Yet another paper shows human activity is responsible for climate change

From Skeptical Science comes word of Wigley and Santer 2012, yet another in a long (and getting longer) line of papers attributing human activity as the major cause (and that means 90% or more) of observed global warming.

In the graph below, Wigley & Santer 2012 (WS12) is shown as the dark green bar. Other attribution papers are shown in other colors, so as you can see, WS12 is right in line with previous research.

 

That model doesn't match temperature very well at all. It diverges most of the time. The only thing it does model well is the temperature rise from the 70s to early 2000. As usual it blows up trying to explain the cooling in the late 19th century post 1940 and the present lul.

In short more crap from the warmmongers.

 

And never a paper that comes with the solution on how to solve climate change. Climate change is political propaganda for the green parties. This is why the system is repeating climate change and never come up with solution while there are many solutions Tidal, geothermical, geothermal, blue energy, solar collectors, are all waiting to be harvested, but suppressed by the system that is using oil/natural gas/coal/nuclear because of power, political, imperialistical, ideolocigal reasons.

 

We are such the parasites. Exterminate ourselves and save the climate!!!

 

No those are economic reasons.

 

There are plenty of solutions, but the easiest and cheapest is to tax fossil carbon at a level commensurate with its external cost. That would price fossil fuels out of the energy market. That tax can be made revenue neutral and it can be phased in. But it will be necessary. Even Exxon recognizes this, and now supports a fossil carbon tax.

You've been glued to Fox Snooze for too long. The melting of the Arctic isn't propaganda, it's real. Increasing global temperatures are real. Increasing droughts, floods, and storms are real. Insurance companies have already woken up to the new reality. Now it's your turn. Wake up and smell the coffee.

Nuclear power is fossil-free and therefore is part of the solution, not part of the problem.

 

If people are warming the Earth, then I say, Good job. Keep it up. Cold weather sucks. Maybe someday Alaska and Siberia can be vast new areas for farmland. Seems warmers only want to see negativity.

 

Wouldn't it be easier to end subsidies towards many companies? Because with this plan you are giving the people who get the oil money and then taxing the people who buy it. So instead of allowing more of people in the free market to decide who will benefit because lower spending would lead to a lower deficit and a greater GDP which would lead to more jobs in our country and possibly lower taxes but the deficit is rather priority at the moment and all that nice stuff we like other than just taxing consumers more. Obviously I've simplified this especially in economic terms but it was just a point to make.

Agreed plus the fact that it would be greater energy independence for our nation which is always a good thing. Though people need to remember costs will rise if we implemented something like this and people don't like it when energy prices go up look at the commotion people make when the price of gas goes up.

 

Sorry but have you actually LOOKED for a paper that has solutions?

Bet not - meantime google "Garnault review"

 

So are you going to sell your car? Never fly in a plane again? Me either.

While I believe this may be true, I just don't know. However, I am a HUGE advocate of alternative energies but for other reasons.

 

IF it is that personally intolerable for you - try moving here - 42 degrees CELSIUS the other day (108 Fahrenheit)

 

That's a scorcher alright. But better too hot than too cold for me. I'm sure warming would be bad in some places, but it would be good for some places, too. This climate change scare is just a fear of change. Adapt and survive. Might have to move, but those places that are currently very cold are also underpopulated. I'm not too worried about it. We will press on.

 

Would be more OK with that if it were not shown that the effects on the ecology of the planet were not so serious

I Love my barrier reef I really do!!

 

Subsidies for fossil fuels need to end, but that alone isn't enough. The entire external cost of fossil carbon needs to be captured.

You haven't simplified anything, you're just very confused on economics. Fossil carbon is cheap, but that's only because the cost of using fossil carbon are passed on to third parties without their consent. By putting a pigovian tax on fossil carbon, we correctly (and fairly) represent its true cost in the marketplace.

And in spite of Republican propaganda, deficits are not a problem during a recession. But that's a discussion for another thread.

Nuclear and wind are competitive with coal right now. So any energy price increase will be temporary, and eliminated once we transition full to non-fossil sources.

 

Then how will government find us jobs?

 

In 1848, more than forty nations across Europe underwent simultaneous revolutions. It wasn't the internet or twitter that caused that. It was crop failure. The price of food went way up, people spent all their money on food an not on factory goods, so factories closed, and suddenly the entire continent was full of unemployed, hungry people. And hungry people do desperate things.

Then last year it happened again, and nobody noticed. In 2010, Russia experience the longest, hottest heat wave of its history, caused in part by climate change. Russian grain output took a nosedive, and the Russian government responded by banning grain exports. So the Russians didn't feel the pinch, instead the pinch was felt by the nations the Russians had been exporting to. Some of those nations were Tunisia, Libya, Egypt, and Syria, all of which underwent simultaneous revolutions starting in the spring of 2011 (the "Arab Spring").

So what happens the next time? What if the next time, the countries involved are China, or India, or Pakistan (all of which have nuclear weapons)? Hungry people do desperate things, and a desperate person with a nuclear bomb is a very bad idea.

Opening up new farmland in Canda and Siberia will certainly be good for Canada and Russia. But it takes years to make a forest into productive farmland, and people need to eat every day.

Meanwhile, back in the real world, global food reserves are at their lowest level since 1974.
http://www.guardian.co.uk/global-development/2012/oct/14/un-global-food-crisis-warning

 

Well, I see your point, it's not good to be short on food. And I'm not saying there wouldn't be challenges to face, but there always are. And since we know well in advance about cimate change, and it occurs gradually over many years, we as a race should be able to make the transition, even if farmland does take time to produce. I'm just not going to subscribe to this "the sky is falling" hysteria. With our current level of technology, I am sure a solution can be found. Eventually, the problem will correct itself anyway. At some point we will run out of oil or it will become too difficult to extract to remain economically viable. Honestly, THAT is why I support switching to renewable energy - we will inevitably run out of petroleum and have to switch anyway, and I would much rather see this limited resource go to better use: plastics and polymers instead of burning and breathing it.

 

I wish I could be this optimistic

Take Australia

We came through a record drought - so bad we were no longer growing rice and we are one of the biggest rice producers in the world. Thing was we were no longer even producing HAY in many areas that routinely produce it. Then we flooded and any crops that had been surviving were washed away.

With the prediction for more "droughts and flooding rains" I do not think that is something we can plan for

 

I would argue most subsidies need to go but that's just a personal belief but the problem with intentionally making costs greater is that it hurts many of the people who rely on such things as many taxi drivers or truck drivers might agree which hurts the economy, now obviously not doing it hurts the environment but that's why public opinion needs to change otherwise you're just going to get a lot of people pissed which leads to people thinking climate change is a political scam and all that stupid stuff. Now should we do something about climate change like have investors in developing new technology for energy independence' I would say that would help us more and with new technology and energy to cost efficiency in green energy you'll see a greater boom in that market.

I'll just quickly deal with the deficit point to get back on the issue, the deficit matters because if we keep spending too much money after a big recession especially compared to GDP or just overall market growth you're going to see a lot of inflation to keep up with that and if you're increasing inflation without expanding your market that's a bad policy.

Now back on topic if we're going to put I'll guess carbon tax or maybe corporate tax depending what area of a business we're taxing if implemented correctly could actually benefit the market but it depends on how you want to implement and how much you are wanting to tax now if you want a "true" price on the market it's whatever people are willing to pay for it but I'm guessing you mean what would be a good price for it because of some of the problems we have when discussing oil businesses ie much of the lobbying but that is way off topic.

Thanks for correcting me I misspoke I meant it would be temporary as eventually oil will be more expensive and renewables with more technology will be cheaper but right now it's pretty expensive with not much power for cost which is a problem, now for now it could release a massive burden by taking up maybe a good percentage of our energy needs but it would be quite expensive now if I'm getting my figures right for the first few years it would probably add a few hundred dollars annually to energy bills but obviously this is nothing compared to how high it will go in the long run.

 

Should probably note that you were technically right about the deficit in a recession I was just pointing out that after it it will badly effect the economy and since we are supposed to be out of a recession even though the deficit is decreasing it's still large enough to go into an over inflated market with little foreign trade to back it up which will negatively affect us because massive inflation isn't the best of things in a slowly growing market.

 

But the cost of avoidance is much less than the cost of doing nothing. Why do you want to spend more tax money instead of less?

But if we wait until the oil runs out, we will have trashed the climate beyond repair, and much of civilization along with it. The last time CO2 levels were as high as they are today, and stayed that way, was the middle Miocene, about 15 million years ago. At that time, sea level was 100 feet higher than it is today.

So tell me how much it would cost to move every person, home, and business in New York to a point 100 feet above sea level. Then do the same for Shanghai, Tokyo, Buenos Aires, London, Sydney, and ... you get the idea. This is your idea of a solution?

Why are you dedicated to the most expensive course instead of the cheapest? Why should we embrace a do-nothing policy that ends in needless abject poverty for billions of people?

 

Prove it!!!

 

"For July temperature in Moscow, we estimate that the local warming trend has increased the number of records expected in the past decade fivefold, which implies an approximate 80% probability that the 2010 July heat record would not have occurred without climate warming."

http://www.pnas.org/content/early/2011/10/18/1101766108.full.pdf+html

 

Ah yes another PNAS paper. You will notice that when warmmongers cant get a climate study published in a legitimate climate journal they publish in the PNAS. I'm sorry there were multiple studies done on the russian heatwave done by far more reputable organizations and published in far more credible climate journals than Rahmstorf's trash.

1st there is no scientific argument in the Ramstorf paper. They simple argue that since there were more record highs then it is the result of global warming. However, NOAA and others had found no long term trend in the Russian data. So Ramstorf simply truncated that data to create a trend as was easily show by Pielke



You can read Pielke's very good refutation of this junk science here.
http://rogerpielkejr.blogspot.com/2011/10/games-climate-scientists-play.html

 

Which you somehow manage not to cite. Typical.

That is a scientific argument.

Once again, no citation. Wake me up when you learn something about the way science works.

Utterly false. Rahmstorf used a standard low-pass filter with a 15-year half-window to determine trends. (Next time, try reading the actual paper.) And that also means the inclusion of the extra 30 years of data actually makes it less likely that the 2010 heat wave was due to natural variability. Which is also in the paper. Which you also didn't read.