Climate change: Is it for real?

You can be a member of UCS. All you need is a credit card. Not one climate scientist on the board. Go figure.

Here is one of their newest members, Kenji Watts. You would be in good company.

 

I got crickets. Wow, I'd thought for sure that you'd be right in here showing me all of that there evidency stuff.

 

Of course climate change is real yesterday my weather rock was wet, today it's dry.

 

try reading

 

And that's a very good thing, carbon is life, without CO2 there is no food to eat. If we didn't dig carbons out of the ground then eventually too much of it would be in the ground for us to sustain our population.

 

you're being naive at best


Carbon pollution: the good, the bad, the ugly, and the denial

The GWPF argues that carbon pollution is terrific, but climate scientists and policymakers aren’t buying it

The anti-climate policy ‘fact blurring’ advocacy group Global Warming Policy Foundation (GWPF) recently published a report on ‘the good news’ about rising carbon dioxide, written by Indur Goklany. Goklany has a background in electrical engineering and has been a US delegate to the IPCC. He has also in the past received $1,000 per month from the Heartland Institute and had two books published by the Cato Institute, among other affiliations with fossil fuel-funded think tanks.

Goklany’s affiliation with and funding from these think tanks is relevant due to the nature of the GWPF report, which essentially argues that carbon pollution is the best thing since sliced bread.

The bad outweighs the good

Professor Colin Prentice, expert in climate change impacts on the biosphere at Imperial College London, put together a nice summary of what the report gets right and wrong. While the GWPF report is correct that there are some benefits from rising carbon dioxide levels, as Prentice notes,

The good news should not blind us to the negative implications of continued unabated climate change, and the multidecadal lead times required for policies to have any discernible effect on CO2 and climate. These are the reasons propelling international pressure for long-term carbon neutrality, and nothing that Goklany says in his report invalidates them.

In short, the report selectively considers only the evidence that supports its argument that carbon pollution is terrific. The report also argues against a strawman, portraying its opponents as claiming that there are no benefits associated with global warming. In reality, climate scientists and economists consider all climate change impacts, both good and bad, in their overall assessments. Unfortunately the bad consequences far outweigh the good, as even the GWPF’s own economic advisor Richard Tol has concluded. As climate scientist Richard Betts noted,

Assessments of the impacts of climate change on ecosystems and crops do include CO2 effects as well as physical climate effects, and while there are uncertainties in both, current understanding suggests that CO2 effects on photosynthesis will tail off while the impacts of climate change itself continue. The harms may well outweigh the benefits, especially when we remember that sea level rise is an inevitable consequence of a warming world. There are no good reasons to assume that that the effect of CO2 on plants is some sort of “get out of jail free” card.

‘CO2 is plant food’ is an oversimplification

The GWPF report mostly focuses on what’s sometimes called ‘global greening,’ associated with carbon dioxide fertilization of plants. It’s essentially the ‘CO2 is plant food’ oversimplification, tackled by Professor Sarah Green in the Denial101x lecture below.

[video=youtube;wcDUaBO8T34]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wcDUaBO8T34[/video]

In short, if all else is equal, higher carbon dioxide is generally better for plant growth. The problem is that when atmospheric carbon dioxide levels rise in the real world, we can’t hold everything else constant the way we can in a greenhouse. Temperatures rise, and the resulting extreme heat can have severely detrimental impacts on plant growth, particularly for certain crops like maize. That rise in temperatures also amplifies droughts, the increase of water vapor in the atmosphere intensifies floods, and so on.

http://www.theguardian.com/environment/climate-consensus-97-per-cent/2015/oct/21/carbon-pollution-the-good-the-bad-the-ugly-and-the-denial?CMP=share_btn_fb

 

Is that all you can do, repeat the same alarmist youtube crap over and over again. It is apparent you have read very little on this.

 

what's apparent is that you're wrong

 

Says Johnny One Note.

 

...........Says Johnny one interminable note.

 

I know reading is pretty hard for some people but one should read everything on this, not just listen to the media or read the cartoonists alarmist blog. The 'science is settled' crowd are truly anti-science.

 

LOL, you're funny. So here's your argument summed up in a few simple lines.

Oh yeah well this one guy that says that well he got paid for his research so there it's not real.

Ok ok ok, CO2 is good for plants, but but but the sea level, yeah the sea level, that'll get us.

But but, it'll get hot, that will cause more water vapor which somehow will create more droughts.

 

you're projecting your own situation

 

It's funny if all these save the earth stop climate change people had any minds of there own they'd understand that CO2 is good. That with the kind of world effort they have in mind to "stop global warming" we could turn almost the entire surface of the earth green. But to do so would take a lot of atmospheric CO2.

What the surface of the earth needs to make that happen is human intervention, more water vapor, more CO2, less ice, and more ocean currents. Basically everything global warming alarmists are trying to stop. Digging up Hydrocarbon fuels gives us the energy to get things like this done. It also provides for more atmospheric CO2 and slightly warmer surface temperatures. The CO2 becomes plant food, which intern becomes biomass, which will lower CO2 levels again. The slightly warmer surface temperatures melt the frozen tundras and polar ice cap. This creates a lot more usable land and increases ocean currents. An increase in ocean currents helps to equalize temperatures globally. While a warmer ocean evaporates more water creating more fresh water for human consumption, fish, and plants. It will take some human intervention to work out really well though, largely in the form of flood control to reservoirs and irrigation, we've been doing this for centuries and only recently have slowed due to government restrictions. For example much of the very fertile and successful puget sound used to be a big swamp that flooded a lot. Until we dug a river that connected the lakes, lowered there level and connected them to the sea.

 

My own situation, you mean being alive and intelligent?

 

That is obviously a problem for some.

I love the argument presented though by a uninspired true believer which goes like this.

You don't know what you are talking about so let me keep re-posting one article from an organization that has no climate scientists on it because you can only believe them and that supports my bias and present a YouTube video of someone Else's opinion. Don't bother me with anything else or I will wash, rinse, repeat.

 

the article i posted shows that you don't know what you're talking about regarding co2

 

No it claims that I don't know it I'm talking about, it shows nothing but idiocy.

 

I'm happy to prove you wrong, as that graph demonstrates only that the denizens of Denierstan are experts at being deliberately deceptive. And I think anyone who looks at that graph would say that it is indeed just that. Moreover, and more to the point, the graph fails to demonstrate the point you are trying to make. You claim that global warming since the 19th century is "negligible", but "negligible" is a concept that is not dependent on any particular number -- and hence, it is not dependent on any particular vertical scale on a graph, no matter how obviously useless it might be. To be "negligible", global warming would have had to have had no noticeable effects. Not only have you failed to demonstrate your claim, it is clearly and obviously incorrect.

And even beyond that, it is both dishonest and unfair for you to claim that I am "ignoring the central point", when you yourself didn't even raise that allegedly central point in any previous of your posts. Am I supposed to be a mind reader now?

Translation of translation: you cannot refute anything that I've said, so instead of sticking to the facts (which you claimed in a previous post was your preferred modus operandi), you've decided to try ad-hominems instead. Yeah, that's really convincing.

The statistics are the real-world evidence. But you need to have a logical mind to grasp that.

Sorta like you did with your "translation" above. Tu quoque. You're just full of hypocracy, aren't you?

 

Oh, I can be quite specific.

In fact, I already have been.

As I noted in post #40 in this thread, the temperature has apparently risen just 1.53 degrees Fahrenheit between 1880 and 2012--certainly, not enough for many people to notice, in my opinion.

Do you imagine that you would notice the difference?

Tu quoque again.

I really do not know what sort of "ad hominems" you are referring to. (I have consistently criticized your views--not you, as a person.)

 

Ignoring the point again. "Your opinion" isn't evidence. In order to "be very specific" in support of your negligibility claim, you would have to provide evidence that the observed temperature rise has had no noticeable effects. Because if the observed temperature rise has had any noticeable effects (and it has), then the rise is not negligible, and your claim is false. And you have not provided that specificity.

So no, you have not been specific, and no, the effects have not been negligible.

Denier FAIL.

Do you imagine that the people who live in, say, Atlantic City, would not notice it?

In the first place, it's not tu quoque. And in the second place, your feeble response does not address the point I made.

You have criticized me by implying that I am "in lockstep with the leftists". There is no criticism of leftist views there. It is a simple ad-hom, nothing more.
Meanwhile, you still have not refuted nor even addressed the factual argument I laid out in post #67. Your claim to prefer facts over motivations is looking more and more like self-deception with every post you make.

 

You use only a localized event, Atlantic City, which does not relate to global flood events which show no trend. Also, the temperature in the US has not risen but has fallen throughout the decades, though not statistically significant. Then there is the sea level rise on the East Coast unrelated to temperature but related to the AMO shift which is a regular 'natural' occurrence.

BTW, your sig is the typical baseless alarmist propaganda.

 

The National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) is refusing to fully comply with a subpoena from Science Committee chair Lamar Smith that would shed light on the 15 year "pause" in warming.

What are they hiding?

http://thehill.com/policy/energy-en...nt-give-gop-internal-docs-on-climate-research

It's pretty obvious that the NOAA doesn't want to release the data because it will either show they cooked the books, or, as they've done in the past, misinterpreted the data.

 

It is pretty obvious why the change happened. The NOAA grabbed the 'hiatus buster' Karl et. al. paper that decided that the buoys designed for science were inferior to the problematic ship engine intake temperatures and over the side bucket temperatures. The request for emails would shed a light on the government political decision making to include this data to make the well known hiatus disappear that shows in all other data records.

Now there is dissent in the climate ranks about the Karl et. al. paper tweaking the data.

https://usclivar.org/sites/default/files/documents/2015/Variations2015Summer.pdf

 

When the argument is over whether temperatures went up a little or not at all, certainly its clear that we are not experiencing rapid heating. And when government scientists are refusing to comply with Congressional Subpoena to disclose their work and they suddenly clam up like they are concealing nuclear launch codes, it kinda makes you think. These are simply thermometer readings, why do they feel compelled to hide the raw data?