There is no Planet B

[newhaul]

Originally Posted by Lake-Effect

Sorry. Strike 2, though you raise some possibilities. i didn't think it would be this hard.


But glad I was able to provide another opportunity for you to vent. Scientifically, of course.

ok we give who are you alluding to ?

[Lake-Effect]

Originally Posted by Exile

I'm simply pointing out the obvious, namely that research grants are more likely obtained if they seek to substantiate the mainstream position, namely that AGW not only exists but poses a threat. ...It only means that new scientists are flocking into the field in order to try and find additional evidence that AGW is a looming threat.

I don't think it is obvious or a given. It's some unsupported hypothesizing on your part. There's many more things to study in climatology than AGW. I rather suspect many climate scientists are sick of the whole AGW thing, and of their field becoming a football for public amusement.

C'mon, get out from under your partisan fantasies & discontent and get better in touch with basic realties. You may even become a better advocate for it one day.

You should maybe address the partisan underpinnings of your warped and uninformed ideas about how science is done, before tackling someone else's.

[kmacdonald]

Originally Posted by Lake-Effect

You should maybe address the partisan underpinnings of your warped and uninformed ideas about how science is done, before tackling someone else's.

Like the way the FDA approves new drugs? We could have some fun with that one and give GW a break.

[Reefmagnet]

Originally Posted by hpeer

I’ve stopped arguing your “scientific” positions because you keep changing your tune and weasel wording. (See post 866)

Well this will be the third time I’ve reposted my theory for you. Short term memory loss perhaps? Would explain why you can’t keep a consistent position.

Human mind is releasing immense amount of CO2 and other greenhouse gasses. That green house gasses warm the Earth is incontrovertible. There is long term and constant evidence of the Earth warming easily observable in the Arctic. The vast majority of science points to increased green house gasses causing the warming.

If warming is so incontrovertible, then why is the IPCC only 95% sure still? What do you know that they don't?

Originally Posted by SV THIRD DAY

Like the MMGWCists addiction to Fossil Fuels....they can't let it go!

Yeah, like HPeer who's lack of response to asking about how many fossil fuel powered machines he owns drew the same crickets he's oft to quote.

Originally Posted by jackdale

From the 1940's to the 1970's industrial aerosol emissions associated with the was and post war boom resulted in cooling. Of course, it also resulted in smog. The Clean Air Acts of the 1970's cleaned up the smog, reduced the aerosols and the warming resumed. Hence little Arctic sea ice melt during that period, but the sea ice melt also resumed with increased temperatures.

We keep hearing this claptrap that aerosols kept the world cool during this period. Absolute rubbish. The period of WWII would have seen a tremendous spike in cooling if this was true. And I'd take a bet that a lot of Asia today cares little for clean air acts and yet zip cooling effect, even at the regional levels.

Originally Posted by newhaul

you really should pay attention to what you post my response to you about it being an actual paper report was wrt my sea ice graph not your "adjusted" graph.
Here it is again explain why it is so different from your " adjusted " graph .

Originally Posted by jackdale

Without the URL to the source, I have no idea how they created that graph.

Much like Tony Heller you are ignorant of the fact that the parameters for ice coverage changed from 10% to 15%, requiring that the parameters be standardized.

Looks like they did more than a "standardised" adjustment there. It's not that they could go back in time and remeasure the ice extents. I find it extremely difficult ot believe that random noise @ 10% becomes such a defined trend at 15%.

Originally Posted by jackdale

Anthropogenic GHG emissions started with the Industrial Revolution. This is the impact. It was cooling for 6000 years after the Holocene Optimum.


Source: Paleoclimate: The End of the Holocene « RealClimate

Another version:

Originally Posted by jackdale

I gather that you do not live in a coastal area. Cities such as Boston and New York are developing adaption plans for rising sea levels. Coastal cities in developing countries do no have that option.

This graphic is from the Hawaii adaption plan. Hawaiʻi Climate Adaptation Portal | Sea Level Rise

Another version:

Originally Posted by GordMay

Even the liquid sodium-cooled fast nuclear reactor (SFR), which you’ve previously opined “is the answer”, or perhaps the lead and helium-cooled fast neutron reactors, or one of the very-high-temperature reactors?

Great solution. Try and fix a shift in climate by manufacturing more and more deadly radioactive waste with half life's of tens of thousands of years.

Originally Posted by newhaul

I can't speak for everyone else
My home is 29.5 feet long . All totaled over the last several years I have put less into it including purchase price than some on here make in a month.

As to your contribution to the environment sorry but a recycling bin doesn't count for much.

Originally Posted by Lake-Effect

Help yourself to a cookie.

My wife and I choose to live in a 7m x 4m garden flat and rent our 5 bedroom house, and still drive a 50 mpg car purchased new 11 years ago. Looks like it's been left to the "deniers" to save the world.

Originally Posted by hpeer

The warming has been slight SO FAR. If it is indeed caused by CO2 the warming caused by the already emitted CO2 will continue for about 100 years. That’s why it is of concern.

On top of that as we continue to emit more CO2 it also will warm for about 100 years.

I still don't get this so called inertial effect of CO2 warming. If this is indeed the case, why can Jackdale post graphs showing what appears to be a direct relationship between atmospheric CO2 and temperature increase? Who's mythologically boasting here?

Originally Posted by kmacdonald

The tobacco industries legitimate questioning led to the widespread research that resulted in our better understanding of the perils of tobacco use. Without their inquisitive minds little progress would have been made.

The correlation between CO2 emissions and GW leave me a little skeptical. After all, EVERYONE the breathes air eventually dies. Is the air causing it?Add the fact that there has been GW in the past prior to human induced CO2 emissions and there is no wonder for the controversy. Lets work on getting the 10 day forecast right first.

Yes, amazing parallels with climate change and smoking except for one point. The one point is the issue was truly settled in short time, just like the ozone hole issue. The parallels are the scare tactics like the inference that if you smoke you, and others around you, die. There was also the neat trick that if you were a smoker and contracted lung cancer, throat cancer, emphysema, or any other condition that could be related to smoking that was purely because you smoked. Then there is also the scare campaign that is used to discourage smokers. For example, we have various gruesome pictures on cigarette packets including pictures of people with no teeth here and I've never heard of anyone loosing their teeth because they smoked tobacco.

[SailOar]

Originally Posted by Exile

Understood, but Spencer & Christy's views compromise a minority. The majority of climate scientists, along with their sycophants in the media, are busy researching & reporting only one side of the debate.

If you think there is a body of evidence supporting anti-AGW why don't do us a favor and report it for us. If you try I think you will soon find out that the reason it is "underreported" is because it mostly doesn't exist. You can be sure that newhaul scrubs the Internet for any little scrap of information that might support his anti-AGW viewpoint.

[StuM]

Originally Posted by hpeer

Another distraction from the point.

When someone argues in support of long term AWG you argue there is no warming.

OK, let me guess AWG = "Angry White Guy"?

[Reefmagnet]

Originally Posted by StuM

OK, let me guess AWG = "Angry White Guy"?

Well, he seems pretty charged up. Could be "American Wire Gauge"

[oldjags]

Originally Posted by Reefmagnet

If you had read my original post in the full context you would have understood that I was implying that the higher pressure at ground level results in heat increase because it is the same as a lowering of altitude (remembering the ~-10C per 1000m rule of thumb).

Don't you mean 6C per 1000m?

[Reefmagnet]

Originally Posted by oldjags

Don't you mean 6C per 1000m?

google says -9.8C@1000m 0% humidity. I just used that for comparison.

[newhaul]

Originally Posted by SailOar

If you think there is a body of evidence supporting anti-AGW why don't do us a favor and report it for us. If you try I think you will soon find out that the reason it is "underreported" is because it mostly doesn't exist. You can be sure that newhaul scrubs the Internet for any little scrap of information that might support his anti-AGW viewpoint.

Skeptic Papers 2015

Skeptic Papers 2014

Is that a start ?

Btw I don't do that I'm to busy enjoying my sailing lifestyle.
It just kinda finds me

[newhaul]

Originally Posted by Reefmagnet

. For example, we have various gruesome pictures on cigarette packets including pictures of people with no teeth here and I've never heard of anyone loosing their teeth because they smoked tobacco.

I know people that have lost teeth from chewing tobacco
I know a guy that lost teeth over cigarettes . He crushed my fresh pack 30 years ago .

[StuM]

Originally Posted by oldjags

Don't you mean 6C per 1000m?

It depends


Dry adiabatic lapse rate is 9.8°C/km. Wet adiabatic rate varies between about 3.5 and 5.5°C/km. ICAO Standard atmosphere is 6.49°C/km up to 11km

[senormechanico]

Originally Posted by Reefmagnet

Well, he seems pretty charged up. Could be "American Wire Gauge"

Associated Wholesale Grocers
Assymetric Warfare Group
Association for Women Geoscientists

[hpeer]

Originally Posted by Exile

You seem to have a more technical or science background than I do, so my main focus is more general, namely how much are humans contributing to warming by adding CO2 to the atmosphere. CRC is certainly relevant, but I'll leave that to you guys to debate. If humans aren't a significant contributor, then there's nothing humans can do about it, and there are frankly better reasons to reduce our dependence on fossil fuels which are obvious, I concur with, and don't provoke such acrimony. This is why I think comparing present-day warming to pre-industrial warming is relevant, but I'd be happy to hear someone tell me why it's not.

I see no reason to not use the Skeptical Science numbers as a source. IIRC they say roughly 90% is from AWG and 10% from CRC.

I too try to keep a broader focus and not not pick. And yes, my broad generalization is the AWG is real, from my personal observations, discussion with folks in the Canadian Maritime (where it is hitting hard), historical readings, ice volume/extent data, and personal experience. They all point in one way, we are warming. I have sufficient trust in our scientific community to believe them in broad terms. Surely not every paper that comes out, but broadly, yes, very much.

As to reducing our use of fossils fuels I agree there are additional reasons to do so. Beyond that, not to stray too far from topic, there are an array of “concerns” I have. Coming from a Progect Management perspective I’ve learned to try to make a list of the 5 most important things to manage, and focus there, that’s enough for any mortal. AWG is ONE of my 5 concerns.

I much favor actions that impact positively on as many concerns as possible with little or no negative impact on others. My first advocacy is to reduce consumption of everything. Fuel, consumables like styrofoam food trays, electricity, plastics. The lowest hanging fruit is simply to reduce what we use. We also need to try to be more efficient. If we were to replace Consumerisim with Capitalisim that would be an improvement for Capitalisim works to increase effiency while Consumerisim works to raise consumption. It’s by its nature wasteful. There are some areas where a more Socialistic approach could be more effective, in natural monopolies for instance. I’m not dogmatic about solutions, I just want to see what’s right for each situation.

In short (too late) I’m less concerned about conviencing someone about AWG than conviencing them we would all be better off consuming less.

[hpeer]

Originally Posted by StuM

OK, let me guess AWG = "Angry White Guy"?

40 years of working in electrical circles using AWG for American Wife Gage die hard.

But I think you are working pretty hard to find a criticism of that is what you stoop to.