BBO Discussion Forums: Climate change - BBO Discussion Forums

pardon double post

You exhale CO₂. We all do. So to reduce it, we all need to stop breathing.

blackshoe, on 2011-December-09, 14:53, said:

Not 100% sure that is the only solution.

PassedOut, on 2011-December-09, 15:03, said:

oh that would solve it, for sure, but it does seem a tad extreme... of course, only a little more extreme than some of the "solutions" i've read, such as taxing everyone until the earth's fever drops

luke warm, on 2011-December-09, 16:30, said:

luke warm, on 2011-December-09, 16:30, said:

The AMO (Atlantic Multidecadal Oscillation) having gone negative for the first time since 1996 heralds the "cold regime" of global climate. A cold PDO and being in a La Nina cycle, we can expect cooling as the AMO finishes off its warm cycle and plunges us into colder (NA) winters.

Isn't Nature grand? (And cheaper than taxation without reservation...)

Winstonm, on 2010-November-14, 21:51, said:

I agree!

mwalimu02, on 2011-December-10, 23:37, said:

Likely because, as Catastrophic Anthropogenic Global Warming errr Climate Change errr Climate Disruption became less of a religious dogma and more of an open subject, it ejected all of the zealots (or is in the process of ejecting them back to their other nefarious but hopefully less pernicious pursuits) and opened the discourse, as real science does.

With Durban becoming yet another CoP-out, the UN bloatocrats will have to go back to bilking the medical and charity industries for their tithe. Hopefully, at some point, we can spend some of our tax dollars on making sure that what energy we do use comes to us as cleanly and as equitably as possible. You never know, miracles do happen!

Al_U_Card, on 2011-December-11, 09:37, said:

[ed, rain]

You are seriously detached from reality if you think that the endless lines of bullshit that get spewed by Watt, the Manhattan Institute, what-have you bear any relationship to actual science.

The (near) consensus around anthropomorphic global climate change is becoming much stronger over time.

For what its worth, I had dinner on Monday with one of my old college housemates who now works down at the South Pole.

She gave us a fun little talk regarding how King Crabs have crossed over to the South Pole for the first time in recorded history and the sheer amount of heat that was required to make this happen...

Could everyone please refrain from provocative language.

As global warming has entered into the mainstream of science, it has undergone the long, established, protocol that all science must undergo. The fact that some of the doctrine has been attacked, is normal scientific procedure; as the unsubstantiated claims get removed from the core science. Science also does not use the term 'consensus.' That is more of a political or bureaucratic term, and had arisen largely due to that nature of the debate. While a majority beleive that global warming is happening, it is no where near a consensus regarding the cause or effects. Those that use such a term are merely attempting to sway public opinion into their own court. Science does not work by consensus, but rather by hard research.

hrothgar, on 2011-December-11, 10:01, said:

yum!!

Daniel1960, on 2011-December-12, 12:19, said:

good luck with that

Quote

or by yelling and screaming profanities when someone disagrees

luke warm, on 2011-December-12, 12:58, said:

To be clear, I don't direct profanity again people that I disagree with.

With this said and done, I do tend to swear a lot when people engage in the following rhetorical style:

Commentator 1: "Global warming is a scam. Just look at A!"
Commentator 2: "A is well know to be false. Look at the following."
Commentator 1: "Global warming is a scam. Just look at B!"
Commentator 2: "B is well know to be false. Look at the following.
Commentator 1: "Global warming is a scam. Just look at C!"
Commentator 2: "C is well know to be false. Look at the following."
...
Commentator 1: "Global warming is a scam. Just look at Z!"
Commentator 2: "C is well know to be false. Look at the following."
Commentator 1: Global warming is a scam. Just look at A!
Commentator 1: %&#@(#&(!!!!

I probably should just walk away from this thread.
Almost anyone with any common sense refuses to engage you or Al in any kind of discussion since its - for all intents and purposes - pointless.

Guess I still need to grow up some more.

hrothgar, on 2011-December-12, 15:28, said:

rknot

Canada came to the conclusion that their contribution to Kyoto was money not well-spent nor within a framework that, as the US itself realized initially, was patently absurd.

Blame Canada!

What makes no sense to me is that chaos theory was born out of noticing how minute changes in weather system computer model input drastically affected the outcome in dynamic systems. Now, here we are with another dynamic system, earth's climate, and because the amount of CO2 produced by man is not that great the skeptic claims it cannot be having an affect, when chaos theory demonstrates unambiguously that small changes (like increased CO2) can have monumental affects.

I guess it's always easier to believe the squishy narrative than to believe data.

Winstonm, on 2011-December-15, 18:48, said:

Well, I have to admit that I have never heard the fraudsters errrr I mean warmist climate scientists delve into the chaos theory effects on climate. Their data and analyses are all so bent out of shape to try and show what they want to present as a narrative (Steig et al and the Antarctic warming comes to mind as a recent example.)

Certainly all of the data presented by skeptics is at least as valid as that used by the consensus crowd, but there is less need for illegitimate statistical massaging of the data and more presentation of why the science is not settled, particularly as far as the effect of [CO2] on the climate system is concerned. Take a look at Judith ( a peer-review published, honest-to-goodness climate scientist)Curry's site for an interesting follow-up to her paper on uncertainty in the IPCC numbers and methods.

Just another person that can't "believe" that data, Winston.

CO2 has risen in concert with the advent of global industrialization. There is no ambiguity about that increase.

As chaos theory shows that in dynamic systems minor changes can have dramatic affects on outcomes, why would the increase in CO2 in the dynamic system of the earth's climate not cause major outcome changes? What is there about the industrialization-caused CO2 increase that makes it immune to chaos consequences?

The skeptics' assertion has to be that this increase is inconsequential. What is there about the skeptics' narrative that is so compelling that it invalidates any consequence of the rise in CO2?

Winstonm, on 2011-December-15, 20:44, said:

None to speak of. (Unless you are referring to its provenance and cycling in the atmosphere/oceanic system.) Ambient concentration has certainly increased from about 300 to 390 ppm over the last century. Temperature rises in the 30s and 40s were as great as those in the 80s and 90s, but at lower concentrations. There were also no temperature increases in periods between these despite continuing concentration increases.

Winstonm, on 2011-December-15, 20:44, said:

This is an argument from ignorance. Not knowing what causes something does not automatically guarantee that something else, that you are aware of, does. The factual data shows that natural variability explains the current and previous measurements. Interesting to note the use, by GISS and Hansen of the following method of ensuring the "hottest year ever" meme:



which when combined with the adjustments that only recent data has required;



and all this "adjusting" still does not allow the current temperatures to exceed even that predicted in Hansen's own "Scenario C" from the climate models where stopping CO2 accumulation in the atmosphere at 1990 levels would place global temperatures....despite there being 30 ppm more now than then.

Winstonm, on 2011-December-15, 20:44, said:

Aside from the entire body of evidence showing that the warmists are doing every underhanded and dishonest thing to promote their agenda, is the fact that all of the scare-tactics come from the projections of climate models. The same models that predict an upper tropospheric hot-spot that doesn't exist and that cannot duplicate past global temperatures and that require unproven multipliers of CO2 effects (by water vapor, yes clouds will make it hotter!) to get temperature values that are not occurring.

CO2 has been much higher in the past and will get much higher in the future. It is not much of a factor, as far as global temperatures are concerned. As far as generating grant money and taxes and carbon credits, it is very, very necessary.

Al_U_Card, on 2011-December-16, 08:33, said:

It has always been true that most scientific researchers in the field do have a bit of 'Chicken Little' bias. After all, looking for trouble is how they make their living. They are no more inclined to break their own rice bowl than anyone else.
Does it surprise you that the world's second largest oil company has been funding climate research at prestigious universities for almost half a century? They want to be the first to know because they have so much to lose, potentially.
How will it all turn out? O.K. I guess. Most serious disaster scenarios are either very low probability (the Gulf Stream suddenly quits working), or assume that adverse long-term trends do not self-correct or respond to technological progress.

Winstonm, on 2011-December-15, 20:44, said:

Just because "minor changes can have dramatic affects" doesn't mean that they will have those affects.

You seem to assume that CO2 concentrations will have chaos consequences. There needs to be compelling evidence of this.

I don't think the skeptics have anything to prove. "I am not sure if minor changes in CO2 concentrations will have dramatic affects on climate" is a valid position absence compelling evidence to the contrary. The (the skeptics) do not need to provide evidence their argument can be based on the lack of convincing evidence of the proposed theory.

My limited understanding of CO2 concentration is that there is not good evidence that small changes in its concentration has causative chaotic affects on our climate.