More Americans and most Republicans now believe in climate change

finally. You should have taken the 30 seconds to do it in the first place. I don't know why that was so hard for you.

I wasn't arguing that the survey questions proved my claim you were therefore it is your burden to take 30 seconds and do it.

But I'm glad you finally did it and this undermines your claim which is probably why you didn't want to do it. Which is probably why taking 30 seconds to do it was such a chore for you.

But I digress.

So to address the only question that you presented, it doesn't ask do you believe the climate is changing. it says do you believe the climate is changing causing severe weather and sea level rise.

So you were dishonest in your claim which I knew from the beginning. And I have a suspicion you did as well. Again if it only took 30 seconds why spend an entire day trying not to meet your burden?

So when you say a percentage of people don't believe in A and then you cite a survey question that says a certain percentage of people don't believe situation A will lead to situation B and eventually to situation C you were not just being this on us you were deliberately concealing the truth.

 

The Sun Will Be Dimmer By 2050

 

The number of just simply flat out misstatements of facts in one short paragraph... C 14 half life is ~5700 years. The occurrence of C14 isn't being referred to as the "smoking gun", C 12 is. And yet, both are naturally produced. The assertion most commonly made is that C 12 represents the output of carbon based fuels because the 12 was produced in eras that were cooler because the nature of the O isotopes, and then it gets super convoluted and involves H2O availability etc. But the citation of C 12 as the primary isotopal marker for AGW is the one which the community has invested in. It seems that the majority of reports/studies refer to this because it's demonstrably easier to isolate and identify.

The main methodological error is the idea that C 12 doesn't then fluctuate normally or naturally in the atmosphere. That is the real issue as it is both demonstrably wrong as well as a misstatement of the dataset. Hence, why I suppose, you differentiate the existence of the C 14 variant, and why you've discussed it this way. But, it would appear that ALL C release is then a combination of all of the identified variants, from C 1 through C 22. Of course that makes too many variables for any model to churn through, so folks fudge it.

And that is the unfortunate truth about this. The method is suspect. The conclusions based on it are suspect. I would point to any number of after treatment output potentials that can actually be designed in. Which still doesn't then differentiate them from naturally occurring Isotopal releases found in nature.

 

The Earths climate has been changing for the last 4 billion years.

 

Wrong.

Fossil fuels have a lower 13C/12C ratio than the atmosphere. We know this for a fact. This is not an inference made from paleoclimate records. It is directly measured. The natural emissions and atmospheric concentrations have a higher 13C/12C ratio. If the concentration increases and the 13C/12C ratio decreases that is a good indication that fossil fuel based carbon was injected into the atmosphere. And that's exactly what we observe.

It's the same with 14C. Because 14C has a half of about 5,000 years (yes, I know the more precise value is closer to 5700, but that's irrelevant here) fossil fuels are completely depleted of it. When you inject fossil fuel carbon into the atmosphere the ratio of 14C to 13C and 12C decreases. Living organisms take this carbon from the atmosphere as part of biological processes. It also gets incorporated into ice cores. What scientists have found is that the amount of 14C in these sources declined from about 1850 to 1950 as fossil fuel based carbon emissions increased exactly in accordance with expectations.

But lets assume all of the words leading scientists are stupid and you're really smart and have figured something out that they don't know about isotope analysis. You still need to explain the mass accounting. If that 2000 Gt of carbon that got added to the carbon budget didn't come from fossil fuels then answer these two questions.

1. Where did the 2000 Gts come from?

2. Where did the 2000 Gts originating from fossil fuels go if it didn't go into Earth's carbon cycle?

 

I happen to agree. But a dimmer Sun does not magically "turn off" a CO2's warming effect. In fact, at +2 ppm/yr the CO2 effect will have increased by 5.35 * ln((410 + 2 * 30) / 410) = 0.7 W/m^2.

 

36% of Republicans do not accept that the climate is currently changing. That is the finding from this study. If you want to save their face by claiming that they probably do believe that the climate will change in the future or that it is changing, but just to a degree that is unlikely to result in any harm to us, feel free.

 

You better get right on the deforestation then.

 

Is there any amount of evidence that would convince you that the current climate is altering at a rate which is both dangerous and human influenced?

 

I believe that the climate is changing, when I see deforestation brought to a halt then I'll know you're serious about it being a real problem. An area the size of England, Scotland and Wales is clear cut every year and we wonder why the CO2 level is climbing. Precious little is being done about that leading many to believe it just about a carbon tax revenue stream. The process to halt major deforestation is easy, STOP CUTTING THE TREES DOWN.

When I see deforestation reduced by at least 60% to 75%, then we can talk about other measures with a certainty the problem is a real one and not just another Government way to empty my wallet of more money.

 

Not even remotely close to an answer for my question.

 

So you're plan is to address a factor that only modulates about 15% of the excess CO2 first. Then once that's under control you'll address the cause of the remaining 85%?

Don't get me wrong. Addressing deforestation is a noble goal. It needs to be done. But, the priority is misplaced and it in no way means that the warming isn't happening and that humans are the cause.

 

So, as indicated your analysis is quite wrong. As to your two questions, the system is finite, yes? Unless somehow C is imported via extra terrestrial means, (comets, meteors, progressive web sites...)

It isn't as if the total amount of C is expanding, is it? So, the conclusion is the process of inducing more free carbon from which additional life is created. For example, the amount of C is the same whether the human population is 2 or 7 billion. Right? It doesn't change, we don't "create" carbon do we? The answer of course is no. we do not. But, for us to sustain life, we have to have sufficient sources of C available to us, right? If not, we don't have plants, we don't have animals, we don't have people, fish in the oceans, etc.

There are plenty of natural processes that as the climate warms, allows for all manner of non animated C to become available. It isn't "magic", nor is it entirely driven by fossil fuel consumption, is it? And the answer is, no, it is not. More, as temperature increases, to ability of the atmosphere to retain more soluble C in the atmosphere rises accordingly. It must. Plant life cannot independently grow without a more rich reservoir of soluble C, right? Absent that, the greening of our world is unable to sustain itself.

The real question is this. if soluble C isn't available, what happens to life on our little world? Can you, for example, tell us what the "optimal" amount is? Care to hazard a guess? And if that "optimal" value varies, then what? So, the answer to your second question is that the burn released into the reservoir of available carbon, from which the greening of our planet has enjoyed itself. More life, as it were. I would ask, since the global natural output of your 2K GT number is essentially 15X larger, are you suggesting that the ~<4% of total additional output doesn't also drive the biodiversity and availability throughout the planet? Or are you forever consigning the unfortunate polar regions to always be cold inhospitable wastes?

You worry, endlessly about a process that at worst produces a fluctuation of temperature that is entirely unnoticeable. The difference between 1-2 F is unnoticeable unless it's the difference betweek 31 and 33 F and 211 and 213 F. Now, I'm not suggesting that I want to be around during either of these. But the nice cozy middle seems to be a place where we can all lead productive or otherwise fulfilling lives.

And the alternative is what? Highly regulated, deeply transformed economies of government allocated artificial scarcity? Is that really what you are demanding of the rest of us? Because, clearly, this is your only solution.

 

Yes. The very day the eco Nazis all stop using energy. Show us your resolve.

 

My analysis is inline with the worlds leading experts on the topic.

Hmm...I don't think you really addressed my questions. The amount of carbon in the active carbon cycle has increased by 2000 Gts. The atmosphere and oceans have account for nearly all of the increase with 50% going into the atmosphere and 50% going into the oceans. Biomass has increase some, but the amount is negligible compared to the atmosphere and oceans. So...

1. Where did the extra carbon going into the atmosphere and oceans come from?

2. If it didn't come from fossil fuels (a new source introduced into the carbon cycle circa 1850) then where did the 2000 Gts of carbon from this source go?

 

The gas prices in Europe are high, but they are not $20 per gallon. Also, Paris is landlocked and not near the coast. Anyway, there are other problems with what you are saying. First, you are STILL myopically focused on CO2. It's almost like a reflex or something. And, not to be a dick, but maritime cities ARE beachfront property. You are splitting hairs here. You are asking for a sacrifice today to save a city 100 years from now. Better?

You correctly note that wind and solar are not enough to replace what we have. Oil and coal are very efficient sources of energy. Replacing them will not be as easy as everyone thinking happy thoughts and hoping for the best. You need a tangible concrete plan if you want to dismantle what we have. To date, no one has produced such a plan. I am all for new innovations and better technology, but I do not believe in trying to shove inferior technologies down people's throats because of an ideological crusade. If there is a better technology, let's use it. If there isn't, let's create one. What we should not do is move forward in dismantling what we have, before we know what we are transitioning to, just appease the portion of the population that is anxious for action.
"Something must be done; this is something; let's do this." is a horrible solution process. That is how you get the Patriot Act or the war on drugs. The public was outraged and demanding that SOMETHING be done. Since these solutions were cosmetic appeasements and did not address the root of the problem in a logical and consistent way, both of them were failures.
Similarly, if you go to your doctor this flu season, he might give you antibiotics. He knows that the flu is viral and antibiotics will not help you in the slightest. He will give them to you because every year the public comes in and demands that SOMETHING be done. They complain if you tell them the truth that this is a viral infection and you just have to sleep it off. So they will give you medication you don't need because of "something must be done, this is something, let's do this". Even Tamiflu which is an antiviral, doesn't really do much. It is just used to make the public feel like they were heard and services were rendered.

On top of this, any organic activity is going to have CO2 as a byproduct at some point. If you believe in a carbon tax, you would essentially be taxing life itself. The only way to stop or decrease anthropogenic CO2 would be to stop or decrease human activity. I guess the most efficient way to do that would be to release bioweapons in the developing world. Bioweapons would not destroy the natural environment.This has the added bonus of letting nature reclaim those areas and act as a carbon sink AND human activity will be decreased where population is growing the fastest. This would be good for the earth. This may sound a little harsh to you at first, but consider this is essentially what you would be advocating with a carbon tax. If you take affordable energy off of the table, you ARE decreasing their life expectancy, standard of living, and hope for a decent future. Better to rip the bandaid off with one motion rather than dragging it out for years.

Finally, your last sentence about energy companies is true. It is likely they who will own whatever future technology we go with just as Phillip Morris will likely one day own most of the marijuana production. Horizontal acquisition is a common practice. Knowing this, it would make sense that if a new and more efficient technology was available, they would have already commoditized its use. People build hydropower facilities and nuclear power plants and so on. These things have been tried. Nothing is as efficient or practical at this point, as coal.

Let me try to express this another way. You seem very concerned with the future and what life may be life for the people of the future. I am concerned with right now. Right now we have environmental problems that are harming us and that we could easily fix, but they never get attention. Instead we focus on CO2 and this discussion a quagmire that doesn't really matter until we have better tech anyway. The solution proposed to fight CO2 accumulation, is a tax that will decrease the standard of living today. So not only do we not fix today's problems in favor of arguing about tomorrow's, but we will decrease the standard of living for people alive today. That is a lose/lose for people living right now, and there is every possibility that your solution will be worse than the problem you are setting out to fix.

 

Are you saying that the seriousness of the consequences are a function of how seriously people consider the problem?

That's twisted logic. Normally the seriousness to which people consider a problem is a function of how serious the consequences are.

In other words, you can't wish a problem out of existence.

 

"with a certainty the problem is a real one" Yep, that is what he said, but the question to you was, would you vote for Trump (against Hillary...and sacrifice every other issue you strongly believe in) if he fully supported all the "climate change" agenda (to end global warming)?

 

No it isn't.

I don't have to save anybody's face from your false claims. The survey question you became really defensive about presenting despite the fact that it only took you 30 seconds asked if people believed that climate change causes the sea level to rise and extreme weather.

 

The way the question is worded does leave a lot of wiggle room. What if we accept the climate is changing, but are skeptical that the weather is more "extreme" or that rising sea levels are an urgent issue? When you say 36% "don't believe in climate change" that could be true, but it could also be true that those 36% accept climate change but don't buy all the conclusions based on that.

 

The article you posted in nonsense, and clearly political. Sentences such as About 8 in 10 "Americans believe the climate is changing, causing extreme weather". What 'extreme weather' are they referring to? In comparison to what? The fact is that 'extreme weather' has always been a part of earth's climate and will continue to be.

If the question was kept to "Is the climate getting warmer" most would agree. But when it moves beyond that into speculation and political terms then people may not agree. You should understand the difference between a scientific report and a political report.

 

I hope those signs stay up.

 

I don't see anything at your link except press release style PR pieces. If you don't have time or interest in answering my question, just say so. Otherwise we can do this 1 of 2 ways.
1) I state you are wrong and cite www.google.com as my vague source. Just search around until you find some evidence and construct my argument for me.
2) You can state specifically what you mean or link to the actual page that actually answers for you. Make your strongest case. What is the very best argument that you find compelling?

 

I would have to evaluate what they say, and if it were true, I would have to change to assimilate this new knowledge. It doesn't matter who says something, it is either true or it isn't. If we disagreed, we could perform repeatable falsifiable testing to determine the truth. Can you say the same about climatology? Can you show me climate research that uses the scientific method? I have yet to see any climate research using the scientific method, and when they claim to do so they leave out 1 very important step in the actual scientific method; repeatable falsifiable testing. This is a soft science. The conclusions of a soft science are no more reliable than the conclusions of philosophy. Without testing the veracity of the claim, it is possible to come to a logical conclusion that is nevertheless incorrect.

Let's say I postulate that increased heat causes a rise in CO2 and you are saying the inverse. One of us is incorrect, but how do we know which one of us it is without falsifiable experiments? We could use observation, but both of us could "adjust the data" to reinforce our pre-existing beliefs. It may be the case that BOTH of us are falling for a correlation equals causation fallacy and that some other factor is driving change, and both CO2 and increased temperatures are responding to that. Without the ability to test these speculations they remain speculations. We can form best guesses at that point. We know that CO2 is a greenhouse gas. You can prove that in a lab and that finding can be duplicated by others. But we also know that CO2 has logarithmic diminishing returns. In other words, the more of it you add to a system, the more its ability to trap heat decreases. 800 ppm is not double the temperature increase from 400 ppm, it is less due to diminishing returns. There is evidence that CO2 has been as high as 4000 ppm in the past, but the oceans did not boil over and the world did not burn down because this was not a 10x heat trapping increase from 400 ppm. We don't know the sensitivity.
So while we can prove that CO2 is a greenhouse gas, we can not say with certainty what other factors are driving change. Does methane decrease CO2's ability to trap heat? I doubt it, but if it is in the atmosphere is has to be accounted for in your experiments. And please notice my emphasis is on experiments, not computer models or observation and speculation. If you don't know what the true sensitivity is in nature, then how can you model the future?

Let's just start at the beginning. How could you falsify your own hypothesis to yourself? What experiment could you run that would convince you CO2 is NOT the primary culprit of climate change if you had a null hypothesis?