Why Climate Change Won't Matter in 20 Years

[Exile]

Originally Posted by jackdale

See here:

It's Our Fault | James Lawrence Powell

Relieved to see that we weren't all dreaming. Fryewe had it dead on.

Dr. Powell's article explaining how science identifies anthropogenic CO2 is well-written and potentially persuasive (to a layman), but I had to question the article's assumption that CO2 is the primary mover of warming. Since it is also an accepted fact that warming can cause increased CO2 (based on pre-industrial age data), isn't Powell's assumption also a matter of scientific debate?

So I looked a bit further on his website, and had forgotten that this is the same scientist (a geologist, btw) who challenged Cook's 97% consensus. But not because the consensus was too high, but that it wasn't high enough. Powell goes into a lengthy analysis supporting a 99.9% consensus instead, but nowhere does his analysis of the thousands of scientific opinions go beyond the mere fact that (a) the Earth is warming, and (b) humans have had an impact. No polling, apparently, about how much human impact, the role of natural forces & cycles, or most critically, whether the warming (assuming it exists) will have the negative effects the alarmists are predicting.

Home | James Lawrence Powell

Btw, Powell is also the source for Jack's repeated posting of his all too familiar consensus graph, one which I know I wasn't dreaming about:

http://www.jamespowell.org/resources...tBlRedcrop.jpg

But Powell makes his overall stance on the CC issue all too clear in his recent book The Inquisition of Climate Science (2015). From the jacket material:

"Modern science is under the greatest and most successful attack in recent history. An industry of denial, abetted by news media and "infotainment" broadcasters more interested in selling controversy than presenting facts, has duped half the American public into rejecting the facts of climate science -- an overwhelming body of rigorously vetted scientific evidence showing that human-caused, carbon-based emissions are linked to warming the Earth. The industry of climate science denial is succeeding: public acceptance has declined even as the scientific evidence for global warming has increased. It is vital that the public understand how anti-science ideologues, pseudo-scientists, and non-scientists have bamboozled them."

https://books.google.com/books/about...OcWyNywC&hl=en

Not that he should be accused of politicization or anything. I wonder what Dr. Powell has to say about the similarly well-vetted & corrorborated satellite data, and why he fails to mention all those equally distinguished scientists who, along with the "infotainment broadcasters," remain skeptical? Or maybe it's just a question of "pseudo-scientists" like Christy, Spencer & Curry being "duped" as well? Funny, I always thought they were smarter than your average "bamboozled" American white redneck who leans Republican.

[StuM]

Originally Posted by jackdale

See here:

It's Our Fault | James Lawrence Powell

Oh boy!

Scanning that blog post, the first thing that hit me was the comparison graphs. A textbook example of how to lie with statistics. Look at the ranges of the Y Axes which have blatantly been cherry picked to show an apparent equal positive or negative trend in pairs of dataset lines.

Then I reading it, I see that it deals with only one CO2 source and ignores any others.

Here's some homework for you.
How much CO2 is taken up by the oceans?
How long does the carbon in tha CO2 remain in the ocean
What is the C14 ratio in the ocean as a consequence of this this uptake and the other oceanic sources of CO2 such as volcanic vents etc.

If some of the rise in atmospheric CO2 is the result of ocean outgassing due to increased ocean temperatures, what effect would that have on C14 ratios?

[StuM]

" human-caused, carbon-based emissions are linked to warming the Earth."

Love it. That's the strongest statement that Powell can safely come up with to summarise his alarmism?

"human-cause, carbon-based emissions"? That must include burning bio-mass and cow farts.

Just "linked to" not "causing"? Linkages can go both ways or can just mean "correlates with" without any causation in either direction.

No attempt to even quantify it as "most", so it may be "linked to" only a small proportion of observed warming?

A classic semantically null statement - but I guess it was the best he could do without fear of contradiction.

[Kenomac]

Originally Posted by StuM

"[COLOR=Navy] human-caused, carbon-based emissions are linked to warming the Earth."

"human-cause, carbon-based emissions"? That must include burning bio-mass and cow farts.

Hey, don't forget about the Giant Sloth and Mammoth farts that got us up to the industrial revolution.

Unicorns don't fart.

[newhaul]

Originally Posted by Kenomac

Hey, don't forget about the Giant Sloth and Mammoth farts that got us up to the industrial revolution.

Unicorns don't fart.

Maybe your unicorns don't but ours fart rainbows and lollypops

[StuM]

Originally Posted by newhaul

Maybe your unicorns don't but ours fart rainbows and lollypops

Of course they do. How else can you propel light rail transit systems

[Exile]

A chart from Socaldmax a page or so back had animal farts as the 2nd-highest percentage of methane gas release. Turns out it's actually more belching than farting, though. If only we could figure out how to harness all that energy!

[Exile]

Originally Posted by StuM

" human-caused, carbon-based emissions are linked to warming the Earth."

Love it. That's the strongest statement that Powell can safely come up with to summarise his alarmism?

"human-cause, carbon-based emissions"? That must include burning bio-mass and cow farts.

Just "linked to" not "causing"? Linkages can go both ways or can just mean "correlates with" without any causation in either direction.

No attempt to even quantify it as "most", so it may be "linked to" only a small proportion of observed warming?

A classic semantically null statement - but I guess it was the best he could do without fear of contradiction.

But somehow, according to Powell, it's "the deniers [that] use a wide variety of deceptive rhetorical techniques, many stretching back to ancient Greece."

https://books.google.com/books/about...OcWyNywC&hl=en

[newhaul]

Originally Posted by StuM

Of course they do. How else can you propel light rail transit systems

Not ours the ones that do that are Canadian ones

[StuM]

Originally Posted by Exile

But somehow, according to Powell, it's "the deniers [that] use a wide variety of deceptive rhetorical techniques, many stretching back to ancient Greece."

https://books.google.com/books/about...OcWyNywC&hl=en

This is one of those very rare occasions when I am prompted to use a biblical quotation. (Generally, the one I feel like using is the shortest verse in the Bible: John 11:35 - especially in response to many posts in this thread )

But here yah go: "And why beholdest thou the mote that is in thy brother's eye, but considerest not the beam that is in thine own eye?"

[fryewe]

The EPA’s own model, ironically acronymed MAGICC, estimates that its new policies will prevent a grand total of 0.018 degrees Celsius in warming by 2100. … In fact, dropping the carbon dioxide emissions from all sources of electrical generation to zero would reduce warming by a grand total of 0.04 degrees Celsius by 2100.

The quote is from Investor's Business Daily, referring to the Clean Power Plan the EPA rolled out last year.

The predicted warming that the carbon emissions would offset is not measurable within the accuracy of current methods.

The economic costs are estimated to be about 2.5 trillion USD of aggregate GDP.

But the warmists will be able to feel good about themselves, and we will inch closer to the model economy that Mike supports.

[Reefmagnet]

Oh no. We've really done it this time.

Longer breeding seasons, more kittens: are cats reacting to climate change?

When Kristina Vesk started working at the Cat Protection Society of NSW in 2006, she rarely saw kittens in winter. Now warmer weather means cats are breeding all year round, increasing the numbers of unwanted kittens and the threat to native wildlife from strays and feral cats.

Animal behaviourist Erica Pankhurst at the Animal Welfare League with cats available for adoption.*Photo: Peter Rae

Ms Vesk, the society's chief executive, said there used to be weeks from June to September when the shelter saw very few, if any, kittens. But with the climate changing and temperatures rising, it seems cats are increasingly on heat.

"For the past three years, I don't think we've experienced a full week at any time of year where we don't have at least a couple of kittens in our care," Ms Vesk said. "Kitten 'season' has grown longer and longer as we keep having ... enough warm and sunny days in winter that make cats think it's a good time to start breeding."

Vanessa Barrs, a Professor of Feline Medicine at the University of Sydney, said most cats do not breed in winter to conserve energy and help kittens survive. But breeding can be influenced by photoperiod, the number of available daylight hours, and "cats artificially exposed to 12 hours of light indoors*... can be induced to breed all year round", she said.

More kittens were surrendered to the Cat Protection Society in the winter of 2013, Australia's*hottest year on record, than ever before, Ms Vesk said.

Last month RSPCA NSW had more than 1110 cats in its care, including 730 kittens. Of the 52,800 cats taken in nationally by the RSPCA in 2015, almost 17,400 could not be rehomed and were put down.

Erica Pankhurst, an animal behaviourist with the Animal Welfare League, said a cat's biological drive to reproduce kicked in if the weather was warm enough. During kitten season, which usually runs from spring to autumn and is in full swing in February, "there's just kittens coming out of everyone's ears."

The shelter is one that has teamed up with Just For Pets, which represents independent pet industry retailers, to rehome abandoned animals this weekend,*offering pets for adoption in*pet shops.

"There's only a certain number of people going to rescue shelters," Just For Pets chief executive Karen Justice said. "Making an animal visible so it is seen by pet lovers is the key to rehoming and adoption."

The RSPCA recommends early-age desexing of cats, from eight weeks of age, to prevent unwanted litters and that cats be contained on the owner's property to reduce the impact of hunting.

Read more:http://www.smh.com.au/nsw/longer-bre...ixzz3zcnXqKpg*

Sent from my SGP521 using Cruisers Sailing Forum mobile app

[fryewe]

During kitten season, which usually runs from spring to autumn and is in full swing in February, "there's just kittens coming out of everyone's ears."

Well, there's the problem, right there in front of them. Kittens didn't use to come out of such places, but were restricted to...errr....other orifices from the biological family felidae. Datum!

The spay and neuter police are, in my opinion, one of the few groups that can rival warmists in their passion for their world-saving.

[Lake-Effect]

Originally Posted by fryewe

The spay and neuter police are, in my opinion, one of the few groups that can rival warmists in their passion for their world-saving.

Contributing to thread drift but it's become all about worldview anyway... any cat/dog owner who isn't deliberately planning to breed the animal responsibly, but doesn't get the animal spayed/neutered... is an irresponsible jackass. If you don't understand why, go talk to a veterinarian.

You probably expected this viewpoint from me. There you go.

[StuM]

Originally Posted by Lake-Effect

Contributing to thread drift but it's become all about worldview anyway... any cat/dog owner who isn't deliberately planning to breed the animal responsibly, but doesn't get the animal spayed/neutered... is an irresponsible jackass. If you don't understand why, go talk to a veterinarian.

You probably expected this viewpoint from me. There you go.

Finally, we agree on something completely in this thread!