What Do We Think About Climate Change

I don't see anything in Guillermo's post about water vapor which supports the notion that Arctic ice is thickening, rather than thinning. And in his next post about mercury in peat (Martinez-Cortizas et al), is he seriously implying that because researchers apparently found evidence for a couple of previous warm periods in one place in Spain, it somehow proves that today's warming is not anthropogenic driven?

That's quite a leap; methinks he should've strung a safety net before flinging himself into the void.

 

the denialists have been challenged to provide a single shred of evidence supporting this misconception and as of this date have failed every time

so I would ask once again

where is your supporting data concerning this claim that the theory of rapid global climate change made predictions concerning these areas of the atmosphere.

deniers have repeatedly made this phony claim and have repeatedly been called on it and to date
absolutely no supporting data has been forthcoming

in a nut shell
there is no such prediction
there is no error in what predictions were made
and the information you present is presented in the classic PR form
invent a problem ( whether it exists or not ) and propose that you have the solution ( which you also do not )

in this case its a repeat of a disingenuous and frankly dishonest accusation concerning predictions made by the theory which neither you nor the other deniers in the squad are capable of backing up with actual historical fact

sorry but your whole argument is flawed by its faulty premise and by its failure to comprehend that if the solar radiation is prevented from escape by an insulating blanket of co2 and other greenhouse gasses then areas of the upper atmosphere actually should become cooler due to less of this radiant energy getting to that area

however your most recent attempts to confuse the areas of 15000' and 30000' with the lower troposphere as well as make false claims that lower atmospheric temps are decreasing which is patently false as can be seen in the graph below, is simply not fooling anyone.

nice try
but again you are confused or deliberately trying to confuse others
its hard to tell which

love
B







so once again we have a phony premise presented with false data attempting to support a failed position that isn't even remotely being debated within the scientific community because there is simply nothing to debate
and so the PR campaign comes to the internet hoping to dupe the less well informed

sorry

but its not working

 

once again the premise is all wrong

the issue is not whether climate has changed in the past
we know it has
but the rate of change we are experiencing now which is due to the alterations in atmospheric chemistry caused primarily by mans burning of fossil fuels

lets try to keep up with the conversation G

 

What a rant. You might actually convince some people with your anti Obama propaganda, but not anyone who knows anything about the history of the report. (Clearly, you are not among those who know.)

You see, the fatal flaw in all your bashing of the report for supposedly sucking up to the Obama administration is that the report was not issued under the Obama administration. It was issued during the Bush administration, in fact months before Obama was even elected.

 

Gosh, Bos - looking at your graph, it appears that we are in for a ten to twelve degree average temperature increase in the next week or two! But wait! The CO2 follows the temp - how confounding is that?!
Oh well, this topic will still be in a volley this fall - the "science" will surely be in by then.
Say, Bos - how does one measure all areas of the Earth and come up with an average? I mean aren't there so many possibilities that it could be impossible to compile? E.g., when we talk of "surface temp" are we talking of "touching" the surface, a man holding a thermometer, or a thermometer on a 10M pole to keep the curious from messing with it? What Hoyt said about a thermometer on asphalt (No, it's NOT a social disease) got me thinking...we are supposedly measuring temperature but asphalt is as much warmed by direct sun as it is surrounding air temperature (what about clouds?). Cities that measure temperature tend to be in valleys - are the surrounding hills acting the same way as the low spots? Pacific Decadal Oscillation and Southern Anular Mode are not the only anomolies that may need to be accounted for... how about "The Child" "His Mother", etc. - I REMEMBER when acedemics started talking about these and they didn't have a clue. I presume they undersatnd exactly what the moderating or exacerbating effects of these and millions of other variables are now. I mean, they've been attacking this issue with ferver (ever since they discovered it could get them a grant) for some time, now.
To accurately obtain an average (more correctly, "a mean") temperature, wouldn't one want to step back, isolate the Earth, and take a remote infrared temp from, say, the Moon? How can we know how the geology interacts with the atmosphere? How do we know how much bias there is in measurements? I contend that WE CANNOT KNOW by taking measurements from a thousand or hundred thousand stations so we may as well just start looking for anomolies and figure them out, if we decide we need to.
How will we know the time when we shud start looking for anomlies and figuring out their cause? I don't know...perhaps something less arbitrary than current methods...how about, when I can asphalt fry an egg on a sunny day here, I give you a holler and you alert the grant whores to come out of suspension? Then, we would be able to conclusively say "it is warmer". We still won't know why, but it will keep some academics busy...

http://www.worldclimatereport.com/index.php/category/temperature-history/ - Yee-Haw! Boss Hog BigMouths!

 

Some of you guys are not fond of quotes from reports from organizations that are centrist, non-partisan, or left-leaning, so here is a piece from the Cato Institute, hardly a source of left wing or even centrist commentary:

http://www.cato.org/pub_display.php?pub_id=7066

The piece discusses subsidies that the oil companies are receiving.

In general the article opposes subsidies. However, it takes a somewhat nuanced approach on the question of how one defines a subsidy, pointing out that one can take different points of view on whether tax breaks should be considered subsidies. However, they were very clear in pointing that if an industry sector is preferentially receiving tax breaks and incentives, i.e. tax breaks and incentives not available to all sectors, then such a tax break or incentive is a subsidy. They point out that the oil industry is receiving preferential treatment, and is therefore receiving considerable subsidies.

 

"It was issued during the Bush administration." He was a little slow, your people said. I contend that others influenced him unduly or he did not even know about it as he was occupied being a president.
Tell you what, I do know that I will not own anything GE.. Braun, Siemens, Phillips, WHOEVER but not GE.. This once great company can go the way of the dinasaurs, for all I care. Need an MRI? Make it a Siemens MRI ! Need a dishwasher? Well, I won't go so far as to buy a Chinese LG, but Braun makes a model that you can't hear from the other room and gets the dishes sparkling...
Same goes for Chevy. Same goes for any company NOT anti-socialist. I'll be damned if these companies are going to attain greatness thru freedom then turn around and try to hold everybody else back.
As for you, Wood, you are incorrigible. You symbolize everything malignant in this society. You, Troy, the whole Timothy Leary crowd, can absolutely, just shove up your...vein.

“You can always pick up your needle and move to another groove.”​

- T. Leary

Don't take it personal. All I am trying to do is prevent you from metastasizing...

 

In other words: because you don't understand the methods used to understand the data, you don't trust it and don't believe the results.

It isn't really that hard a concept. I'm no climatologist. But it seems to me that if you have stations all over the world, you can see the trend at each station. Then you compare and correlate all those trends, and see if there's a pattern to them.

It doesn't really matter where the individual stations are, as long as they stay put; they'll still show a trend. If the one on asphalt shows an average rise in its peak temperature over the years, and the one under a shade tree on the north side of a building also shows an average rise, and thousands of other stations in different environments also show an average rise over the years, guess what: the friggen planet is probably getting warmer over the years. How hard to understand is that?

If you're into frying eggs on pavement, come on over; I've done it. They'll cook here, allthough they come out more like poached eggs than fried eggs. Asphalt gets so soft on hot days that truck tires push it into waves, and big hollows and mounds, as the trucks brake for stop signs.

 

"...subsidies that the oil companies are receiving" - do I have to write it on a bat and pound it in? We shud be incouraging their business - They are the ones that keep our fuel price reasonable and hire people. Do you want EVERYBODY to buy a beret and become a professor? Jeeze, we won't have enuf Priuses and Subi Outbacks. We won't have enuf bumperstickers!

 

Mark, as is so often the case, when challenged or proven wrong you resort to obfuscation, going off-topic, name calling, and generalized ranting.

By the way, if you somehow think that Braun (Braun GmbH), (PhilipsKoninklijke Philips Electronics N.V.), and Seimens (Siemens AG) are somehow bastions of free market capitalism, untainted by any cooperation with left-wing governments or governments with strong socialistic tendencies then maybe you need to take a lesson on how capitalism works in Europe, where each of those companies that you are so in love with is headquartered.

 

I didn't say I don't understand, Troy. There is probably a higher level...scratch that...a different type of written communication than what you may get in your Texaco / Taco Bell town. Look up "rhetoric" and "cynicism" and we'll talk more tomorrow.

 

Mark.... Oh, never mind. I started writing a response to that, and deleted it after a few sentences. I decided there are no reasonable responses to hissy fits and tantrums--aside from a bucket of cold water, of course.

Enjoy your Memorial Day tomorrow. I plan to honor the day by ignoring any posts that aren't positive, friendly and cheerful. Until Tuesday morning, anyway....

 

Mark, you are not being clear. I'm not quite sure what your position is. Are you saying that you favor subsidies for the oil industry, but oppose them for the wind power industry?

 

I actually am somewhat studied on ALL of the companies mentioned. And being from Europe is not a negative to me. There as as many freedom-loving people over there as here and the numbers are building every day as they are seeing the consequenses of EU, of big governance, of electing Chamberlain, etc.