What Do We Think About Climate Change

Once again: look at yourself in the mirror

 

Boston,

If I've said it once, I know I've said it a hundred times: The warming oceans are releasing the CO2! Maybe this time it will sink in! Nah, you'll ask the same question again tomorrow or next week. After all, you're "Mister Know-It-All"

So Mr Know-It-All's position is therefore:

It doesn't matter that the isotopic fingerprint doesn't match, it's anthropogenic.

It doesn't matter that we'd have to burn all the oil in the world 50X over, it's anthropogenic.

It doesn't matter that it was rising before we started emitting, it's anthropogenic.

And why? Because *HE* can't think of another source

Freakin' *****!

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CuWhgyGWkgE

 

so if the oceans are warming
how are they warming
( did you just admit that co2 and temp is rising )

if the sun didnt do it
and there is actually global cooling as you say

ok lets just have some fun and show what agnotism is and why you guys are clearly agnotists
lets look at what data posted
by who
and came from where

lets also look at the industry line and see who is toting the party line here
and who is sticking with science

lets look at whether the authors of data presented by deniers have acted on behalf of or in the direct employ of industry

 

Coming back to topic.
Solar irradiance and temperature from NOAA sources.

 

You're really frustrating. Can't you maintain a debate without insulting and looking for suspects under the carpet? Are you insane?

 

actually Im ignoring the insults and moving ahead with the debate despite the desperate attempts at distractions

lets begin with three examples of the use of agnotists as references by the deniers camp
thus showing a clear propensity towards an alignment with the industry spin

lets start with one of my favorites
Fred Singer

who has been extensively quoted by both G and J
in there efforts to defend there positions on global climate change
which I might add are nearly synonymous with the industry spin

some of the funding he has received includes

it is also important to note that

and a list of articles makes even more clear the biased nature of his work for both the cigarette industry and the oil and gas industry

I think there can be no doubt as to this mans qualifications as an agnotist
nor is there any question that he was quoted extensivly by both G and J in there views

so
lets take a look at what the indutry views are about global climate change
and see if the views of G and J are in line with them

although if you like I can show other sources used by G and J as being blatantly agnotistic as well if you like
maybe I should cause there need to be a preponderance of data in order to establish the fact that you guys use blatant agnotism to support your views

Im ok with either tact

best B

 

We're not quite as high as the last peak yet

http://www.cmar.csiro.au/sealevel/sl_hist_intro.html

 

welcome to our world
I would suggest post 1604 which is in general agreement with your contribution
B

 

my next example of an agnotologyst being referenced repeatedly by the deniers would be
from #1497

references to this site were made numerous times
for instance post 1490

another example would be Rosen who was quoted repeatedly
for instance in 1308

to which I responded in post 1310

also Lomborg who was also repeatedly quoted untill he to was exposed as an agnotologyst in post 1523 and again in post 1532

I can go on and on
it can be clearly established for all to see that a significant number of the references presented by the denial camp are blatant agnotologysts
paid by industry to spread the industry spin
or
you guys can acknowledge the fact
and we can move on to establish what the industry position is on global climate change
and who is defending it

post 2557 and 2559
I say lets both look in the mirror
seems that the mirror of this page will clearly resolve the question

 

Thanks for the link, plebus. Interesting to see projections for the 21st century are around one foot (90% confidence) and not meters, as the GWA crowd once sustained. But even this humble projection may prove to be wrong if prediction of global temperatures falling till around 2030 come to be true, making sea level to come down. With the present "lack of knowledge" status , it is risky to asume sea levels will indefectible rise.

Cheers.

 

have a look at:
Cazenave et al. Sea level budget over 2003-2008: A reevaluation from GRACE space gravimetry, satellite altimetry and Argo. Global and Planetary Change, 2008;
(Published by Elsevier. Received 2 August 2008, Accepted 12 October 2008)

The conclusions read:

“From the results presented in this study, we see that confronting independent estimates of ocean and land contributions to sea level with altimetry results leads to a rather coherent picture for recent years variations. This can be summarized as follows: since 2003, sea level has continued to rise but with a rate (of 2.5 +/-0.4 mm/yr) somewhat reduced compared to the 1993-2003 decade (3.1+/-0.4 mm/yr). Over 2003-2008, the GRACE-based ocean mass has increased at an average rate of ~1.9 mm/yr (if we take the upper range of possible GIA corrections as recommended by Peltier, submitted for publication). Such a rate agrees well with the sum of land ice plus land water contributions (i.e., GRACE-based ice sheet mass balance estimated in this study, GRACE-based land waters plus recently published estimates for the current glacier contribution). These results in turn offer constraints on the ocean mass GIA correction, as well as on the glacier melting contribution.

The steric sea level estimated from the difference between altimetric (total) sea level and ocean mass displays increase over 2003-2006 and decrease since 2006. On average over the 5 year period (2003-2008), the steric contribution has been small (on the order of 0.3+/-0.15 mm/yr), confirming recent Argo results (this study and Willis et al., 2008).”

Thus since 2003, there has been little if any global warming as diagnosed using ocean heat content. Since ocean heat content change has been shown to be a robust metric of global warming and cooling; see

Pielke Sr., R.A., 2003: Heat storage within the Earth system. Bull. Amer. Meteor. Soc., 84, 331-335,


Cheers.

 

There is a new important paper that recognizes that a multi-dimensional approach to addressing the human disturbance of the environment (including the climate) is needed:

Koutsoyiannis, D., Makropoulos, C., Langousis, A., Baki, S., Efstratiadis, A., Christofides, A., Karavokiros, G., and Mamassis, N.: HESS Opinions: “Climate, hydrology, energy, water: recognizing uncertainty and seeking sustainability“, Hydrol. Earth Syst. Sci., 13, 247-257, 2009.

HESSD is the Discussion companion of Hydrology and Earth System Sciences (HESS), the official peer-reviewed hydrological journal of the European Geosciences Union (EGU). See more information on this paper at their website.

The abstract reads
“Since 1990 extensive funds have been spent on research in climate change. Although Earth Sciences, including climatology and hydrology, have benefited significantly, progress has proved incommensurate with the effort and funds, perhaps because these disciplines were perceived as “tools” subservient to the needs of the climate change enterprise rather than autonomous sciences. At the same time, research was misleadingly focused more on the “symptom”, i.e. the emission of greenhouse gases, than on the “illness”, i.e. the unsustainability of fossil fuel-based energy production. Unless energy saving and use of renewable resources become the norm, there is a real risk of severe socioeconomic crisis in the not-too-distant future. A framework for drastic paradigm change is needed, in which water plays a central role, due to its unique link to all forms of renewable energy, from production (hydro and wave power) to storage (for time-varying wind and solar sources), to biofuel production (irrigation). The extended role of water should be considered in parallel to its other uses, domestic, agricultural and industrial. Hydrology, the science of water on Earth, must move towards this new paradigm by radically rethinking its fundamentals, which are unjustifiably trapped in the 19th-century myths of deterministic theories and the zeal to eliminate uncertainty. Guidance is offered by modern statistical and quantum physics, which reveal the intrinsic character of uncertainty/entropy in nature, thus advancing towards a new understanding and modelling of physical processes, which is central to the effective use of renewable energy and water resources.”

Bolded is mine.
Cheers.

 

I have been requesting for a couple of years now & on both threads a simple structure for this debate.

Address CO2 first!

I have watched the same issues cycled through with simply NO admission of scientific progress on any point.
We are now on our FOURTH iteration. This thread is making no progress.

It's getting a little old...

There is no winning this debate IMHO. We are ALL lay consumers of a rich and valuable product of our societies and era: scientific knowledge.
The degree to which we can understand this knowledge speaks to how our societies are improving. Trying to describe what the actual science has discovered is a credit to all the participants.

If we cannot determine that there is credence to the long established scientific position about the origins of atmospheric CO2 increases we are wasting our time.
We will spend another fruitless 5 months investigating the interesting outer reaches of our scientific understanding only to have the whole issue trumped by this fundamental point.

My proposal:

Discuss the validity of the scientific conclusion that resent increases in atmospheric CO2 are the product of human activities.

And:

This issue is a prerequisite to the entire topic. Discuss no other component of Climate Change until we have described the science on this point.

 

I certainly don't purport to have scientific knowledge for staying up late Googling vaious asinine reports seemingly supporting AlGore.
From a socio-political viewpoint, however, GW theory is delightful...almost as delightful as "spending money one doesn't have to fix the problem of spending money one does't have" theory of government. Once this **** is finally demonstrated to be nothing more than a power grab, the West will not go down this road again in our children's lifetimes. It might take a while on the weather thing but as sure as "blue-eyed white people" cause all of the world's woes, the time will come.

 

Thomas,

I like your proposal. To wit, I'll throw the first volley. Your assertion that there is a long established and credible position that nascent CO2 is [mostly or entirely] anthropogenic is false; this idea MOSTLY took shape as the AGW hypothesis became useful (not that this hypothesis itself was gaining in scientific stature, which in fact, it was not).

Anyway, the proposition WRT nascent CO2 is wholly and reliably testable, and I have already posted the results of the tests. Both venues of test (accounting and isotopic mass balance) show that nascent CO2 cannot be, in any significant way, sourced from fossil fuels, and therefore is not anthropogenic. The isotopic mass balance tests were performed by several independent teams, working in different countries, over several decades, all with the same results: the fossil fuel fingerprint is largely missing in our present atmosphere.

Jimbo