Slashdot Mirror
150th Anniversary of Greenhouse Climate Theory
An anonymous reader writes "It was 150 years ago that John Tyndall, one of history's truly great physicists, published a scientific paper with the far-from-snappy title On the Absorption and Radiation of Heat by Gases and Vapours, and on the Physical Connexion of Radiation, Absorption, and Conduction. The BBC has an article on John Tyndall and his contributions 150 years ago to the physics behind the study of climate change."
What truly makes me sad when I see things like this, is that it ultimately makes me think that a bit of science has been lying around for 150 years - and there are still people who try to disclaim it, pretend it simply isn't true and make all manner of excuses as to why it doesn't mean what it clearly states. All to either keep making money, keep doing what they have been doing or because it is simply easier to not have to change the way things are done.
Moved to http://soylentnews.org/. You are invited to join us too!
Yours in Christ,
Rick Perry
As a non-teabagger, I think this is totally unfair and stupid, and spineless. Rick Perry might have blind-spots, but name one person on this world who doesn't. He deserves some respect for his stand on racism, and also for speaking his mind on social security, even if you don't agree with him. There is some authenticity and guts there that the AC just doesn't have, and doesn't get.
The typical climate denier is like the 9/11 conspiracy theorist -- a mind that is never still, prone to hyperbole, and always clutching at straws. Kinda like what the AC just did.
Like all pain, suffering is a signal that something isn't right
I don't know about you, but I'd prefer to be able to go outside without being instantly sweaty, dehydrated, and suffering from heat exhaustion.
The basic science of global warming isn't too tough or very modern(clearly), although most people don't understand it very well. This article seems to make things fairly confusing as well, although the quote from Tyndall himself is pleasantly concise and clear: "heat in the state of light finds less resistance in penetrating the air, than in re-passing into the air when converted into non-luminous heat." My favorite explanation, I think, is how Carl Sagan explained it in Cosmos, which is roughly as follows:
The idea is that visible light hits the earth, and warms it up. Some of that light is reflected straight back, so it leaves the atmosphere the way it came in and we're done. A lot of that light, though, gets absorbed by trees or rocks or walruses, causing them to heat up. They'll slowly re-radiate it out again because of blackbody radiation (all things radiate continually, even the universe itself) but it will be in the form of lower energy, lower frequency wavelengths. This means that energy from visible light gets absorbed and often radiated back out again as infrared.
CO2 and other "greenhouse" gases let light in the visible part of the spectrum pass unimpeded, but they don't let IR through as easily. So, energy comes in but it can't get back out again.
On the other end, I assume people in Anchorage might enjoy warmer climate and palm trees ;-)
Everything I write is lies, read between the lines.
Svante Arrhenius "was the first to calculate on the heating of the Earth in 1903. But, he refers to Fourier, Pouillet and Tyndall as predecessors. He was the first person to predict that emissions of carbon dioxide from the burning of fossil fuels and other combustion processes would cause global warming. Arrhenius clearly believed that a warmer world would be a positive change. From that, the hot-house theory gained more attention. Nevertheless, until about 1960, most scientists dismissed the hot-house / greenhouse effect as implausible for the cause of ice ages as Milutin Milankovitch had presented a mechanism using orbital changes of the earth (Milankovitch cycles). Nowadays, the accepted explanation is that orbital forcing sets the timing for ice ages with CO2 acting as an essential amplifying feedback.
Arrhenius estimated that halving of CO2 would decrease temperatures by 4–5 C (Celsius) and a doubling of CO2 would cause a temperature rise of 5–6 C.[5] In his 1906 publication, Arrhenius adjusted the value downwards to 1.6 C (including water vapour feedback: 2.1 C). Recent (2007) estimates from IPCC say this value (the Climate sensitivity) is likely to be between 2 and 4.5 C. Arrhenius expected CO2 levels to rise at a rate given by emissions in his time. Since then, industrial carbon dioxide levels have risen at a much faster rate: Arrhenius expected CO2 doubling to take about 3000 years; it is now estimated in most scenarios to take about a century."
Some quotes:
"To a certain extent the temperature of the earth's surface, as we shall presently see, is conditioned by the properties of the atmosphere surrounding it, and particularly by the permeability of the latter for the rays of heat." (p46)
"That the atmospheric envelopes limit the heat losses from the planets had been suggested about 1800 by the great French physicist Fourier. His ideas were further developed afterwards by Pouillet and Tyndall. Their theory has been styled the hot-house theory, because they thought that the atmosphere acted after the manner of the glass panes of hot-houses." (p51)
"If the quantity of carbonic acid in the air should sink to one-half its present percentage, the temperature would fall by about 4; a diminution to one-quarter would reduce the temperature by 8. On the other hand, any doubling of the percentage of carbon dioxide in the air would raise the temperature of the earth's surface by 4; and if the carbon dioxide were increased fourfold, the temperature would rise by 8." (p53)
"Although the sea, by absorbing carbonic acid, acts as a regulator of huge capacity, which takes up about five-sixths of the produced carbonic acid, we yet recognize that the slight percentage of carbonic acid in the atmosphere may by the advances of industry be changed to a noticeable degree in the course of a few centuries." (p54)
"Since, now, warm ages have alternated with glacial periods, even after man appeared on the earth, we have to ask ourselves: Is it probable that we shall in the coming geological ages be visited by a new ice period that will drive us from our temperate countries into the hotter climates of Africa? There does not appear to be much ground for such an apprehension. The enormous combustion of coal by our industrial establishments suffices to increase the percentage of carbon dioxide in the air to a perceptible degree." (p61)
"We often hear lamentations that the coal stored up in the earth is wasted by the present generation without any thought of the future, and we are terrified by the awful destruction of life and property which has followed the volcanic eruptions of our days. We may find a kind of consolation in the consideration
So? This video is just a demonstration of a well-known effect. I couldn't care less if it was rendered or staged.
Watt has been exposed as a liar multiple times. Yet all you can offer is a 'proof' that a demonstration video is 'faked'.
Pathetic.
Wanker AC buys corporate big lie, quotes fallicious utterly biased denialist site film at 11:00.
... for some it was never conceived!
We know that global warming is happening. We also know that it has happened in the past.
I think that we can agree that human activity is contributing to it.
The big questions are:
What are the causes of global warming? I don't think that it is settled that human activity is the SOLE cause. There is still more science to do on this.
How much of an effect can a change in human activity have in solving global warming? Is it enough?
Is it worth putting our society (democracy) in jeopardy over it as it puts us in a distinct disadvantage over non-democratic countries, such as China. This can and, in some ways, has lead to international power shifts.
In my opinion, most debates today are concerned with these questions and not whether global warming is actually occurring.
"Look your Honour, we know he is a bad man, he sent these angry emails to his friends."
There as been numerous independent inquiries into this matter, and Phil Jones has been cleared in all cases. Guess *everybody* is in on the conspiracy, and only Steve McIntyre knows the "truth"
I wonder how easy it would be to assassinate your character by trolling through your emails. All we have to do is snip a sentence here and there, and then impugn your motives, and then the angry mob will take care of the rest.
You really gotta avoid information to hold on to opinions like yours.
Like all pain, suffering is a signal that something isn't right
No, thank you. There are plenty of mosquitoes up here already. But palm trees would be a nice addition to the few dominant tree species.
What a fucking loser. And you guys worship this clown.. such sad little people.
"Al Gore, the super-rich conniving businessman, selling a lie to make an even hugerest stack-a-cash! I heard he bought a beach-front house! He doesn't even believe in global warming! Oh that villain! Listen to me! I know what I'm talking about!!!!"
Yeah... that's what I think when people like you start talking about Al Gore.
Like all pain, suffering is a signal that something isn't right
Oh yes, and all those scientists are suffering from the confirmation bias, but the *real* scientists (who are out-numbered by intelligent designers) know the truth. Namely: that there can never be such a thing as an environmental issue, because we already know that people who think of these things are just crazy.
Like all pain, suffering is a signal that something isn't right
Just who worships Al Gore? This must be some obscure subculture or something because I don't really know anyone who thinks very highly of Gore (they may not dislike him, they may even have some basic respect for things he's done but they don't put him on a pedestal).
Or maybe it's like the Michael Moore thing, where lots of right-wing idiots (and trolls) thought everyone left of Mussolini worshiped Moore even though the reality of it was that we were slightly impressed by his documentaries but still had some issues with the movies as well as with Moore himself.
Greylisting is to SMTP as NAT is to IPv4
Yup, I've seen that canard around too - the warmist analog is that we have a consensus, and the science is settled, and that the time for action is now :)
This is exactly why I enjoyed our conversation about getting to a falsifiable hypothesis statement so much -> when we skip that part, both sides pretty much spend their time building straw men to burn, rather than trying to understand where the disconnect in communication is :)
Another favorite canard of both warmist and denier is "it's not [warming/cooling]! it's [freezing/sweltering] outside today!" :)
As a non teabagger I fuckin love it! Nothing I have seen of Perry elicits any respect at all.
Starvation is just going to get worse if current trends continue. One of the real problems with climate change is that if things do heat up or winds do change their patterns, there's the potential for many people to be starving, many of whom aren't presently starving.
As for the size of the problem, it's not that big, the solutions are largely there, it's just that there isn't the political will to do it in places like the US and China. The technology to deal with it has largely been developed, it's just very expensive in many cases and always more expensive in the short run than doing nothing at all.
Well first of all I think using words like truther and denier just brings in stupid partisan bullshit in what SHOULD be a healthy debate. Correct me if I'm wrong but I kinda thought science was supposed to educate, not be like religion where all that oppose dogma are labeled "other" and attacked?
Now here is what I personally have against the whole climate change, which make up your damned mind is it global warming or global cooling? Climate change is a cop out, the climate has been changing for all of recorded history!
But here is the problem: The ONLY "solution" we have been offered is carbon credits by the likes of Rev Al Gore who neglects to tell you the "inconvenient truth" that he has set himself up to be a carbon billionaire, the same ones that cooked up credit default swaps, aka economy killers are writing the rules for the carbon derivatives market and the most telling to me? notice how YOU HAVE NEVER SEEN Rev Al or his buddies come out in favor of tariffs against India and China, even though both countries have given the finger to carbon scams and said they won't play the game? Why is that? Could it be because Gore and his friends are making crazy monies in China and India, and don't give a fuck that dumping carbon credit scams on top of an already broken economy would royally buttfuck us as long as they can leech a few more sheckles before they bail?
I'm all for using less, we only have one planet and we should take care of it. but the only things i've seen is more bullshit, more scams, more bubbles, more ways for the top 1% to rob the middle class and poor before taking their money and buying another polluting factory in China. Perhaps one should watch this video that explains why you are being had. Reduction yes, carbon scamming, no. oh and lets tax the living fuck out of anything coming from factories that pollute and stop allowing designed for the dump hardware off the boat, okay? hell Newegg is still selling brand new IP V4 routers! Talk about prebuilt garbage!
ACs don't waste your time replying, your posts are never seen by me.
If you went through my emails you would not find mention of "hiding" anything.
It's true that by removing context you can make a lot of stuff appear bad. But it's equally true that if you see enough smoke, there might just be a fire.
"There is more worth loving than we have strength to love." - Brian Jay Stanley
Starvation is just going to get worse if current trends continue. One of the real problems with climate change is that if things do heat up or winds do change their patterns, there's the potential for many people to be starving, many of whom aren't presently starving.
This is insane, you cannot rationally be proposing that argument. Historical records have had the average temperature warmer than now, and the result was an INCREASE in arable land across the globe and growth of civilization as a result. Warming, through history, has been a boon to people - not a curse.
Now IF people were right about a huge temperature increase there might be problems. But forecasts are constantly being revised downward, and the runaway model is all but forgotten by the AGW crowd. Do you really think the ice caps will be gone in three years? Because just three years ago, people were claiming they'd be gone in six...
"There is more worth loving than we have strength to love." - Brian Jay Stanley
Climate has always changed, and we've always had to adapt in order to avoid starvation. To think that if we were to make energy so expensive that developing nations couldn't even afford to cook their food, that somehow we'll stop climate from ever changing again is kind of silly.
Until technology arrives that can beat natural petroleum products on affordability per kWh, moving to these more advanced technologies is a surefire recipe for increased world poverty. The rest of the world knows that.
We've been able to predict the climate since at least 1988. These projections were made in 1988: http://www.realclimate.org/images/Hansen06_fig2.jpg . The different "scenarios" refer to whether we'd increase CO2 production dramatically (A), reduce it dramatically (C), or continue business as usual (B). We continued as usual, and temperatures have followed right along scenario B.
It's already cheaper to drive your car on electricity. I've heard it said a gallon of gas equivalent amount of electricity us under $2. Now we just need better battery technology which is coming. Some coal plant proposals were recently abandoned when it became apparent that solar PV power will likely be cheaper than coal around 2020.
Wow, you changed your sig
"First they came for the slanderers and i said nothing."
Damned Yankees, never did know what to do on a nice warm day. Its called sweet tea, and when added with a shade tree or even better an innertube and a creek is a damned fine way to enjoy a nice sunny day son!
Just dig you a pit, have you some hobo BBQ, fire up a fatty or crack a cold one (whichever floats your boat) and you and your sweetie just float the day away. Dang Yankees just don't know what's good, that's what it is.
ACs don't waste your time replying, your posts are never seen by me.
the same ones that cooked up credit default swaps, aka economy killers are writing the rules for the carbon derivatives market
So, just to verify -- You do understand that credit default swaps "killed the economy" by allowing the system to take on more risk than was prudent, and then transferring that risk to future taxpayers via government bailouts.
So, are you concerned that carbon markets might suffer the same fate, by being too lax and allowing carbon producers to take on too much risk of climate change at the expense of the future generations who will have to pay for it?
"I assumed blithely that there were no elves out there in the darkness"
Okay, so here's the problem - "cheaper than coal" can mean either we've made coal more expensive, or that solar has become cheaper in absolute terms. While I'll agree the first is possible, the second is highly unlikely.
http://greenecon.net/understanding-the-cost-of-solar-energy/energy_economics.html
1 ton of coal costs $36 = $0.006 per KWH
$45,000 5KW solar energy system produces about 119,246 KWH of electric over its lifespan meaning the average cost equals $0.38 per KWH.
We're talking an order of magnitude there.
So while coal fired electricity may be cheaper than liquid gasoline with current technology, you're still stuck on cheap energy coming from sources that emit CO2.
... spend their time building straw men to burn, rather than trying to understand where the disconnect in communication is :)
You know that burning straw men in arguments is very bad for climate change, right?
"Historical records have had the average temperature warmer than now"
That may be true in another world of the many-worlds multiverse. Not this one.
Not globally, not even for the Northern Hemisphere, not for any climatically meaningful interpretation of "now".
Really, people, this is not hard. Google for Spencer Weart, read his website, then google Skeptical Science and read John Cook's web site.
"the ice caps . . . just three years ago, people were claiming they'd be gone in six [years]..."
Aha. I see the problem: reading comprehension. It was not ice caps but Arctic sea ice that was exercising the imaginations of bloggers. Cryosphere researchers expect the ice caps to last thousands of years -- tens of thousands of years, in the case of the Antarctic ice cap.
using words like truther and denier just brings in stupid partisan bullshit in what SHOULD be a healthy debate
This would be much more convincing if the rest of your post weren't exactly the kind of ignorant, paranoid rant that causes people to be labeled deniers in the first place.
The correlation between ignorance of statistics and using "correlation is not causation" as an argument is close to 1.
Static analyses are great fun, but they are misleading.
PV cells have been decreasing in cost at the rate of 22% per doubling of production capacity for three decades now. There are good reasons to think that this trend will continue. Since PV now provides less than 0.03% of global energy, there's plenty of room for ten more doublings. That gets us down to under ten percent of current PV costs.
Balance-of-system costs (inverters, support structures, installation costs, and especially permits/approvals) have decreased more slowly than PV costs in the past, primarily because they used to be negligible. Now they are about the same size as PV cost, and lo and behold, people are starting to work on getting them down.
Now, details.
"1 ton of coal costs $36 = $0.006 per KWH"
So why is it that coal-fired power stations don't charge any less than $0.04 per kWh? Highway robbery!
You are -- or rather Green Econ is, please put quote markers on your quotes, and quote them properly -- comparing the cost of the coal to the capital cost of a PV plant, not the cost of its fuel, sunlight. The correct comparison is the capital costs of coal mines, railroads, and power stations versus the capital costs of PV installations. Capital cost is why coal-fired power stations charge 0.04, and they couldn't charge much less if the coal was free.
Green Econ is a shill for the coal industry, but only fools the uncritical. Good critical thinking practice for you!
When someone is able to predict roughly what the climate, not local weather, will do for a few years - then I might take them seriously.
Errm, thanks for proving you have no idea what you are talking about. "A few years" isn't climate, it's random fluctuations.
Fandroids hate facts.
... spend their time building straw men to burn, rather than trying to understand where the disconnect in communication is :)
You know that burning straw men in arguments is very bad for climate change, right?
Don't be stupid - straw is carbon neutral.
Watch this Heartland Institute video
Actually, look closer at your graph - we've done B, and we've gotten less than C.
http://stevengoddard.wordpress.com/2011/01/20/rommcook-prosecute-themselves/
The fact that when he "put the graph at the same scale as Hansen’s predictions", the measured temps of the past don't even remotely match up shows he's full of it. And if you fell for it, you are even dumber than I thought.
Fandroids hate facts.
Are you serious? The current temperature is below Hansen's ZERO EMISSIONS SCENARIO. In other words, if when Hansen made his prediction we started emitting ZERO CO2 into the atmosphere, what would be the result? As you can see, according to his prediction, CO2 is not driving temperature!
There as been numerous independent inquiries into this matter, and Phil Jones has been cleared in all cases.
I contest the word independent in the sentence above. We knew the result of these inquiries before it was published.
So you admit you (collective) knew he was innocent, and you made the stuff up to make it look like he wasn't. Thanks for the confirmation.
Fandroids hate facts.
using words like truther and denier just brings in stupid partisan bullshit in what SHOULD be a healthy debate
This would be much more convincing if the rest of your post weren't exactly the kind of ignorant, paranoid rant that causes people to be labeled deniers in the first place.
I would have said that it would be more convincing if "Al Gore" wasn't always preceded with "Reverend". Unless I'm mistaken, he's not a priest.
Would choking on your strawman be sufficient?
So now all it takes to get respect is to have an opinion, however stupid?
Well, it is my opinion that is ridiculous.
You are welcome on my lawn.
I'm assuming it's a sort of projectionism. Many on the far right lionize Ronald Reagan and Bill O'Reilly to such a degree that they assume that the left must have golden calves of their own that they absolutely worship.
Libertarians somehow believe that private businesses should be stronger than governments but weaker than individuals.
but they don't put him on a pedestal
He was awarded the Nobel Peace Prize. If that's not putting somebody on a pedestal I don't know what is.
Well first of all I think using words like truther and denier just brings in stupid partisan bullshit in what SHOULD be a healthy debate.
I agree, but that's the sort of thing that happens when it's long past the time that "healthy debate" should have ended. Suppose every test indicates you've got cancer, and every doctor you've seen says you've got cancer. Locking into the position that you don't have cancer is not "healthy debate". It's very unhealthy debate, especially when the tumor is visible on your skin.
Now here is what I personally have against the whole climate change, which make up your damned mind is it global warming or global cooling?
Strawman and beside the point. global cooling was never a widely accepted theory
Climate change is a cop out, the climate has been changing for all of recorded history!
Also beside the point. Climate is changing at an unprecedented rate. This change is dues to human CO2 emissions.
The ONLY "solution" we have been offered is carbon credits
Beside the point, and entirely untrue. It's beside the point because you're using your displeasure for the solution as evidence the problem doesn't exists. Carbon credits were chosen by politicians as the only solution that would satisfy conservatives. Many other solutions were offered. They were all rejected because they weren't "market based". Frankly, a revenue neutral carbon tax is a better solution, but conservatives wouldn't go for it because it has the word "tax" in it. But, even if the solution was free donuts, I'm guessing you would oppose it.
Support SETI@home
Actually, credit default swaps were a way for investment banks to reduce risk. Being an entirely unregulated instrument, some people decided they could buy them up even without holding the securities they were protecting. It became like a giant, unregulated way to short stocks, but it could be done so that short bets were many times greater than the value of an entire company. They're not really comparable to carbon credit markets, other than another way for the usual suspects to make money without creating any value.
A better comparison would be the mortgage-backed securities (even though, initially, there was some real value). They were trading these things and saying they were worth $X. But very soon, since these things were trading in a huge bubble, it was clear that the basis of these securities (the ability of the working people to continue paying on over-inflated mortgages with increasing interest rates) simply didn't exist. Not only that, much of the funding for the entire bubble came from the same middle-class workers as tax-deferred retirement and other savings. So when the house of cards finally fell, it meant the middle class lost their homes and savings, and a bunch of the elites became much wealthier and the Federal government got more powerful. This is by design.
The design for "Carbon Credits" is exactly the same. It's a scheme that assumes the working middle class will have the ability to pay higher and higher prices for energy of all kinds. The traders (same elites that made all the money in the last scam) will be the only ones making money. Some people buy the notion that these new increasing costs will somehow cause a miracle to occur and carbon-neutral energy will be suddenly cheap and abundant, but all the schemes devised so far ONLY shift costs for producers - the costs to consumers - because of the way the grid, consumer goods, transportation infrastructure, etc - always goes up for all energy use, even if some producers are shifting more to "carbon free" energy generation.
So, yes, it's a scam, it won't work because the people that work for a living simply won't be able to come up with the resources to fund it, and in the end it just means even greater wealth disparity and an even more decimated middle class. But, of course, that's what most of the elites want - no middle class. They just need enough serfs to keep the systems working.
"Somebody has to do something. It's just incredibly pathetic it has to be us."
--- Jerry Garcia
using words like truther and denier just brings in stupid partisan bullshit in what SHOULD be a healthy debate
This would be much more convincing if the rest of your post weren't exactly the kind of ignorant, paranoid rant that causes people to be labeled deniers in the first place.
I thought his post was very insightful, and pointed out a lot of the issues around why people are skeptical that there's any AGW issue at all. But of course here on /., a one-sentence name-calling bash with no basis can get modded up as "Insightful", while a well thought-out, rational discussion of an issue with reference can get modded as "Flamebait", just because of the topic.
I'd expect now to get this modded "off-topic" since I've diverted into a discussion of post moderation, but the moderation system never seems to work on AGW stories, so I should really just expect randomness.
"Somebody has to do something. It's just incredibly pathetic it has to be us."
--- Jerry Garcia
I would have said that it would be more convincing if "Al Gore" wasn't always preceded with "Reverend". Unless I'm mistaken, he's not a priest.
He could be, these days you can get ordained via the internet. Although the ULC wants a lot more money than they used to for your credentials, which you used to be able to just print out.
"You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
Don't be stupid - straw is carbon neutral.
Right, I supposed it baled and delivered itself to this flamewar? Won't someone think of the poor electrons?
"You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
As a non teabagger I fuckin love it! Nothing I have seen of Perry elicits any respect at all.
As a member of the original grassroots Ron Paul Tea Party of 2007, I couldn't agree with you more.
"Somebody has to do something. It's just incredibly pathetic it has to be us."
--- Jerry Garcia
You two yeses are in accord with science. You first two nos are a denial of scientific fact. Your third no makes absolutely no sense, but is also a denial of science.
Support SETI@home
WarmMonger
+1
"Somebody has to do something. It's just incredibly pathetic it has to be us."
--- Jerry Garcia
So now all it takes to get respect is to have an opinion, however stupid?
Well, it is my opinion that is ridiculous.
I believe what he was criticized for was calling social security a ponzi scheme. Other than the fact that all the "investors" are compelled into participating, I fail to see how SS is not like a ponzi scheme.
"Somebody has to do something. It's just incredibly pathetic it has to be us."
--- Jerry Garcia
"If AGW has a similar body of evidence, it would not be hotly contested today."
Pop over here:
http://www.aip.org/history/climate/co2.htm
And then wonder why you're using the fact that it is being hotly debated as PROOF AGW hasn't got the history of Evolution by Natural Selection.
the same ones that cooked up credit default swaps, aka economy killers are writing the rules for the carbon derivatives market
So who else is qualified to design such a market? They're the ones with the experience.
You don't understand what "killed" the economy. Credit default swaps didn't even though investors didn't properly understand them. It was the 50 to 1 or more leverage that some groups had. At that amount of leverage, if my investments unexpectedly decline by a merely 2%, then I have lost all my wealth. If the investments decline further, then my lenders have lost wealth as well. If they were highly leveraged as well, then the effects of my decline will continue through them to their lenders. It's that simple.
I believe you perfectly understood, and that you on-purpose twist my words. But I'll make it clear anyway.
Phil Jones never claimed the emails were forged, he admitted the messages were from him. The results of investigation were made-up, and since we knew who they were, we guessed the result of them before their claims that Phil was clear. He was not, and we don't need a commission to claim anything to understand it.
When someone is able to predict roughly what the climate, not local weather, will do for a few years - then I might take them seriously.
Errm, thanks for proving you have no idea what you are talking about. "A few years" isn't climate, it's random fluctuations.
Yes, you can't dismiss AGW simply because random fluctuations depart from the warming predictions!! The science is incontrovertible!
"Somebody has to do something. It's just incredibly pathetic it has to be us."
--- Jerry Garcia
Because of course there is only one true past temperature set, right, and that's the one Hansen published :)
Hansen was wrong. Not just a little wrong, but tremendously wrong. You've got two choices now:
A) consider Hansen falsified, and pick another model (or another base hypothesis entirely) to bet on that had a better prediction accuracy;
B) make ad hoc special pleadings to preserve Hansen's model even as it diverges from reality.
Pick your poison! :)
There are fanciful reasons to think that this trend will continue, but hey, if it does happen, great! In the meantime, the idea that we can simply subsidize our way to affordability makes energy more expensive, increases poverty, and makes humanity less able to cope with natural climate change. In fact, any subsidies only serve to reduce the market pressures for greater innovation and price efficiency.
The ultimate good here is cheap energy. Not just "cheaper than " energy thanks to subsidies, or taxes, or regulation, but absolutely cheaper energy. When every man woman and child on the planet can afford the same amount of energy as your average US citizen, then we'll have nothing but 1st world nations.
Let's talk about scientific facts - what observations would falsify your hypothesis that climate changes are primarily controlled by human activity, and that a warmer world will cause more harm than benefit to humanity or the biosphere as a whole?
Or are you simply asserting these things as true, no matter what observational data we may ever record?
Because of course there is only one true past temperature set, right, and that's the one Hansen published :)
More prove you have no idea what you are talking about. You are digging yourself in deeper and deeper.
Fandroids hate facts.
Turning a scientific topic into a political one with the first post: just like in real life climate debates!
I believe you perfectly understood, and that you on-purpose twist my words. But I'll make it clear anyway. Phil Jones never claimed the emails were forged, he admitted the messages were from him. The results of investigation were made-up, and since we knew who they were, we guessed the result of them before their claims that Phil was clear. He was not, and we don't need a commission to claim anything to understand it.
Boo-ooh-hooh, the mean man twisted my words. Coming from the man who has to twist my words: I never even remotely hinted that the emails were forged. Either you are an idiot who can't read, or you have again proven my point that you are liars.
Fandroids hate facts.
"I'd venture to say the typical "climate denier" is more often denying that humanity is in control of the climate"
Only once their denials of any climate change even occurring have been proven wrong.
Sir, I wish I had mod points!
Well played!
I'm personally not buying the whole "Global Warming" bit, and I felt Al Gore's film was based primarily on FUD and Guilt (there were parts such as the little "story" about his child... irrelevant) and known-massaged numbers. Before somebody jumps up and down and screams "denier" or some other goofy label - let's be clear that I think there is some "Global Climate Change" going on, which we may or may not contributing to. The evidence has been shown both ways, and honestly I'm having a REALLY hard time believing either side considering all the bogus political grandstanding they've both had. It's time to remove the vested interests and get some real science done to figure out if we're gonna cook, cool, or just have to do this thing we've been doing for a few thousand years called Adapt. That's my two hopefully unbiased cents.
Agreed, though I think it will be a long time (likely centuries) really before we really have an answer. In the mean-time, we'll be figuring out the various cyclic events - we've generally understood the 10-year cycles, but don't have any real grasp on the 50, 100, or greater cycles. (And no, looking a core samples from trees and ice, etc are not going to give you the information you need to determine those cycles as there is a lot more information required than will be able to be retrieved from those kinds of data points however interesting they may be.)
Truth is like the sun. You can shut it out for a time, but it ain't goin' away. - Elvis Presley (source: imdb.com)
There are fanciful reasons to think that this trend will continue ...
It worked out pretty well in the case of Moore's Law. Solar power is just another use of semiconductors. We'll see.
One problem with fossil fuels is that you don't pay the true cost of using them. How much does it cost in terms of health effects and pollution that don't get included in what you pay?
If so, I agree. If not, shut up you pathetic little bagger.
Perhaps you should have someone help you read the definition of ponzi scheme in the dictionary then. Remember, the feelings of an uninformed idiot doe not have any effect on reality.
Perhaps you should have someone help you read the definition of ponzi scheme in the dictionary then.
Perhaps you should do so yourself. Here it is as a reminder:
This precisely defines Social Security today. I see you took no effort to refute that, only a lame attempt at name-calling and insults, typical of unthinking defenders of ideological positions that defy common sense.
"Somebody has to do something. It's just incredibly pathetic it has to be us."
--- Jerry Garcia
Using SS as a citation is counter-productive in any debate with anyone truly skeptical, too many ad hominems. too many strawmans, too many comments deleted, to many posting edited years afterwords, to except any degree of credibility from them.
Apocalypse Cancelled, Sorry, No Ticket Refunds
By that definition, every insurance policy, every bank savings account, every publicly traded business in fact, is a "ponzi scheme".
Capitalism, in fact is a ponzi scheme too, by that definition.
The main part that's missing from your definition is that the investors don't know how the scheme is working. The way social security works is public information.
Further, by definition a ponzi scheme is unsustainable. Social Security is perfectly sustainable. Even if absolutely nothing is done to fix it, it will be able to pay out benefits for the next 30 years. And with very minor tweaking it can be made sustainable indefinitely.
It's nothing more or less than an insurance policy.
I won't get into the argument with you about whether or not the trust fund full of AAA Treasury Bonds is actually worth anything or not, because most people only know what they hear on the AM radio or Fox News, and that information is wrong.
You are welcome on my lawn.
Rev Al Gore who neglects to tell you the "inconvenient truth" that he has set himself up to be a carbon billionaire
It's called commitment, or putting your money where your mouth is. You know, like Dick Cheney being heavily invested in oil and pushing an agenda to help his bottom line, except that Al Gore isn't denying or hiding his support of green energy. But, hey... If you loathe Al Gore, go ahead and twist his integrity into some tin foil hat conspiracy.
Ask me about my sig!
SS pays beneficiaries from current income, plus some from "savings". (the unfortunate part is that the savings are in Treasury notes and the Federal government might not have the money to pay them off). The difference between payouts and income is publicly accounted for and deducted from or added to the savings or debt.
Employers pay employees from current income, plus some savings or borrowings to tide over rough spots when income lags. The difference between payroll out and income is accounted for and deducted from or added to the savings or debt.
Ponzi schemes pay "interest" and "dividends" from new investor capital. The payouts are not accounted for and everyone is led to believe that their original investment is still there available to be withdrawn whenever they want.
Social Security may be in trouble, but it is not a Ponzi scheme by any stretch of the imagination.
(And, assuming the Feds can pay back SS, the projected shortfall can be patched by small increases in retirement age, and/or the top income for SS tax cutoff.)
By that definition, every insurance policy, every bank savings account, every publicly traded business in fact, is a "ponzi scheme".
Not true. Insurance is a gamble. Some policy holders never see any return at all (if they never need to make a claim). Return on bank savings come from LOANS to different customers who repay the loans at a MUCH higher interest than the bank is paying on savings. Publicly traded business create wealth by making value products out of less valuable raw materials. The comparison is bogus. A ponzi scheme creates nothing - it spends the money invested, and only returns money to early investors to FOOL them into thinking that wealth is being created (or at least not just being lost).
Capitalism, in fact is a ponzi scheme too, by that definition.
You're stuck on this myth that nothing ever gains value, and capitalism is a zero-sum game where everyone tries to gain the largest piece of pie. That's not how it works (at least, that's not how it has worked - what the elites run today and claim is "capitalism" notwithstanding).
The main part that's missing from your definition is that the investors don't know how the scheme is working. The way social security works is public information.
Sort of. But then there's the claim about the "Social Security Trust Fund", which is really just numbers in a book that have to be paid by other taxes somewhere down the road.
Further, by definition a ponzi scheme is unsustainable. Social Security is perfectly sustainable.
Not at all. It can be reformed to last, but in its current form it will bankrupt the workers to support the retired. There will simply be too many retirees and not enough workers if the current trends (and tax / payouts) continue as-is.
It's nothing more or less than an insurance policy.
Again, unclear on the "insurance" concept. Sure, some people will die before age 65, but the average life expectancy is much higher than that today, and could keep getting longer. And everybody that lives will get benefits.
I won't get into the argument with you about whether or not the trust fund full of AAA Treasury Bonds is actually worth anything or not, because most people only know what they hear on the AM radio or Fox News, and that information is wrong.
They are as good as the willingness (and ability) of the US taxpayer to continue paying taxes. How many generations out are now required to deal with the existing liabilities?
"Somebody has to do something. It's just incredibly pathetic it has to be us."
--- Jerry Garcia
That's just a difference in words without a distinction. "Investor capital" is the same as "income" from the other side. The only difference you've come up with is that debts to SS (Treasury notes) is written down, so we know there's a $15 trillion that has to come from new taxes to make up the money, and in a Ponzi scheme it's hidden.
I still think that's a distinction without a difference.
"Somebody has to do something. It's just incredibly pathetic it has to be us."
--- Jerry Garcia
Rev Al Gore
Stopped reading here. You ask people to quit calling names like "truther" and "denier," then go on and do the same fucking thing. You're part of the problem you're complaining about.
--Jeremy
Jesus was a liberal
You keep trying to paint the group as this or that when the reason people from all political walks are attracted to the group is simplicity of purpose.
And you paint everyone who thinks global warming is an issue we should be concerned about as a WarmMonger. Guess that makes you about even.
--Jeremy
Jesus was a liberal
Look a little deeper. The guy who is complaining that the EPA is calling hay a pollutant is running a feedlot for cattle. The EPA may be going overboard in this situation but it didn't declare hay a pollutant. http://www.agweek.com/event/article/id/19061/
Then perhaps you should read the wikipedia article describing what a ponzi scheme is.
Social Security is, instead, a generally sustainable inter-generational wealth transfer system.
It's funny that I put forth a neutral point and even had a point of agreement, no angry replies and somehow managed to get rated troll. Amazing where slashdot has gone - here's to nostalgia and my final log-out. Cheers to anybody still around who actually contributes.
Cheers, DH.
No, it's not likely that a warmer world will cause more harm than benefit to humanity or the biosphere as a whole.
That's just pure speculation on your part since the current biota has never had to deal with a climate like we will have in 2100.
But to think that our influence can overwhelm a system that has been changing for billions of years before humanity has existed?
Completely insane, I know. The mere thought that a 7-billion-strong industrialized civilization could pull large amounts of fossil fuels out of the ground and burn them is laughable!
"When information is power, privacy is freedom" - Jah-Wren Ryel
Your emails are likely unremarkable enough that there wouldn't be anything worth going through. Just like 99% of the rest of us.
And I like that you didn't address the point that multiple independent panels have cleared him of any wrongdoing. Gotta keep beatin' that drum, eh?
--Jeremy
Jesus was a liberal
Funny enough, the "climate change" label was brought about by the Bush administration for political reasons. It was a euphemism requested by the Republicans.
Also your hate for Al Gore is understandable, in the long run he'll be seen as doing far more harm than good. I've written about the damage he's done before.
"When information is power, privacy is freedom" - Jah-Wren Ryel
It was never really grassroots.
"When information is power, privacy is freedom" - Jah-Wren Ryel
No, it's not likely that climate changes are primarily controlled by human activity, as opposed to myriad non-human factors.
Yeah when are those aliens gonna put some catalytic converters on their UFOs. Bunch shiny-jumpsuited ricers...
"When information is power, privacy is freedom" - Jah-Wren Ryel
So recognizing someone's work and accomplishments is the same thing as worshiping them as a religious symbol? And the fact that some panel (the Nobel Committee) awards someone an international prize means that everyone else who respects him idolizes him?
--Jeremy
Jesus was a liberal
Yes, but credit default swaps were meant to hedge against such over-leveraging. That they weren't backed by anything at all is what made them so destructive. It's unlikely lenders would've gambled so much without the insurance of credit default swaps. But almost all kinds of insurance are heavily regulated and for good reason. AIG is what happens when you fashion a financial instrument that works like an insurance policy but has no regulation to guarantee the protection it promises.
Check out my world simulator thingy.
Reading comprehension failure.
"Somebody has to do something. It's just incredibly pathetic it has to be us."
--- Jerry Garcia
Life expectancy has gone up in the aggregate, but those gains have not been felt appreciably among the working class or those in poverty--in other words, those who would need Social Security the most aren't really living much longer, and often not long enough to get it in the first place. If you means-test it for everyone, you can avoid handing it out to people who don't need it. We can also remove the income cap that currently applies to the payroll deduction so all income is taxed.
Just those two changes would go a long way toward ensuring Social Security's long-term stability.
Check out my world simulator thingy.
Are you sure you don't use any words that could be interpreted as deceptive when read by an audience ignorant of your specialized field and eager to make it out to be a farce? You don't use hide, trick, cover, conceal, nothing like that?
"When information is power, privacy is freedom" - Jah-Wren Ryel
Well help me out. Was this some unrelated group that went by the same name, or are you using some alternative meaning of "grassroots?"
"When information is power, privacy is freedom" - Jah-Wren Ryel
Two thoughts:
1) if you truly believe petroleum has only biogenic origin, then by releasing CO2 back into the atmosphere, we're simply restoring the natural state of the earth - that CO2 came from those nasty plants and animals that fixed it in solid form, robbing the atmosphere of its rightful share of the gas :)
2) If you think a 7-billion strong industrialized civilization is significant, go google for how much CO2 is respirated by insects on this planet compared to CO2 generated by humanity.
Perspective is a wonderful thing :)
Bingo. If the current trends (and tax / payouts) continue as is, we're going to have a lot bigger problems than the social security system.
Do you have a reason to believe the current trends will continue?
You are welcome on my lawn.
1) if you truly believe petroleum has only biogenic origin, then by releasing CO2 back into the atmosphere, we're simply restoring the natural state of the earth - that CO2 came from those nasty plants and animals that fixed it in solid form, robbing the atmosphere of its rightful share of the gas :)
The earth's earliest lifeforms were very different. Oxygen was toxic to them. Likewise you would choke and die in their world.
2) If you think a 7-billion strong industrialized civilization is significant, go google for how much CO2 is respirated by insects on this planet compared to CO2 generated by humanity.
ROFLMAO you can't make this shit up! XD
"When information is power, privacy is freedom" - Jah-Wren Ryel
There are plenty of "unrelated groups" that call themselves "Tea Party", since it became popular, most of them establishment Republican douchebags, PACs, and also-rans looking to make a buck. Check your dates. "Never grassroots" presupposes dates long AFTER the start of the grassroots Tea Parties.
"Somebody has to do something. It's just incredibly pathetic it has to be us."
--- Jerry Garcia
Bingo. If the current trends (and tax / payouts) continue as is, we're going to have a lot bigger problems than the social security system.
Do you have a reason to believe the current trends will continue?
All recent (a couple of decades) of history?
"Somebody has to do something. It's just incredibly pathetic it has to be us."
--- Jerry Garcia
So are you now claiming that instead of dead dinosaurs and plants, natural petroleum products are the remains of cyanobacteria?
How old do you think this biogenic petroleum actually is?
I curious... how was his post insightful?
There wasn't any scientific content at all. It was all about economics and politics.
Here's a tip for those who have issues with 'climate change'... don't conflate the scientific debate (which is generally about understanding the problem) with the political debate (which is generally around what to do about it).
Whether or not the science is valid has nothing at all to do with what Al Gore says or does, carbon credits, taxes etc etc. Railing against the science purely because you don't like the political ramifications is not rational (this happens right across the political spectrum), as is trying to refute the science by claiming the Rev Al Gore will be a carbon billionaire - so what? How the hell does that affect the science?
If you have a problem with the science, debate the science itself.
There wasn't any scientific content at all. It was all about economics and politics.
That's pretty much what Anthropogenic Climate Change is all about now.
Railing against the science purely because you don't like the political ramifications
There you go. There ARE no "political ramifications" of the science - only political agendas USING the science to justify a new political regime.
as is trying to refute the science by claiming the Rev Al Gore will be a carbon billionaire - so what? How the hell does that affect the science?
It discredits the science and implies to the masses that the entire issue is made-up bullcrap. And the WarmMongers like Gore leave no room for debating what the best course of action might be. What Gore and his ilk never allow discussion of is whether it will cause more harm to expensive restrictions on all CO2 emissions and eliminate its use as quickly as possible, or instead put resources into mitigating the issues caused by a warming of the climate over the next 100 or 200 years.
"Somebody has to do something. It's just incredibly pathetic it has to be us."
--- Jerry Garcia
Actually yes it is that old:
http://www.abc.net.au/science/news/ancient/AncientRepublish_1385489.htm
And the source of the petroleum is entirely beside the point. It doesn't matter if it's biogenic, abiogenic or put there by Jesus to confuse us, if we bring it out of the ground and burn it, we're adding to the total CO2 in the atmosphere from an outside source - at the same time that we're burning rainforests clear, no less.
"When information is power, privacy is freedom" - Jah-Wren Ryel
Whether you agree or disagree with their point of view, Skeptical Science is valuable because it is well documented, providing citations to the original literature where you can check to see whether the statements are accurate and whether the alleged strawmen are actually made of straw.
It is an article of faith among many self-defined "skeptics" that climate models have so many free parameters that they can be tuned to show whatever you want. Yet even though several of these models are publicly available, no skeptic has ever managed to find a way to "tune" such a model such that it is consistent with the record of past climate, and yet does not predict substantial future warming.
To scientists, modeling is a discipline, a way of "sanity-checking" your ideas. It's easy to wave your hands and insist that something will or won't happen, but if the math doesn't work out, you are out of luck. So far, the skeptics have failed to pass the sanity check.
It sounds like you don't understand what a "null hypothesis" is. Some people seem to think that by declaring their own hypothesis the "null hypothesis," they automatically get a pass on the normal requirement to substantiate your hypothesis with plausible mechanisms and testable predictions. In reality, "null hypothesis" is a term from statistics, and it has nothing to do with mechanism. The "null hypothesis" specifically refers to the hypothesis of no change . So to talk about a "null hypothesis of natural climate change" is an oxymoron. The actual null hypothesis that climate does not ever change is readily excluded by fairly simple statistics. Once you are hypothesizing a change, natural or otherwise, then you do not have a null hypothesis--and you need to support your hypothesis in the scientific way: formulate a physically realistic model, describe it mathematically, and test it for consistency with observations.
So you personally don't have a problem with the actual science? You just don't like the "solutions" based on economic arguments? ie you think the economic analysis of costs/benefits etc from proponents of these solutions is faulty.
Fair enough.
I was just ranting against those that can't actually separate the validity of the science (ie studying what's actually happening) with the politics of the "solutions".
I responded to one phrase, "but they don't put him on a pedestal." Are you claiming that winning the Nobel Peace Prize doesn't count?
I've heard Glenn Beck referred to as ``Doctor'' multiple times on the internet and real life. Titles are in the eye of the beholder these days aparently.
...that after 150 years AGW theorists would actually be able to provide some *proof*....
Ferret
Sic gorgiamus allos subjectatos nunc
Yes, but credit default swaps were meant to hedge against such over-leveraging.
They were meant to hedge again defaults in the underlying security, which is a collection of bundled real estate loans. They weren't meant to hedge against the ridiculous leverage in the institutions both buying the REITs and issuing the credit default swaps.
While certainly there are those conspiracy theorists out there, I'd venture to say the typical "climate denier" is more often denying that humanity is in control of the climate
And yet another strawman. Who the hell claims mankind controls climate?
Fandroids hate facts.
You can argue as to whether we control it intentionally or unintentionally, but the general warmist trope is that more that 50% of climate change in the past 50-100 years was caused by human activity.
If you don't want me to attack strawmen, why don't you start off with a falsifiable hypothesis of catastrophic anthropogenic global warming you'd like to defend?
Wow, cool reference - although possibly not as airtight as the press release:
“It’s at least plausible that the 3.2 billion year old oil we found did in fact have an abiotic origin.” — Roger Buick, 2008 (Buick was one of the authors of the paper you referenced)
As for adding to the total CO2 in the atmosphere, I'll argue one that it's not really an "outside source" (that would be more like shipping CO2 from the planet Venus), it's part of the terrestrial carbon cycle. Now, the point could be made that somehow we're significantly disrupting the carbon cycle, but given the comparable amount of CO2 processed by say, insects versus the entirety of humanity and all of its activities including farming, I don't see us as being particularly significant.
Second, it seems that rainforests love the CO2 we're dumping:
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2011/09/29/plants-gobbling-up-co2-45-more-than-thought/
I'll refer to the Medieval Warm Period as an example of what kind of environment we might experience if current warming continues through 2100.
Of course, my assumptions about what 2100 will look like are probably much different than what your assumptions are, which is why this is such a sticky wicket. We may both agree in the simplest form of AGW, that there must be *some* positive effect, but until we put actual magnitudes on it, we're both just speculating :)
Actually taking the fossil fuels out of the ground is exactly like shipping it from Venus as far as the biosphere is concerned. On a terrestrial scale, yes it's part of a cycle, but that cycle is so slow that it's basically irrelevant - we can't rely on it to sequester carbon in an amount of time that's meaningful to human civilization.
I really hope the rainforests are gobbling up CO2 faster, that would be great, we need all the help we can get.
"When information is power, privacy is freedom" - Jah-Wren Ryel
Agreed. But the claim that this is true of climate models has no substance. While it seems to be an article of faith among self-styled skeptics that the models can predict whatever you choose, none of them have ever been able to provide any evidence to support this claim. The climate models are published; anybody can formulate their own or use one of the existing models. So if you believe that the hypothesis predicts every possible observation, there is a simple way to substantiate that claim:
Take one of the models, tweak the the parameters in any physically plausible way that you please, and show that you can come up with a version of the model that is consistent with the known climate record, and which does not predict warming.
That still isn't the same as "control the climate" - stop pretending words don't have a certain meaning just to fuck with the minds of the gullible. Or rather, stop being one of the gullible.
Fandroids hate facts.
I'll tell you why I hate the man, I've seen his house. Have you seen it? He is blowing about 20 to 30 TIMES what a family of 12 is blowing on that thing, has a fleet of SUVs, and then expects YOU to take the bus. Fuck off and die Rev Al, you hypocritical bastard, go fuck off and die. The ONLY one I have seen in the ENTIRE AGW mess walk the walk is Ed Begley JR, the only one. He is in a modest house with solar power, drives an electric car, lives as clean a life as he possibly can. HE I respect. Rev Al and his huckster bubble blowing friends can go fuck off.
ACs don't waste your time replying, your posts are never seen by me.
So you're now asserting that if we unintentionally control the climate, we're somehow not controlling the climate?
Words have meaning, and I'm not sure if you're clear on what "control" means. Here's some cheerful help:
http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/control
Take a look at 2a (to exercise restraining or directing influence over).
If you want to claim that humans have, through their actions, been responsible for greater than 50% of the warming over the past 50 or 100 years or whatever timescale you choose, you are claiming that natural climate change has *not* been in control of that additional warming.
Well, actually we've probably already surpassed the warmth that occurred during the MWP. On to the Ice Shelves post :)
The first is simple. Temperatures would have to diverge significantly from the profile expected from the human caused forcings. In other words if CO2 continues to rise, but temperatures drop for an extended period of time, that would falsify anthropogenic global warming. Two solar cycles without warming, or with cooling would kill it.
The second doesn't really need to be falsified until someone provides a reason (theory or model) that indicates there is a possibility that rapid climate change over much of the earth would be a good thing. There is absolutely no reason to believe it would be, and lots of recent evidence that it won't be. Short of that, it's like asking me to prove that release of an airborne version of the AIDS virus won't lead to the Earth becoming a stabe low population/high tech paradise. I can't prove it, but that's no reason to start weaponizing AIDS. "CO2 is plant food" doesn't cut it, primarily because it doesn't appear to stimulate growth in ways that result in carbon storage.
Support SETI@home
Fair enough - we've got near 15 years so far, so we can possibly falsify this in what, 9 more years?
Sorry, I can't let that one slide - asserting that the null hypothesis should be that warming is unequivocally bad for the biosphere and humanity is unjustified. At the very least, we can assert that a warmer world leads to more arable land and more plant life, and more support for all life - and we can look at the Medieval Warm Period and the Holocene optimum as evidence of that.
Strict scrutiny applies here. Put another way, just take the past 50 years, where we've observed a warming trend of about .13C per decade...so a little over .5C for the past 50 years. Asserting humans are responsible for half of that, we've got what, about 0.32C in the past 50 years?
Now demonstrate what benefit we could have had if global average temperature had not gone up .32C in the past 50 years.
As an example, we could look at crop yields: http://www.worldclimatereport.com/archive/previous_issues/vol3/v3n9/feature.htm
Or, we could look at cyclone activity: http://wattsupwiththat.com/2011/06/26/global-hurricane-activity-at-historical-record-lows-new-paper/
I'm more than happy to entertain any other metrics you'd choose to use, but we need to be specific here.
Fair enough - we've got near 15 years so far, so we can possibly falsify this in what, 9 more years?
We've already demolished your "theory" that temperatures have been falling. We demolish it 3 times a week. Temperatures are only falling if you pick outlier years as your starting and ending points or just plain ignore the data. Temperatures have been climbing steadily. Humans are responsible for significantly more than half of that.
Sorry, I can't let that one slide - asserting that the null hypothesis should be that warming is unequivocally bad for the biosphere and humanity is unjustified. At the very least, we can assert that a warmer world leads to more arable land and more plant life, and more support for all life - and we can look at the Medieval Warm Period and the Holocene optimum as evidence of that.
Didn't we just go through this one as well? This is more proof that you're not interested in reality, you're just trying to convince people who don't know the science that you could be right. First, you're assuming that because the word "optimum" is there, that somehow conditions world wide would be better that it is now. And to some extent you are right, but not because of temperature, because of stability. The climate was stable during the Holocene Optimum, and somewhat cooler than it is now. There was also an increase in humidity that restricted the growth of desert regions. There is no reason to believe the erratic climate we're creating will result in any wide spread benefits both because there won't be stability. There also won't be uniform increases or decreases in temperature across the globe. The medieval warm period isn't even worth mentioning because it was a regional effect, not a global one, so overall heat and moisture flows were probably not significantly different from the usual patterns.
Strict scrutiny applies here. Put another way, just take the past 50 years, where we've observed a warming trend of about .13C per decade...so a little over .5C for the past 50 years. Asserting humans are responsible for half of that, we've got what, about 0.32C in the past 50 years?
You haven't been paying attention. The natural forcings have been decreasing at about -0.05C/decade in that time. That makes humans responsible for 0.18C per decade in your estimate. Currently that's more like 0.23C per decade.
Now demonstrate what benefit we could have had if global average temperature had not gone up .32C in the past 50 years.
As soon as you demonstrate what benefit we could have had if it had gone up .64C in the past 50 years. In either case, it's beside the point. I don't need to prove the a hand grenade will damage a tank to show that a 500 pound bomb will.
As an example, we could look at crop yields: http://www.worldclimatereport.com/archive/previous_issues/vol3/v3n9/feature.htm
That's funny, because that article pretty convincingly shows that something besides climate was driving crop yields from 1950 to 1997. I know you're not stupid enough to miss that.
Or, we could look at cyclone activity: http://wattsupwiththat.com/2011/06/26/global-hurricane-activity-at-historical-record-lows-new-paper/
Nothing at Watts' site should ever be confused with objective science. It's often real science reported in a biased manner to make a point that isn't supported by the data. Hurricane activity is a regional effect that is not directly linked to global temperature. They also are not modeled in global climate models. They depend on small scale details of winds and ocean surface temperatures. Gr
Support SETI@home
The expected warming trend for the past 15 years hasn't been there, period. You were open to the idea of a lower trend than predicted, for two solar cycles, would falsify your hypothesis. Let's wait another 9 years, and then talk.
False. http://wattsupwiththat.com/2009/11/29/the-medieval-warm-period-a-global-phenonmena-unprecedented-warming-or-unprecedented-data-manipulation/
Argument by "you first?" Really? If you can't quantify any damage that has occurred over the past 50 years due to .32C temperature rise, why should I believe that there's going to be damage in the next 50 years if we have .32C temperature rise?
I'm more than happy to admit both benefit and harm are pure speculation - are you?
Speculation. There are myriad natural forcings we don't have any reasonable quantification for (which is really part of the problem).
Okay, so we'll admit that "catastrophe" as measured by world wide cyclonic activity increase isn't going to happen because of increased average global temperature...I was trying to help you with some possible quantitative harms you could measure, but so far, I don't see any.
Really? Skeptical science? And a bunch of papers on regional effects rather than global ones? Really?
Look, until you're able to *quantify* on a global scale what you mean as harm, you've got nothing but hand waving there. Modeled catastrophes, particularly on a regional level, do not reflect reality on a global level.
Put another way, if you're going to assert that there is a 5.74% increase in heatwave deaths, and then only look at 1989-2000 and only at 50 cities, you're not going to get much credibility. http://wattsupwiththat.com/2011/07/19/some-facts-about-deaths-due-to-heat-waves/
"In an article entitled, “The impact of global warming on health and mortality,” published in the Southern Medical Journal in 2004, W.R. Keatinge and G.C. Donaldson of Queen Mary’s School of Medicine and Dentistry at the University of London note:
“Cold-related deaths are far more numerous than heat-related deaths in the United States, Europe, and almost all countries outside the tropics, and almost all of them are due to common illnesses that are increased by cold.”
“From 1979 to 1997, extreme cold killed roughly twice as many Americans as heat waves, according to Indur Goklany of the U.S. Department of the Interior,” Singer and Avery write. “Cold spells, in other words, are twice as dangerous to our health as hot weather.”"
Also see: http://wattsupwiththat.com/2008/12/18/the-deadliest-us-natural-hazard-extreme-cold/
The expected warming trend for the past 15 years hasn't been there, period.
Why do you keep repeating this lie? The warming has continued.
Speculation. There are myriad natural forcings we don't have any reasonable quantification for (which is really part of the problem).
Not speculation. You don't need to quantify the myriad natural forcings. We can determine the sum of the natural forcings without knowing each individual one. If you have 85 cents, you don't need to know how many dimes you have to know if you can buy a candy bar.
[ many lies from wattsupwiththat.com ]
As I said before, Watts' site is deliberate misinformation. It distorts articles to make unsubstantiated points and ignores contradictory information. And you apparently cant tell the difference between a total and a rate of change.
Support SETI@home
In regards to warming trend over the past 15 years, and how well models predicted it:
http://www.worldclimatereport.com/index.php/2011/09/08/more-evidence-that-models-continue-to-show-too-much-recent-warming/
http://www.worldclimatereport.com/index.php/2011/09/06/new-paper-models-continue-to-show-too-much-recent-warming/
http://blog.sethroberts.net/2011/03/04/climate-model-predictions-and-what-happened/
http://www.c3headlines.com/predictionsforecasts/
You're missing the analogy. In order to find out how many pennies you have (man made forcings) and non-pennies you have (nickels, dimes and quarters) to make up your 85 cents, it doesn't *matter* what a candy bar costs - you need to be able to differentiate between the pennies and non-pennies.
You've made the assertion that you know, with absolute certainty, the ratio of non-natural forcing to natural forcings. Now play the science game and specify what observations would falsify your hypothesis.
In regards to warming trend over the past 15 years, and how well models predicted it:
Because you only read the works of liars, all you get is lies. A better reference is here. We are well within the forecast temperature envelope. But models do significantly underpredict current sea level rise rates.
You've made the assertion that you know, with absolute certainty, the ratio of non-natural forcing to natural forcings.
I have made no such assertion. As usual you are misrepresenting what I say. What I have essentially said is that we can measure the temperature change over time and we know how the human caused forcings have varied over time. The total natural forcings can be determined from those two items. It's a bit more complicated than simple subtraction, but it's a well understood procedure.
There's no way to know anything with absolute certainty, but with high probability (P>98%), the anthropogenic forcings are much larger in magnitude than the natural forcings. And it is likely (P>70%) that the natural forcings have decreased in the last 50 years.
Support SETI@home
You've got a temperature envelope on realclimate that could *cool* ever 10 years and still fit! Really? That's what you're going to hang your hat on?
And now that current sea level rise rates have been shown to mismatch the models, what is your next step?
a) assume the models are falsified, and start from new assumptions;
b) come up with an ad hoc special pleading to explain away the contrary observation.
I'll assert that you end up with B, not because it's particularly unreasonable, but because you've failed to come up with strictly falsifiable hypotheses - a GCM is made up of dozens of moving parts, and some completely disjoint primary assumptions. What we need is a clear list of all the primary assumptions, and what observations would falsify those assumptions.
We may understand how certain human activity has varied over time, but we have no reasonable chance of knowing which of those activities are forcings of any measurable magnitude. UHI, soot emissions, CO2 emissions, agriculture patterns, water policy and water management, and probably thousands of other human activities have all changed over time, and in some cases, we might even have decent measurements or estimates of it...but to understand the magnitude and sign of any of those assumed forcings, or even the total of those assumed forcings? That's a stretch.
An interesting post that might help speak to the idea of small forcings: http://wattsupwiththat.com/2011/10/04/the-1-solution/
Not sure if I understand what that means - are you saying natural variability has changed in the past 50 years? Or are you trying to say that natural variability over the past 50 years would have been negative on the temperature scale?
How would you falsify either of those assertions?
You've got a temperature envelope on real climate that could *cool* ever 10 years and still fit!
Look at it and see for yourself. IT HASN'T BEEN COOLING! And short duration (less than a decade or two) cooling is not necessarily inconsistent with global warming because we don't have absolute knowledge of heat content of the oceans. (Sometimes it is inconsistent with global warming, but not always). A warm day in winter doesn't falsify seasons.
And now that current sea level rise rates have been shown to mismatch the models, what is your next step? a) assume the models are falsified, and start from new assumptions;
You really don't understand how science works. You look at the possibilities to explain the difference. Sea level has been rising much more rapidly than expected. The obvious reason is that the oceans are warmer than we predicted. The water has expanded more that models from 12 years ago anticipated because of that. The rising waters have turned some land ice into floating ice. The amount of sea ice has also decreased more rapidly than expected because of that.
So yes, the models are falsified, and we build new models using what have learned (more rapid heat transfer to the oceans, slightly less mixing of surface with subsurface waters) and try to match the observations. So why aren't you worried that our models significantly underpredicted the amount of warming? Oh yeah, that's because you think that we're cooling. Now that your assumption has been falsified, what do you do? Let me guess: make the same claims again tomorrow despite all evidence to the contrary.
Support SETI@home
"not necessarily inconsistent" is the last refuge of scoundrels, I'm sure you'd agree :)
If you want to play the science game, let's hear what *is* inconsistent with catastrophic anthropogenic global warming.
And 50, or even 100 years of global warming doesn't falsify natural climate change.
Look at the graph again.
http://climate4you.com/images/UnivColorado%20MeanSeaLevelSince1992%20With1yrRunningAverage.gif
Sea level has been rising much as it has since we've left the Little Ice Age. What is so unexpected about that?
Except they're not - they're missing heat:
http://www.nodc.noaa.gov/OC5/3M_HEAT_CONTENT/heat_content55-07.png
The problem with that is that you've presented individual implementations of your hypothesis as falsified, but not the *basis* for your hypothesis. With an infinite variety of ad hoc special pleadings available to create an infinite variety of individual implementations, you've set up a tautology that can never be falsified.