New report on climate change released today

[Loren Pechtel]

I didn't know there were teams. Teams implies a decision regardless of evidence.

I don't believe that the computer models used by "climate scientists" are correct. I do believe in following the evidence wherever it leads.

In other words, you choose to listen to the ones that say what you want to hear, not the ones who can support their position.

More like a confirmation bias. I know my shit about computer models. M'speciality. Any report which bases its conclusions on a prediction by a computer, skeptical about it I am. A computer projection is an extraordinary claim. The model must, for example, when run on the data from ancient history through 1999, accurately predict the next decade through 2009 and do a creditable job through 2019. It must work when the data through 1934 or 1964 is input. This is the falsifiability criterion for computer models.

If you understand models then you should understand cherry-picked data. The deniers are very aggressive about using cherry-picked data.

In the past climate shifts have occurred without the aid or hindrance of mankind.

Correct.

Now we are generating some man-made warming which is to be added to the ordinary variability. The question on the floor is not 'whether' but 'how big.' If the effect is small as a percentage of other variability perhaps there is no need to rush. As I recall the projection is +1 K in a century. Yes, this is actually fairly large. A drop of a similar amount led to the Mini Ice Age. But only half of that in 50 years.

That's a very low range estimate.

If we implement this and the weather warms anyway, we can at least make air-conditioned caves. And perhaps settle Antarctica. If the weather stays more or less the same the next century we still get the benefit of cheaper electric power. If the weather gets cooler -- a grand solar minimum, or a volcano due to our magnetic pole shift, or whatever -- Gen4 provides the power for cheap electric heat. Win-win-win.

Flooding most of the major cities of the world (what do those people do, die?) is a win-win-win? Rendering most of the farmland of the world nearly useless is a win-win-win?

Or a network of satellites which collect solar energy and beam it down as microwaves. The solar collectors would be huge, making shadows -- cooling shadows (only good if only warming can possibly be).

Not yet practical.

Another big red flag for me is "settled science." There is well-tested science and young science. Climate theories, being young and all, must wait for centuries to become mature well-tested science. Climate changes are slow. "Sudden" in paleontology is a few thousand years. "Sudden" in climatology must surely be similar. This adds to the wait.

There is basically zero debate in scientific circles about warming. The issue is the exact amount of warming.

As for slow vs sudden--we have an example of a natural nuclear reactor. It was very slow. Thus obviously Hiroshima wasn't harmed.

And we have found some very quick (on the order of a few years) changes in the climate in the past. It's not always slow.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

You keep posting about how that the Earth's temperature only appears to be rising because of the location of weather stations located near cities or 'heat islands'. You flat out deny information, however, when cornered you'll twist and bend to make some sort of short-term concession, though in not too long, you'll be posting links to blogs, once again, denying the very basis of global warming.

And what heat islands are the world's glaciers in that they are retreating so fast?

 

[angelo]

I brought up the subject of sea salt to point out that the planet has changed enormously throughout it's history. Where once there were oceans there are now land masses. The climate has been changing right alongside these upheavals causing and changing the diversity of life itself on Earth. Forestry where today there is desert. Most of Antarctica was once ice free.
I'm not and never have denied climate changes, but it's a natural part of planet Earth which has swung from ice ages to tropical climate and back again.

Death is a natural part of life. If I murder you is that ok because it was natural?

Death is a natural part of life, murder is not!

 

[angelo]

Bastardi is an outspoken denier of human-induced global warming.[13] He has written a book describing his views,[14] which are sharply at odds with political opinions on the topic.

Bastardi has asserted that the world was warmer in the 1930s than today, as well as stating that human contribution of carbon dioxide is too small to have any effect, and warming is caused by sun spots and exchange with warmer oceans.[15] He argues in his columns that extreme weather events occur naturally and that there is not enough evidence to state that such events are unusual.[16] In 2011, Bastardi wrote that, as he had predicted three years earlier, global average temperature was falling, and by 2030 would return to levels seen in the late 1970s due to the "triple-crown of cooling" comprising oceanic temperature cycles, solar radiation cycles, and volcanic activity.[17]

Bastardi asserts that the changes due to carbon dioxide are tiny compared to other factors so it cannot cause global warming.[18] He writes "In the entire geological history of the planet, there has been no known linkage between CO2 and temperatures."[19] Bastardi also states that carbon dioxide cannot cause global warming because this would violate the first law of thermodynamics,He has further explained:

CO2 cannot cause global warming. I'll tell you why. It doesn't mix well with the atmosphere, for one. For two, its specific gravity is 1 1/2 times that of the rest of the atmosphere. It heats and cools much quicker. Its radiative processes are much different. So it cannot -- it literally cannot cause global warming. --- Joe Bastardi, Fox Business, March 9, 2012.[20]

Physicist Richard A. Muller states that Bastardi's explanation of CO2 is "completely wrong" and "even skeptics of global warming, if they know physics, would disagree with him."[21]

Bastardi and science popularizer Bill Nye have clashed over climate change. In 2010 they debated on Fox TV.[22] In 2015–2016 Bastardi and Nye publicly challenged each other with predictions of mean global surface temperature in the near term.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Joe_Bastardi

 

[TSwizzle]

It's pretty obvious that george and angelo's position is that it's just too damn inconvenient to fix things.

If it ain't broke don't fix it.


Climate change has become a Rapture like cult.

 

[scombrid]

Bastardi also states that carbon dioxide cannot cause global warming because this would violate the first law of thermodynamics,He has further explained:

CO2 cannot cause global warming. I'll tell you why. It doesn't mix well with the atmosphere, for one. For two, its specific gravity is 1 1/2 times that of the rest of the atmosphere. It heats and cools much quicker. Its radiative processes are much different. So it cannot -- it literally cannot cause global warming. ---

That is about on par with a creationist using 2LoT to "disprove" Evolution. Seriously. That is just physically wrong.

 

[Jimmy Higgins]

Bastardi asserts that the changes due to carbon dioxide are tiny compared to other factors so it cannot cause global warming.[18]

Well golly gee... he dun asserted something... which makes it true.

He writes "In the entire geological history of the planet, there has been no known linkage between CO2 and temperatures."[19]

Excluding now?

Bastardi also states that carbon dioxide cannot cause global warming because this would violate the first law of thermodynamics

Now how in the fuck would he do that? You'd have to be pretty fucking stupid to make that argument. Let's see the claim.

Do you realize how small that is for a trace gas necessary for life on the planet? it is almost incomprehensible that this has taken off the way it has, the whole argument, it contradicts what we call the first law of thermodynamics: energy can neither be created or destroyed. So to look for input of energy into the atmosphere, you have to come from a foreign source and it is already out there

The sun is the source... and the Earth doesn't absorb all of the energy that reaches it from the Sun. If it doesn't absorb all of it... that means there is energy available to account for the warming. CO₂ traps a bit more of the energy than the atmosphere would have otherwise. Goodness!

I have to wonder how dumb and ignorant one would need to be to even consider Bastardi's comment even remotely viable science.

 

[bilby]

All those idiotic gardeners and horticulturists. Don't they realise that the air inside a greenhouse cannot be warmer than the outside air, without a foreign source of energy? It's right there in the first law of thermodynamics. Greenhouses are obviously just a scam by big glass.

Stupid Bastardi.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

I brought up the subject of sea salt to point out that the planet has changed enormously throughout it's history. Where once there were oceans there are now land masses. The climate has been changing right alongside these upheavals causing and changing the diversity of life itself on Earth. Forestry where today there is desert. Most of Antarctica was once ice free.
I'm not and never have denied climate changes, but it's a natural part of planet Earth which has swung from ice ages to tropical climate and back again.

Death is a natural part of life. If I murder you is that ok because it was natural?

Death is a natural part of life, murder is not!

And what we are seeing in the climate now isn't natural, either.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

CO2 cannot cause global warming. I'll tell you why. It doesn't mix well with the atmosphere, for one. For two, its specific gravity is 1 1/2 times that of the rest of the atmosphere. It heats and cools much quicker. Its radiative processes are much different. So it cannot -- it literally cannot cause global warming. --- Joe Bastardi, Fox Business, March 9, 2012.[20]

Let's consider this bit of crap. Sunday I was out in the mountains, above 10,000'. There are a few insects and birds up there, AFIAK nothing larger. The primary vegetation is bristlecone pine--and given their slow growth I'm sure they're basically inedible. Furthermore, I was going along a ridgeline--that dense CO2 could easily have spilled off either side of the ridge. Thus that area should be basically devoid of CO2.

How, then, are these plants growing?

 

[bilby]

CO2 cannot cause global warming. I'll tell you why. It doesn't mix well with the atmosphere, for one. For two, its specific gravity is 1 1/2 times that of the rest of the atmosphere. It heats and cools much quicker. Its radiative processes are much different. So it cannot -- it literally cannot cause global warming. --- Joe Bastardi, Fox Business, March 9, 2012.[20]

Let's consider this bit of crap. Sunday I was out in the mountains, above 10,000'. There are a few insects and birds up there, AFIAK nothing larger. The primary vegetation is bristlecone pine--and given their slow growth I'm sure they're basically inedible. Furthermore, I was going along a ridgeline--that dense CO2 could easily have spilled off either side of the ridge. Thus that area should be basically devoid of CO2.

How, then, are these plants growing?
View attachment 22453

And for that matter, how come you don't choke to death on carbon dioxide every time you go down to your basement? People have been exhaling it in the house above for years.

 

[T.G.G. Moogly]

It's pretty obvious that george and angelo's position is that it's just too damn inconvenient to fix things.

If it ain't broke don't fix it.


Climate change has become a Rapture like cult.

Climate denial certainly has.

 

[Jimmy Higgins]

All those idiotic gardeners and horticulturists. Don't they realise that the air inside a greenhouse cannot be warmer than the outside air, without a foreign source of energy? It's right there in the first law of thermodynamics. Greenhouses are obviously just a scam by big glass.

Stupid Bastardi.

This is akin to 9/11 Truthers saying that it was an inside job because the towers fell faster than free fall.

 

[angelo]

Here’s a better graph of CO2 and temperature for the last 600 million years! As noted, CO2 levels have historically been quite a bit higher than current levels Joe!
You might note that at 4400 ppm, the earths temperature was roughly the same as it is today! AND an ice age occurred while CO2 was over 4,000 ppm!
So what is the AGW scam really about? Global income redistribution, as admitted by IPCC officials!
Interesting that Romm’s graphs show a much lower level of atmospheric CO2 than actually existed! Note how much higher the average global temperature has been, than it is today! We live in a temporary low temperature bubble!

In the last 600 million years of Earth’s history only the Carboniferous Period and our present age, the Quaternary Period, have witnessed CO2 levels less than 400 ppm.
Global Temperature and Atmospheric CO2 over Geologic Time

Late Carboniferous to Early Permian time (315 mya — 270 mya) is the only time period in the last 600 million years when both atmospheric CO2 and temperatures were as low as they are today (Quaternary Period ).
Temperature after C.R. Scotese http://www.scotese.com/climate.htm

CO2 after R.A. Berner, 2001 (GEOCARB III)

There has historically been much more CO2 in our atmosphere than exists today. For example:

During the Jurassic Period (200 mya), average CO2 concentrations were about 1800 ppm or about 4.7 times higher than today.

The highest concentrations of CO2 during all of the Paleozoic Era occurred during the Cambrian Period, nearly 7000 ppm — about 18 times higher than today.

The Carboniferous Period and the Ordovician Period were the only geological periods during the Paleozoic Era when global temperatures were as low as they are today. To the consternation of global warming proponents, the Late Ordovician Period was also an Ice Age while at the same time CO2 concentrations then were nearly 12 times higher than today — 4400 ppm.
According to greenhouse theory, Earth should have been exceedingly hot. Instead, global temperatures were no warmer than today. Clearly, other factors besides atmospheric carbon influence earth temperatures and global warming.
And Joe Romm insists the records must be wrong? The sky is falling? The emperor has new clothes.

Very little of the above blog can be refuted.

 

[Jimmy Higgins]

Also Snell’s Law and Avogadro’s Number totally indicate CO2 doesn’t exist.

 

[George S]

This paper (15 pages) explains how people on both sides can present actual scientific data to support their political position. Interesting (even if long and technical) read. https://cspo.org/legacy/library/110104F2FV_lib_SarewitzEnvSciPo.pdf

How science makes environmental controversies worse
Daniel Sarewitz
Consortium for Science, Policy, and Outcomes, Arizona State University, P.O. Box 874401, Arizona, AZ 85287-4401, USA
Abstract
I use the example of the 2000 US Presidential election to show that political controversies with technical underpinnings are not resolved
by technical means. Then, drawing from examples such as climate change, genetically modified foods, and nuclear waste disposal, I explore the idea that scientific inquiry is inherently and unavoidably subject to becoming politicized in environmental controversies. I discuss three reasons for this. First, science supplies contesting parties with their own bodies of relevant, legitimated facts about nature, chosen in part
because they help make sense of, and are made sensible by, particular interests and normative frameworks. Second, competing disciplinary
approaches to understanding the scientific bases of an environmental controversy may be causally tied to competing value-based political
or ethical positions. The necessity of looking at nature through a variety of disciplinary lenses brings with it a variety of normative lenses, as
well. Third, it follows from the foregoing that scientific uncertainty, which so often occupies a central place in environmental controversies,
can be understood not as a lack of scientific understanding but as the lack of coherence among competing scientific understandings,
amplified by the various political, cultural, and institutional contexts within which science is carried out.
In light of these observations, I briefly explore the problem of why some types of political controversies become “scientized” and others
do not, and conclude that the value bases of disputes underlying environmental controversies must be fully articulated and adjudicated
through political means before science can play an effective role in resolving environmental problems.
© 2004 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved. [emphasis added]

Consider climate change, which may variously be understood as a “problem” of climate impacts, weather impacts, biodiversity, land use, energy production and consumption, agricultural productivity, public health, economic development patterns, material wealth, demographic patterns, etc. Each of these ways of looking at the problem of climate change involves a variety of interests and values, and each may call on a body of relevant knowledge to help understand and respond to the problem.

Not only may the interests, values, and knowledge relevant to one way of understanding the problem be, in small part or large, different from those associated with another way, but they may also be contradictory. Conversely, those holding different value perspectives may see in the huge and diverse body of scientific information relevant to climate change different facts, theories, and hypothesis relevant to and consistent with their own normative frameworks.

This condition may be termed an “excess of objectivity,” because the obstacle to achieving any type of shared scientific understanding of what climate change (or any other complex environmental problem) “means,” and thus what it may imply for human action, is not a lack of scientific knowledge so much as the contrary — a huge body of knowledge whose components can be legitimately assembled and interpreted in different ways to yield competing views of the “problem” and of how society should respond.

Put simply, for a given value-based position in an environmental controversy, it is often possible to compile a supporting set of scientifically legitimated facts.” [bold added]

 

[Jimmy Higgins]

This paper (15 pages) explains how people on both sides can present actual scientific data to support their political position.

Ain't that the most bullshit of statements. Global warming isn't a "political position". It is a scientific observation. The paper you cite doesn't particularly indicate that the denials are founded on truth.

 

[George S]

This paper (15 pages) explains how people on both sides can present actual scientific data to support their political position.

Ain't that the most bullshit of statements. Global warming isn't a "political position". It is a scientific observation. The paper you cite doesn't particularly indicate that the denials are founded on truth.

It is clear you did not read the paper. You posted a reply just 7 minutes after I posted it. It took me about 1/2 hour to read it. Get back with specific objections to the paper's content (not my summary.) Please include which of his referenced articles are wrong.

 

[Jimmy Higgins]

This paper (15 pages) explains how people on both sides can present actual scientific data to support their political position.

Ain't that the most bullshit of statements. Global warming isn't a "political position". It is a scientific observation. The paper you cite doesn't particularly indicate that the denials are founded on truth.

It is clear you did not read the paper. You posted a reply just 7 minutes after I posted it. It took me about 1/2 hour to read it. Get back with specific objections to the paper's content (not my summary.) Please include which of his referenced articles are wrong.

Just as soon as you demonstrate that what I said about the paper not nothing the denials are founded on truth isn't true. This is just another Moore-Coulteresque false equivalency.

The Earth is warming, but climate change predictions aren't carved in stone... therefore political opinions of denialists are as valid as scientific observations of scientists.

 

[George S]

It is clear you did not read the paper. You posted a reply just 7 minutes after I posted it. It took me about 1/2 hour to read it. Get back with specific objections to the paper's content (not my summary.) Please include which of his referenced articles are wrong.

Just as soon as you demonstrate that what I said about the paper not nothing the denials are founded on truth isn't true. This is just another Moore-Coulteresque false equivalency.

The Earth is warming, but climate change predictions aren't carved in stone... therefore political opinions of denialists are as valid as scientific observations of scientists.

You still haven't read it?