What Do We Think About Climate Change

Thanks again for yet another post of meaningless, snarky drivel. Now go out and get us some better data on tabulated anthropogenic emissions, boy. And bring back that bucket of compression while you're at it.

Jimbo

 

I'd be happy to
could you please reference a particular post so I might find the source of the information I have quoted

I tend to use multiple sources so you could be referring to any number of data I have used but might not have noted
the more specific you get the more specifically I can try and answer you

B

PS
what I might suggest is that various data sets are used to corroborate one another, in the event one does not corroborate several others that do concerning the same data pool, then that one is typically held suspect. I would be happy to try and quote my sources if you will only be specific as to the exact post #

 

...........It is now plain that it is not possible to have a ‘climate policy’ that has emissions reductions as the all encompassing goal.

Of course it is not, and only because the first attempt failed. This is round two.

However, there are many other reasons why the de carbonisation of the global economy is highly desirable.

Rubbish. Take away the demonisation of CO2 and you only have one left. Independence from the oil producing nations. Purely political and nothing to do with "climate" The "reason" is the same only now disguised and sugar coated in a different way.


Therefore, the Paper advocates a radical re framing – an inverting – of approach: accepting that de carbonisation will only be achieved successfully as a benefit contingent upon other goals which are politically attractive and relentlessly pragmatic.

More patronising social engineering.

The Paper therefore proposes that the organising principle of our effort should be the raising up of human dignity via three overarching objectives: ensuring energy access for all; ensuring that we develop in a manner that does not undermine the essential functioning of the Earth system; ensuring that our societies are adequately equipped to withstand the risks and dangers that come from all the vagaries of climate, whatever their cause may be.

I like this a lot. The Vatican must have a charter that reads very similar. The best part is when they propose government will protect the poor from "the vagaries of climate, whatever their cause" oh ma gosh hurricanes and earthquakes and ensure energy "access" for all...he he ACCESS, love it.

It explains radical and practical ways to reduce non-CO2 human forcing of climate.

We could plug all the volcanos and the cows rumen.

It argues that improved climate risk management is a valid policy goal, and is not simply congruent with carbon policy. It explains the political prerequisite of energy efficiency strategies as a first step and documents how this can achieve real emissions reductions.

Note that it is no longer Global warming, nor climate change, not rapid climate change but it is now CLIMATE RISK....start shaking!!!

But, above all, it emphasises the primacy of accelerating de carbonisation of energy supply. This calls for very substantially increased investment in innovation in non carbon energy sources in order to diversify energy supply technologies. The ultimate goal of doing this is to develop non-carbon energy supplies at unsubsidised costs less than those using fossil fuels. The Hartwell Paper advocates funding this work by low hypothecated (dedicated) carbon taxes. It opens discussion on how to channel such money productively.

Well of course, and who stands to gain from this? All the so called new green industries who will produce expensive unreliable energy at twice the cost and make billionaires out of a bunch of gangsters. We already have low cost reliable clean and non subsidised energy sources. It is called COAL.

To re frame the climate issue around matters of human dignity is not just noble or necessary. It is also likely to be more effective than the approach of framing around human sinfulness –which has failed and will continue to fail.

Yes re frame, re frame, "human dignity" is what this people are lacking or rather human decency..... And sinfulness....yes who wants to be called a sinner right? Pope Al G is giving us the absolution and is now sooo concerned about humanity and its dignified manner of living. ....sorry..must run to the toilet to puke.....

The Hartwell Paper follows the advice that "a good crisis should not be wasted"

Besides plagiarising Rahm Emanuel, if only Stalin or Mao were alive to hear that they would rejoice and join the chorus "hear hear" "hear hear"

 

I found an interesting discussion of glacial(Athabascan) recession north of the Medicine Line at: http://www.theoildrum.com/node/6324

 

AGW is in league with ZPG. Check http://www.monbiot.com/archives/category/climate-change/ if you don't believe me. Who the Hell gives you the right to say who gets eliminated?

 

I posted that because anytime I or another climate realist mentions the uncontested fact of the logarithmic nature of increased radiative absorption relative to concentration, to wit, the atmosphere is essentially at spectral saturation WRT CO2 above ~200 ppm, then the warmers will point to that page ("A Saturated, Gassy Argument") over at Realclimate.org (Which I refer to as Surrealclimate). Though the hypothesis outlined on that page is not confirmed in any way, it is nevertheless authored by real scientists, those responsible for that website.

If you reference only "legitimate works", then you are constrained to the fact that the atmosphere has been at practical (>90%) spectral saturation WRT CO2 concentration for eons, at least as far as the troposphere goes. The very act of proposing the hypothesis outlined on that page is in itself a tacit admission to this fact.

Otherwise, why would anyone posit such an explanation, with no corroborative data, except to try to answer the very safe assertion that the atmosphere is at spectral saturation WRT CO2 concentration?

Jimbo

 

This is one way the left meets its goals to cut human impact on earth.:http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,583732,00.html

 

Jimbo, here is exactly what you said:

"Here's the Climatescience.gov paper on the warming signature which neatly proves that recent warming is not due to an increase in the greenhouse effect."

Your statement is a blatant contradiction of the intent of the authors, which said that there are multiple factors, including man made factors. The paper never, at any point whatsoever, says that the warming signature disproves the hypothesis of anthropogenic global warming. Quite the opposite in fact. It claims that man is part of the cause.

As to whether the paragraph I quoted is the most important part of the document, the simple answer is yes, it is the most important part of the document. What justification do I have for saying that? Because my quote from the paper is the first two sentences of the section of the paper marked "Summary", which is where an author will put his most important point.

 

Alan

I don't care a hoot about 'the intention' of the authors. Their paper formally admitted (for the first time?) that the signature of greenhouse warming is totally absent from the best observational data that we have. THAT'S the important thing to take away, not whatever their 'intention' was! Again, it's the warm camp that has always rooted for a 'monolithic' cause of recent warming which is, of course, the increased greenhouse effect due to anthropogenic CO2. The realists have ALWAYS said that the natural variability is a much greater influence.

Jimbo

 

On author's 'intention', there's a paper on isotopic mass-balance that has been posted to this thread about 5 times. The funny thing is, both sides have posted it to support their arguments! How can this possibly be? Well it's about intentions and the summary. If you read the abstract or summary only, you would get the idea that the author found some definitive, dramatic proof that anthropogenic (fossil) CO2 was the root cause of recent atmospheric CO2 rise. But when you go into the body of the paper and look at the numbers, what he found was only a very small fraction of current atmospheric CO2 is fossil sourced. I think he found between -7.8 to 8.0 0/00 PDB. In order for the assertions in his summary and abstract to be true, he would need to find like -11.0 to-12.0 0/00 PDB, so he got nowhere close. The fraction that he found corresponds only to 3-5% fossil instead of the 21-25% which is implicit in his assertions. There's one small paragraph explaining why the fractionation is lower than expected, and that's about it.

Jimbo

 

Apparently you don't care a hoot what the authors actually said either, do you?

 

Ummm....Hoyte. AGW is a scientific theory, not an organization. Theories cannot be in league with people.....you might as well be saying evolution is in league with someone.

I didn't think it was possible, but you're making even less sense than Jimbo does.

 

You know exactly what I mean. The proponants of AGW are organized and conspiratorial. In the future if I say AGW that way, I am talking about the proponants pushing it such as Algore, George Monbiot or you. This would be like when you say Big Oil is paying scientists to speak up contrary to your views. Big oil is a chemical of organic nature with no bank account.

 

I think the point Hoyt is trying to raise is that if you put a couple hundred warmist/alarmists in the same room there is a real good chance that:

1.Most will favor zero population growth
2. Most will think Al Gore won Florida
3.Most will think eating meat is a crime
4.Most will think profits are immoral
5.Most will think there is no such thing as an illegal immigrant
6.Most will think that trees have as many if not more rights than humans
7.Most would not blink at outlawing recreational boating
8.Most would restrict private ownership of automobiles
9.Most would truly believe Zero GDP is desirable and sustainable
10.Most would believe that the human race is a malignancy on the Earth
11. A majority would believe that vegetarianism is preferable
12. Most would favor organic farming
13.Most would think that the rich are exploitative by definition

I could go on and on but I think you get the drift, and if you are even a tinsy bit outraged right now, you fit the pattern - lol!

 

That's a complete load of hate-mongering crap. A clear majority of people in the civilized world believe global warming is real and man-made, and it's ridiculous to try to pin that list of garbage on them. It's even more ridiculous to try to pin it on the scientific community, where an overwhelming majority believe AGW is real.

You, Hoyte and Jimbo seem to be in a race to the bottom today, seeing who can sound the most irrational, paranoid and ignorant.