbon to the atmosphere". Yeah.

In order:

1. Volcanic contribution to the atmosphere per year is about 1% of the human contribution per year.
2. I don't think meteors contribute a measurable amount of CO2. They're mostly rock and not very big, in comparison human CO2 emissions were 38.2 billion tonnes in 2011. The estimate of annual meteor mass is 37,000-78,000 tons. Human CO2 emissions are literally almost a million time larger.
3. Ocean venting is incorporated into the volcanic contribution (unless you're talking about frozen methane which is an entirely different thing)
4. Forest fires (lightning started or otherwise) contribute virtually no CO2 to the atmosphere over a sufficiently long period (a few years), because the plants grow back. Human initiated clear cutting is a different matter since the trees and other plants are generally not allowed to grow back.

5. Effectively, while there are natural processes that both release CO2 and capture CO2, those processes are pretty well balanced. Without human activity, the CO2 level would be close to constant. It is the additional of billions of tonnes of CO2 to the atmosphere every year that is pushing the atmospheric CO2 levels higher. The simple fact is that without human activity the CO2 level in the atmosphere would not be rising.

"Another ice age?" - published in Time magazine 1974, with lots of quotes from scientists.

"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 Canadian Arctic, for example, were once totally free of any snow in the summer; now they're covered all year round."

One thing that has me perplexed reading these threads is that the "warmistas" don't really seem to base their opinion on actual science, or published facts. It seems they (you) have a belief that they're so sure is correct that any indication to the contrary must be a lie.

Now, it is true that the majority of published science predicted warming even in the 1970s, but it's also correct that there were some studies that predicted cooling. Luckily we're warmer now than then - or to quote the scientists in the Time article again:

"I don't believe the world's present population is sustainable if there are more than three years like 1972 in a row."

source: http://www.skepticalscience.co...

Until renewables become far cheaper, generate more kWh per square-foot, and solve the storage problem - they will never reduce or replace carbon based generation.

Did you include in the externalised costs?

If we include the coal externalities, it increases the levelized costs to approximately 28 cents per kWh, which is more than hydroelectric, wind (onshore and offshore), geothermal, biomass, nuclear, natural gas, solar photovoltaic, and on par with solar thermal (whose costs are falling rapidly).

I have some sympathy for the density argument, but I hope we can agree that using more land (or building nukes) is mostly a political choice, not a technical barrier.

The republican ownership - the Koch brothers / Trump / the Bushes etc. - have collaborated to continue global warning. Long term this is quite likely to end up killing most or all of our descendents. Despite the fact that the science is clear and this is obviously true, the majority of Republicans support a belief which will actually end up killing their families.

Why do you think it would be difficult for them to ignore the fact that they are being tricked into voting for an agent of their enemies in Russia? The simple fact is that they care more about winning than truth, more about winning than handing their country over to the Russians. And more about sticking it to "du liberuls" than about having their own children survive.

ALL the factors stopped simultaneously? wow ! and the massive heatsink of the ocean stopped exchanging energy with the atmosphere? and the cosmic ray interaction that affects water vapor greatly also stopped all variability ? All on the same day in 1950? you folks should listen to yourselves sometimes.

I see, when you can't deal with real facts, you resort to strawman arguments and ridicule. For the natural trend to end, as you should well know if you have the degrees that you claim to have, all that is required for natural warming to end is for the sum of natural forces to be reduced to zero or less. The oceans continue to act as heat sinks, but I hope you realize that the oceans are finite as is their capacity to absorb heat, and cosmic ray interactions not only have no measurable effect on the climate, if they did, they would likely be cooling it..

ROFL ! That must be the 'peer reviewed' source you are talking about, right?

No, that's the blog of an actual practising climate scientist, and he links to his data sources while explaining pretty precisely why everything you've written about the balloon data is pants-on-fire wrong.

You don't understand the Scientific Method at all, do you? a single counter-observation is enough to invalidate any theory. Einstein and Feynmann have famous quotes on this. But wait, the psychologist John Cook and his 'skeptical science' (which is all-too credulous of eco-lunacy) outranks Einstein and Feynmann in understand the Scientific Method, right?

I understand it quite well, but I'm not sure you understand the difference between finding a counter-observation and claiming you've found one.

Ok, now you are out and out lying. Of course you know the scaremongering used by the alarmists to extort Trillions of dollars from poor citizens to give to rich citizens in green boondoggles. The scaremongering which is increasing energy poverty and will condemn Billions in the Third World to poverty and even death (since you aim to make energy more expensive based on your anti-scientific Cult of Global Warming).

"Green boondoggles" whether or not they actually exist, have nothing to do with me or the statements I am making here. Appeals to consequences are fallacious arguments, so whether or not "trillions of dollars" are being extorted from "poor citizens" has nothing to do with whether or not climate science is correct.

You think you are the good guy of the story, but you are the villain who clings to failed predictions and twists and turns with your cherry picking because you cannot explain why the World does not warm at the rate your failed computer simulations predicted. But you will refuse to follow the Scientific Method and acknowledge the fundamental flaws in the feedback calculations that are the crux of CAGW theory.

Contrary to your claims, the models are reasonably accurate. I am following the scientific method, you have just failed to provide any data that actually contradicts any of the theories that you claim are false. Every argument you have provided has already been examined and debunked hundreds, if not thousands of times already.

You are one of the inquisitors condemning Gallileo for pointing out the observations don't match your eco-religious viewpoint - and you think shouting louder will make your failed predictions come true. This is anti-scientific and fanatical on your part.

Wait, are you Gallileo now? When did I start shouting? How tenuous is your grip on reality?

When I supply you with quotes of UN people saying they

ALL the factors stopped simultaneously? wow ! and the massive heatsink of the ocean stopped exchanging energy with the atmosphere? and the cosmic ray interaction that affects water vapor greatly also stopped all variability ? All on the same day in 1950? you folks should listen to yourselves sometimes.

I see, when you can't deal with real facts, you resort to strawman arguments and ridicule. For the natural trend to end, as you should well know if you have the degrees that you claim to have, all that is required for natural warming to end is for the sum of natural forces to be reduced to zero or less. The oceans continue to act as heat sinks, but I hope you realize that the oceans are finite as is their capacity to absorb heat, and cosmic ray interactions not only have no measurable effect on the climate, if they did, they would likely be cooling it..

ROFL ! That must be the 'peer reviewed' source you are talking about, right?

No, that's the blog of an actual practising climate scientist, and he links to his data sources while explaining pretty precisely why everything you've written about the balloon data is pants-on-fire wrong.

You don't understand the Scientific Method at all, do you? a single counter-observation is enough to invalidate any theory. Einstein and Feynmann have famous quotes on this. But wait, the psychologist John Cook and his 'skeptical science' (which is all-too credulous of eco-lunacy) outranks Einstein and Feynmann in understand the Scientific Method, right?

I understand it quite well, but I'm not sure you understand the difference between finding a counter-observation and claiming you've found one.

Ok, now you are out and out lying. Of course you know the scaremongering used by the alarmists to extort Trillions of dollars from poor citizens to give to rich citizens in green boondoggles. The scaremongering which is increasing energy poverty and will condemn Billions in the Third World to poverty and even death (since you aim to make energy more expensive based on your anti-scientific Cult of Global Warming).

"Green boondoggles" whether or not they actually exist, have nothing to do with me or the statements I am making here. Appeals to consequences are fallacious arguments, so whether or not "trillions of dollars" are being extorted from "poor citizens" has nothing to do with whether or not climate science is correct.

You think you are the good guy of the story, but you are the villain who clings to failed predictions and twists and turns with your cherry picking because you cannot explain why the World does not warm at the rate your failed computer simulations predicted. But you will refuse to follow the Scientific Method and acknowledge the fundamental flaws in the feedback calculations that are the crux of CAGW theory.

Contrary to your claims, the models are reasonably accurate. I am following the scientific method, you have just failed to provide any data that actually contradicts any of the theories that you claim are false. Every argument you have provided has already been examined and debunked hundreds, if not thousands of times already.

You are one of the inquisitors condemning Gallileo for pointing out the observations don't match your eco-religious viewpoint - and you think shouting louder will make your failed predictions come true. This is anti-scientific and fanatical on your part.

Wait, are you Gallileo now? When did I start shouting? How tenuous is your grip on reality?

When I supply you with quotes of UN people saying they

Wow! that's dumb. How many people "deny climate change" ? no one denies the climate changes. What is debated is the proportion of man-made change (from our piddling 5% contribution to the CO2 budget) to the natural change (which started over 150 years ago at the end of the Little Ice Age and did not magically stop in 1950 as the alarmists claim).

The natural warming trend didn't "magically stop", it stopped because the natural factors driving the warming trend ended, but you are free to ignore inconvenient truths like the fact that the sun has had a small cooling trend over the last 35 years.

Quoting skeptical science's ignorant opinion is not how the Scientific Method is done.

Really? Didn't you just direct me the ignorant opinion of a series of elder crackpot scientists with little expertise in the field of climate change? Were you being unscientific then? The article I directed you on Skeptical Science isn't opinion, it's an explanatory article that links to the sources for they're providing you can, if you chose to, verify everything they've stated from the sources provided.

The IPCC made specific predictions that the Lower Tropical Troposphere would show a specific warming pattern if AGW was the correct hypothesis. The RSS and UAH satellites, backed up by thousands of balloons, have not observed this signature. So we have hypothesis, prediction, observation, and the observation does NOT match the prediction.

The failure to detect the signal was most likely measurement error, according to this article co-authored by John Christy (who is definitely not a global warming proponent). There is also a stratospheric cooling trend that biases the results on the cold side because the microwave signal is travelling through a cooling band of atmosphere above the warming band and the balloon data actually shows warming.

Furthermore the specific nature of the the AGW models predict a TCS whose most probable value is greater than 3 (after revision downward from failure after failure of earlier predictions). The observed value is currently between 1 and 2 and looks like will converge lower than that.

According to this article on the history of climate sensitivity there hasn't actually been much revision to the estimate, it was established as in the range of 1.5 to 4.5 in 1979, and the most recent IPCC report (5th) has the range as 1.5 to 4.5.

In short, the specific predictions of AGW have been falsified by observed reality.

The main problem here is that the specific predictions of AGW have not been proven accurate by observed reality. There are some people claiming that if you cherry-pick the data, squint and tilt your head then the data doesn't look as good. But they are going to great lengths to create data that doesn't match the predictions. In the particular case you cite, they use one particular measurement, use an old, outdated copy of the data, ignore the inherent problems in the measurement, splicing, and orbital decay adjustments due to indirect nature of the measurements, and then cherry-pick a time segment for minimal warming. Just to get one piece of data that doesn't look like it matches the predictions, but it's all deliberate framing to cover up the underlying truth.

Who cares what the psychologists are skepticalscience have to say, what matters is that the AGW predictions do not match REALITY. Hence the skeptics were right and the Scienti

Wow! that's dumb. How many people "deny climate change" ? no one denies the climate changes. What is debated is the proportion of man-made change (from our piddling 5% contribution to the CO2 budget) to the natural change (which started over 150 years ago at the end of the Little Ice Age and did not magically stop in 1950 as the alarmists claim).

The natural warming trend didn't "magically stop", it stopped because the natural factors driving the warming trend ended, but you are free to ignore inconvenient truths like the fact that the sun has had a small cooling trend over the last 35 years.

Quoting skeptical science's ignorant opinion is not how the Scientific Method is done.

Really? Didn't you just direct me the ignorant opinion of a series of elder crackpot scientists with little expertise in the field of climate change? Were you being unscientific then? The article I directed you on Skeptical Science isn't opinion, it's an explanatory article that links to the sources for they're providing you can, if you chose to, verify everything they've stated from the sources provided.

The IPCC made specific predictions that the Lower Tropical Troposphere would show a specific warming pattern if AGW was the correct hypothesis. The RSS and UAH satellites, backed up by thousands of balloons, have not observed this signature. So we have hypothesis, prediction, observation, and the observation does NOT match the prediction.

The failure to detect the signal was most likely measurement error, according to this article co-authored by John Christy (who is definitely not a global warming proponent). There is also a stratospheric cooling trend that biases the results on the cold side because the microwave signal is travelling through a cooling band of atmosphere above the warming band and the balloon data actually shows warming.

Furthermore the specific nature of the the AGW models predict a TCS whose most probable value is greater than 3 (after revision downward from failure after failure of earlier predictions). The observed value is currently between 1 and 2 and looks like will converge lower than that.

According to this article on the history of climate sensitivity there hasn't actually been much revision to the estimate, it was established as in the range of 1.5 to 4.5 in 1979, and the most recent IPCC report (5th) has the range as 1.5 to 4.5.

In short, the specific predictions of AGW have been falsified by observed reality.

The main problem here is that the specific predictions of AGW have not been proven accurate by observed reality. There are some people claiming that if you cherry-pick the data, squint and tilt your head then the data doesn't look as good. But they are going to great lengths to create data that doesn't match the predictions. In the particular case you cite, they use one particular measurement, use an old, outdated copy of the data, ignore the inherent problems in the measurement, splicing, and orbital decay adjustments due to indirect nature of the measurements, and then cherry-pick a time segment for minimal warming. Just to get one piece of data that doesn't look like it matches the predictions, but it's all deliberate framing to cover up the underlying truth.

Who cares what the psychologists are skepticalscience have to say, what matters is that the AGW predictions do not match REALITY. Hence the skeptics were right and the Scienti

So, would you believe James Lovelock, the inventor of the Gaia Hypothesis and one of the earliest and loudest proponents of AGW who now says,

Nope, he's a nut job. He was a nut job when he was over reacting to global warming and how he's a nut job who denies global warming. In any case, if you read the interview, he seems to think climate change is irrelevant because we will all be enslaved by intelligent robots before the end of the century... Which is clearly a prediction based on well researched science, right?

And the Gaia Hypothesis is an interesting idea, but as wikipedia puts it:

While the Gaia hypothesis was readily accepted by many in the environmentalist community, it has not been widely accepted within the scientific community. Among its most prominent critics are the evolutionary biologists Richard Dawkins, Ford Doolittle, and Stephen Jay Gould – notable, given the diversity of this trio's views on other scientific matters. These (and other) critics have questioned how natural selection operating on individual organisms can lead to the evolution of planetary-scale homeostasis.

I cannot get a more Left-leaning source than this, and even they have finally realized that the climate is VASTLY more complex than a simple response to CO2 (let alone anthropogenic CO2).

Actually, what they have done is publish an interview with James Lovelock. It might be difficult for you to understand this, but interviewing someone is not an implicit endorsement of everything they say.

The number of you science denying alarmists is slowly decreasing, but you will cling to your cult of anthropogenic climate sin as long as you can.

That's a good thing if the number of science denying alarmists is decreasing, it gives fewer straw men for the likes of you to knock down. Of course, it also appears that the number of science denying climate change deniers is also decreasing, so if you are right, that's a win all around.

The majority of other scientists are no longer alarmed by the mostly-natural temperature increases since the end of the Little Ice Age.

That statement is humorously true, because the majority of scientists are definitely not alarmed about natural climate change. However, it's also misleading because the current change in the climate is actually about 100% anthropogenic over the last 60 years, if you look closely at the contributor graph on that page, you should notice that the natural factors are actually net-negative and the warming trend has nothing to do with the end of the Little Ice Age.

So, would you believe James Lovelock, the inventor of the Gaia Hypothesis and one of the earliest and loudest proponents of AGW who now says,

Nope, he's a nut job. He was a nut job when he was over reacting to global warming and how he's a nut job who denies global warming. In any case, if you read the interview, he seems to think climate change is irrelevant because we will all be enslaved by intelligent robots before the end of the century... Which is clearly a prediction based on well researched science, right?

And the Gaia Hypothesis is an interesting idea, but as wikipedia puts it:

While the Gaia hypothesis was readily accepted by many in the environmentalist community, it has not been widely accepted within the scientific community. Among its most prominent critics are the evolutionary biologists Richard Dawkins, Ford Doolittle, and Stephen Jay Gould – notable, given the diversity of this trio's views on other scientific matters. These (and other) critics have questioned how natural selection operating on individual organisms can lead to the evolution of planetary-scale homeostasis.

I cannot get a more Left-leaning source than this, and even they have finally realized that the climate is VASTLY more complex than a simple response to CO2 (let alone anthropogenic CO2).

Actually, what they have done is publish an interview with James Lovelock. It might be difficult for you to understand this, but interviewing someone is not an implicit endorsement of everything they say.

The number of you science denying alarmists is slowly decreasing, but you will cling to your cult of anthropogenic climate sin as long as you can.

That's a good thing if the number of science denying alarmists is decreasing, it gives fewer straw men for the likes of you to knock down. Of course, it also appears that the number of science denying climate change deniers is also decreasing, so if you are right, that's a win all around.

The majority of other scientists are no longer alarmed by the mostly-natural temperature increases since the end of the Little Ice Age.

That statement is humorously true, because the majority of scientists are definitely not alarmed about natural climate change. However, it's also misleading because the current change in the climate is actually about 100% anthropogenic over the last 60 years, if you look closely at the contributor graph on that page, you should notice that the natural factors are actually net-negative and the warming trend has nothing to do with the end of the Little Ice Age.

You have provided no evidence, You have only asserted your own opinion, that of a fanatical eco-loon.

Now, who is insulting whom?

I have a PhD in Physics. What do you have?

Well then, that explains everything.

you can wonder all you want, but these guys with a NOBEL PRIZE in Physics, the world's greatest aviation engineer, and a physicist who literally wrote the (graduate) textbook on atmospheric physics all think you are very, very WRONG:

Oh look, three phyicists who have literally spent several hours reading blogs on the internet about climate change are telling everyone who'll listen how the all of climate change research must be wrong according to some amazing insight they've had that clearly no one who's spent years studying the topic would ever think of. Meanwhile, pretty much every published article on climate change in the last decade and every researcher active in the field of climate science says the opposite of these three guys, but we should definitely go with the non-expert opinions of rambling physicists.

Frankly, there is no point in continuing this conversation, you refuse to acknowledge your errors and you are clearly a wingnut with your claims of communist environmental conspiracies, your worship of old physicists who speak about things they readily admit they haven't bothered to study at all, and your penchant for making wild claims which you refuse to back up with any evidence what so ever.