Climate Change denial vs History

Climate skeptics pounced on this change as proof that earlier estimates had been overblown, while some climate bloggers questioned whether the IPCC had lowballed its estimates to avoid confrontation with skeptics. According to a sample of scientists contacted by ClimateWire, however, the revised ETS does not much alter the picture of overall planetary warming or how humanity needs to respond to it.

"That change is pretty minor when you work through its implications for policy," said Gavin Schmidt, a climate modeler at the NASA Goddard Institute for Space Studies. The upper limit of the range remains the same in both reports -- 4.5 C (8.1 F) -- he noted, while most mainstream scientists put their "best guess" for climate sensitivity somewhere in the middle of the range, between 2.5 and 3.5 C.

Dropping the lower threshold of the "likely" range by half a degree is unlikely to cause world governments to scrap their climate action plans, he said.

In fact, the lower limit is not so much a departure from as it is a return to previous estimates.

 

Which seems to be a different body of doctrine from climate science.....

So in fact, you are saying that people more accurately described as dissenters and skeptics holding fact-based but minority positions are to be dismissed as "deniers." Check.

 

If the medieval warm period wasn't warmer than today, why are the retreating NH glaciers revealing the remains of medieval villages? The glacier where the Ice Man was found still hasn't retreated to the point where it was when he died 5300 years ago.

The Southern hemisphere is mostly ocean, which takes much longer to warm up than land.

 

Anyone could. That graph dishonestly mixes proxy data with instrument data.

 

Which is why Berkely Earth was set up

http://berkeleyearth.org/

Multiple multiple independent investigations across different nations of the world and the denialists are STILL not satisfied

One of these days I will run a poll to see if there is a correlation between birtherism and climate change denial

 

But everybody already is recycling and walking and whatever else you want to suggest. I think your argument is the straw man because you are trying to argue your ideal is righteous - but it is just that. An ideal. Can't get a man to the moon on solar power. Can't fly a passenger jet on solar power. It takes gas - fossil fuels. And where did the fossil fuels come from? Biodegradable plant and animal material.

I grew up in a passive solar envelope house in California. All it needed for heat was four sunny days a week. We did not own a furnace. But like many families in the 80's we had a wood burning stove. Guess what? Air quality problems became the new PROBLEM when everyone began burning wood.

I very much wanted to put solar panels on my house. But good thing I didn't. This winter, we are just beginning to see the roof again after six feet of snow has finally melted away. Solar panels would not have provided heat for through the worst of the winter cold. Furthermore, they would not have been able to withstand the weight of the snow and the expanding and contracting ice damming.

I put a bunch of those spiral light bulbs in my house, then was mortified to discover they are filled with mercury! You cannot just toss them in the trash when they burn out like you could the old, "biodegradable" glass bulbs.

Now, you tell me what the next hot topic will be in 20 years. You know what it will be - what to do with all that Prius/electric car battery waste! How to dispose of them responsibly when it comes time to replace. What will be the burden on an already failing electrical grid when everyone plugs in their batteries. What happens when the acid leaks out of the batteries and seeps into the ground water and poisons populations of people. How much energy does it take to produce those batteries.

What ever you do, it creates a new problem.

 

Guess what? Burning wood is one of the main causes of morality in third world countries

• Around 3 billion people cook and heat their homes using open fires and simple stoves burning biomass (wood, animal dung and crop waste) and coal.
• Over 4 million people die prematurely from illness attributable to the household air pollution from cooking with solid fuels.
• More than 50% of premature deaths due to pneumonia among children under 5 are caused by the particulate matter (soot) inhaled from household air pollution.
• 3.8 million premature deaths annually from noncommunicable diseases including stroke, ischaemic heart disease, chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD) and lung cancer are attributed to exposure to household air pollution.

http://www.who.int/mediacentre/factsheets/fs292/en/

We had a HUGE acid spill here - one of the main trains that takes concentrated sulphuric acid came off the rails east of Julia Creek

They put lime on it

Acid is not the pollution problem that you computer is and it certainly is not the pollution problem that one coal fired power station can be.

Did you know that Japan has developed clean coal technology?

http://www.jcoal.or.jp/eng/cctinjapan/

This would not have happened without the impetus from emissions targets because it is and was cheaper to stay with old dirty technology

And as for your idea of draining the power with everyone plugging in batteries

All I can say is

 

And like I said - everyone is already on the same page -- except the zillions who are not. And never will be.

I am more focused on the trash people create as individuals -- what everyone can do something about by packing out what they pack in, by purchasing fresh foods instead of packaged foods, etc. Every Fall, the people in our town come out for a big volunteer clean-up day to pick up all the disgusting litter left by hoards of tourists - 80% of which are California progressives.

 

All well and good. You keep picking up that trash but DON'T get in the way of cleaning up other pats of our environment

 

So the real data for 1000 to 1200 is?

I shouldn't need to ask...

 

Wait until they link to CO2 science's interactive map on the MWP - I have had sooooo much fun with that over the years - pointing out that the bloody dates for the so called warming do not match globally.

While there is little doubt that there was a warming period in Europe and Noth America it appears that the culprit was the North Atlantic Oscillation because the tropics were cooler

 

I'm not a denier, I'm just a skeptic.

These are the reasons.

First; the global temp has increased 1.7°F since 1880.

https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2015/11/28/science/what-is-climate-change.html?_r=1

Second; carbon is mostly naturally occurring.

http://notrickszone.com/2013/03/02/...atural-sources/#sthash.IExmn9dN.O12NgSp0.dpbs

Third; the ice sheets aren't shrinking, in fact they are getting bigger.

https://www.nasa.gov/feature/goddar...ns-of-antarctic-ice-sheet-greater-than-losses

I'm not against the idea of anthropogenic climate change, I just don't see enough evidence to convince me.

 

Using one of your sites this came up.

http://notrickszone.com/2013/03/02/...atural-sources/#sthash.IExmn9dN.oqBgzla8.dpbs

 

OF course ****ing carbon is "natural" and we normally have SOME CO2 in our atmosphere - otherwise we would be in the middle of what is termed "snawball earth"

But you CAN have too much of a good thing and CO2 is one of those gases that fits that description

Here is a group that should know what they are talking about when it comes to CO2

https://www.acs.org/content/acs/en/climatescience/greenhousegases/sourcesandsinks.html

As for Antarctica - the paper does not disprove global warming - particularly as the Artic continues to lose ice

Here is the study in context

http://www.livescience.com/52831-antarctica-gains-ice-but-still-warming.html

 

So most CO2 being naturally produced it isn't a pollutant, if it's naturally occurring than it certainly isn't anthropogenic.

If the globe was getting warmer ice would be melting all over not melting in one place and forming in another.

So this really just suggests that warmer water is moving to the arctic. That is a change in climate but I'll need to see more evidence that it's produced by humans.

And then you never addressed the fact that the temp has only gone up 1.7°F since 1880. That isn't at all drastic.

 

Most of the 180 are less than democratic and/or on the receiving end of, from their perspective, the climate gravy train.
I didn't describe a conspiracy theory. It is quite well known and well practiced, though in 2nd place to the most prevalent way of governing: campaign one way and legislate another way.

 

Was the Montreal Protocol (ratified by Ronnie Reagan), also delusional and some kind of scam? In case you were distracted by something shiny at the time, I'll remind you that ozone depletion posed a significant threat to our climate, our health (exponential increases in skin cancers), crop growth and the marine food chain. We, humans, created the hole with our profligate use of cfc and we, humans, did something to fix it. It is working. Now, tell me how much it has cost you, personally. Ball park will do.

 

And notice it is now falling out the bottom!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

 

Well yes. That makes sense. I just wanted to see if those who were saying that the earth (globally) was warmer around that period then it is now, had any data whatsoever to support their claims. This data might not be exact. But it's a pretty good indicator that it wasn't.

 

But most is not produced naturally. here is the chart. Orange is for sources caused by humans, the rest in teal.

This is in a link provided by Bowerbird https://www.acs.org/content/acs/en/climatescience/greenhousegases/sourcesandsinks.html

In respect to other green-house gases, human production is less than what is produced naturally. But humans do contribute quite a bit. The article shows the exact proportions.

 

What would "enough evidence" look like? I mean, there are thousands of scientific peer-reviewed studies from many fields (Climatology, Anthropology, Chemistry, physics, geology, etc) that support the science. Very few that question it. I am tempted to say "none" because the last one I knew about that actually questions the (so-called) "consensus position" was withdrawn by its authors.

Following the Scientific Method, this is what counts. Whatever scientists "believe" or "don't believe" doesn't count. Only what they can prove through actual peer-reviewed studies. So if you deny this, you would actually be denying the scientific method itself. And that's what Science is.

Oh, and BTW, the scientific consensus only states that the Earth is warming, and that this is caused by human activity. There is no actual scientific consensus about the consequences. Though there is sort of an "informal" consensus that the consequences are not good.

 

Nature produces about 770 billion tons of co2 annually.
Humans produce about 34 billion tons annually.
770>34

 

LOL, you post an article where Michael Mann says the consensus says the Antarctic is losing ice. Guess the 'consensus' is more important than the science showing it is gaining ice.

 

Right. The chart refers to the excess CO2 that remains in the atmosphere after the natural cycle.

 

Uptake of CO2 also changes as CO2 changes. The fact that the earth has been in a CO2 deficit compared to the past proves there is plenty of room for uptake.