feel free to disprove that by stating your position

7/24/2013 8:27:39 AM

He believes that overwhelming scientific consensus is the conspiracy so we're part of it by buying into it. He thinks we ignore the little disparate factoids he finds on blogs when in fact they are either fabricated or easily accounted for by scientific models. He thinks that the real money is in supporting the status quo when in science the complete fucking opposite is true.

7/24/2013 8:42:18 AM

Quote :

"He then changes the reference period to the "decade" previous (or it seems like he is using both 12.5 years and 16 years) in an attempt to show that we have had no warming over the past ~decade (or perhaps longer). I don't think you can really make that jump though. The graph is showing that the past few years have been slightly cooler than the previous decade (one of the hottest on record) and the same is true for the late 1970s. But you can't compare those two anomalies to one another (now and 1979), unless they both have the same reference period. The only claim he can really make is that it is currently cooler than the previous decade and the same was true in 1979."

That's a good point, and perhaps it wasn't the best graph to post. It was just the one that came to mind since I had seen it a few days previous.

"Deniers" don't post falsified graphs. "Warmists" like to only use data that has been "adjusted". Which is convenient because the adjustments always raise recorded temperature readings. Some of them have even gone back 30-40 years and "adjusted" that data to bump it up. Let me see if I can find data on the oldest continuously used land based temperature record in existence. Sure it's just for a part of the UK (and not global) but is still worth observing.

Quote :

"I'm going to be cited in the next IPCC report... not that anyone cares."

Well that's because the IPCC pretty much lost credibility after the crap they threw together for their 2007 report.

[Edited on July 24, 2013 at 11:22 AM. Reason : but i'm still impressed, GG for you (seriously)]

[Edited on July 24, 2013 at 11:26 AM. Reason : 1]

7/24/2013 11:22:27 AM

you seem to be reasonable about understanding rebuttals to your point, so why is your first reaction to anything always to instantly deny it before any other consideration? you seem to instantly attack a claim before considering if its possible or reasonable.

7/24/2013 11:29:05 AM

First, thanks for saying that.

To answer your question, after paying attention to this whole climate change controversy in the media and scientific community for the last decade I have formed a very concrete belief that increased CO2 concentration has a very very minor influence on the climate. CO2 concentration increases in the atmosphere has a logarithmic effect, that is the more that is added the less it affects anything. Almost any scientist out there will tell you that this is true, and that increased CO2 concentration alone has more or less accounted for the warming of the last few decades, but nothing more. However what most proponents of AGW will use as their main argument is that it's the positive feedbacks from CO2 that we have to worry about. The problem there is that none of the climate computer models are the least bit accurate. They're just not. None of them predicted this 13 year (and counting) lack of increasing temperatures. They are not proof or evidence of anything. I find it ludicrous for government policies to be based on things such as these. Especially here in the US, where so much of our daily lives can be affected by those running the EPA (which is run by appointed, not elected, officials) and ditto the executive branch. (checks and balances my ass) So why should I put any stock in those models? How many years of no temperature increase will it take for people to take this for what it is? And when will governments realize that their CO2 reduction measures (even if fully implemented as they want) are of laughable consequence, especially given their financial toll. The US didn't participate the Kyoto Protocol and was scorned for that. And yet the list of European countries that failed to adhere to the protocol they signed is quite long. That treaty was a miserable failure. I believe Russia met their goals, but that's only because their projections were based on their economy before the collapse of the Soviet Union. And while I realize doing anything is better than nothing, if the Kyoto Protocol had been a success all it would have accomplished (theoretically) is a reduction of a few hundredths a degree Celsius. Meanwhile thanks to the resurgence of the US natural gas industry the United States has reduced it's CO2 emissions to a degree greater than if they had participated in the Kyoto Protocol.

Furthermore, the motives of environmental groups are in many cases very questionable. You see misleading and questionable advertising from them all the time. Some of them are just looking for more power and influence. And so are many goverments of the world. Controlling energy usage is de facto control over the citizens to a large degree. Politicians are by their very nature power hungry and a usage or emissions tax on anything CO2 related gives them power over everything, for better or worse (worse I say). You don't think the United Nations licks it's lips at the prospect of some sort of global governance over CO2 emissions and power usage? That's not a conspiracy theory at all. Global Warming reasons or not the United Nations wants power over sovereign nations and that is pretty clear.

I don't believe in the least any of the doom and gloom predictions, because there is no proof that they will occur. It's a null hypothesis situation, and the burden of proof isn't for people that don't believe in AGW to disprove it. It's for the believers of AGW to prove it, and climate models aren't proof.

Cheap energy raises the standard of living for all global inhabitants. The media loves to report of studies predicting catastrophes unless we act, or about the squalid living conditions of people living somewhere in Africa or Asia. But how often do you hear that overall the living conditions of everyone on earth has only been increasing. The quality of living in the last decade or so is better for everyone, everywhere. But you won't hear that in the news. If there's a cold spell good luck hearing about it from the media. It's not news to them. But a heat wave? Oh heck yes, lets read about that. I saw a headline yesterday about NYC breaking it's energy usage record during this heat wave. Well anyone that is surprised by that is an idiot. In this technologically laden society everyone is buying more things that require electricity. And their population has been growing. So obviously their energy usage records will be broken. On ThinkProgress's Climate page there isn't one story about how the entire Southeast US has been experiencing one of the coolest summers in quite a while. However there are plenty of stories about the heat in the western part of the country (caused by a pressure high that won't leave) and the heat that has been experienced in the northeast. Most people don't know the Europe has experienced winters considerably colder than normal the last 2-3 years, because it's not news to the media.

Clean drinking water for people is important. Providing electricity for people in Africa, India, etc is important because it will instantly rise their standard of living and help them fight disease. Providing food to the starving people in those areas is important as well. But apparently not that important to our government, as half of all corn production goes into ethanol creation, which by government mandate is put in our fuel. Energy independence is a noble cause, but this is a horrible way to do it. The creation of it is a net energy loss, and then as fuel for our vehicles it reduces their fuel mileage efficiency (ethanol contains less energy than gasoline). Getting off that tangent what other fights are important? The stopping/slowing of deforestation for sure. Cleaning the ocean of pollution (or making it less so) is important. Keeping truly toxic chemicals and gases out of the air/ground, very important. All this is more important than reducing CO2 concentration in the air. All these causes suffer from the cause of AGW, since resources out there are applied to it instead of them. And I know some people like to refute this statement by saying that AGW is the cause of a lot of these problems, or makes them worse. I don't buy that in the least, so please bother mentioning in any reply to this.

I believe myself to be an environmentalist. I care about our land and wouldn't dare pollute it. Someone so much as tossing a cigarette butt out a car window pisses me off. Living responsibly and efficiently, not being wasteful as much as can be prevented, are important principles to me.

tl;dr blah blah blah I'm wrong call me an idiot

sorry I blathered on so long.

7/24/2013 12:45:14 PM

tldr?

7/24/2013 1:19:46 PM

Quote :

"CO2 concentration increases in the atmosphere has a logarithmic effect, that is the more that is added the less it affects anything."

Yes, this is correct. It's not exactly logarithmic, but it's the best model. At some concentration it saturates out somewhat. The differential warming effect decreases. But we're still pretty far from this saturation, you can go look at the data yourself.

Quote :

"None of them predicted this 13 year (and counting) lack of increasing temperatures."

2007 prediction:
http://www.ipcc.ch/publications_and_data/ar4/wg1/en/spmsspm-projections-of.html


observed:
http://www.columbia.edu/~mhs119/Temperature/


Even the prediction barely budges over 10 years, but whatever. I think that here your issue will be that the "scientific" data for recent annual temperatures is not reliable. I am in no position to evaluate that claim.

Quote :

"The US didn't participate the Kyoto Protocol and was scorned for that. And yet the list of European countries that failed to adhere to the protocol they signed is quite long."

...perhaps there is a connection between these two things...

Quote :

"If there's a cold spell good luck hearing about it from the media. It's not news to them. But a heat wave? Oh heck yes, lets read about that."

Maybe because we have more words for a cold spell than for a heat wave?
http://www.google.com/trends/explore?q=heat+wave#q=heat%20wave%2C%20%20cold%20wave%2C%20%20cold%20spell%2C%20%20cold%20snap&cmpt=q

[Edited on July 24, 2013 at 1:43 PM. Reason : ]

7/24/2013 1:42:43 PM

I mean i don't do google searches to look up news stories. That's just a reflection of what I see in the mainstream media without seeking anything out (casually, ya know?)

Quote :

"...perhaps there is a connection between these two things..."

As to actually reaching the overall reduction targets, sure perhaps. But if the countries didn't they could make their own reductions if the US wasn't involved then they shouldn't have bothered signing it. Didn't stop them from passing regulations that have for the most part damaged their economies and affected their standards of living.

I mean regardless, a lot of these arguments we just go in circles on

[Edited on July 24, 2013 at 3:54 PM. Reason : e]

7/24/2013 3:46:25 PM

Quote :

"The problem there is that none of the climate computer models are the least bit accurate. They're just not. None of them predicted this 13 year (and counting) lack of increasing temperatures. They are not proof or evidence of anything."

The current crop of GCMs do not account for El Nino and La Nina cycles, recent small volcanic eruptions, or longer cycles like the Multi-Decadal Atlantic Oscillation (which recent data appears to show that similar multi-decadal cycles exist in the other oceans as well). The latter explains the current "lack of increasing temperatures" you describe, which is quite consistent with an overall trend of warming being offset by the downward portion of the multi-decadal oscillation.

The GCMs are not perfect and have limits, but the last few decades are consistent with multi-decadal oscillations around the warming trends predicted by the GCMs. Past lulls in warming are also consistent with that, as is the fact that current temperatures are "not increasing" around the hottest temperatures in recent history.

Alternatively, stratify temperatures in the last 60 years by El Nino, neutral, and La Nina, and the trend for all three is very clearly a significant warming effect, at virtually identical rates. And spoiler alert: the outlier you might quibble with if you do that was because of Mt. Pinatubo.

7/24/2013 9:07:09 PM

FWIW, I'm also highly bothered by the idea of multi-decadal cycle.

As with any science, there's no guarantee that the system you study is willing to reveal its secrets to you. It may be a harsh reality that an accurate understanding is only possible with technology that's 50 years in the future. In that case, you should be prepared to spending your career looking for an answer that doesn't exist.

These 5-year or so cycles are known to exist by science. It's not clear to me when the data is presented where we lie within these cycles, and it's just one more reason to not take the trend to be meaningful at fine scales. But there's no telling how far we should extend this.

Several decades is the time frame on which we've been able to collect good data, and the time frame over which a human lives. The complete absence of statistically meaningful measured warming is a possibility of our lives. If the Earth operated on a strong natural 50-year cycle, then even reasonable discussion would be for not. And we could still warm the Earth into unrecognizability for our grandchildren.

I think our best available science does not point to this possibility, for now. While there may be some 50-year cycle, it's probably mild compared to the 5-year cycles, and compared to the anthropogenic change. But I can't particularly say that supercomputers have done much to sway my view.

7/24/2013 10:00:27 PM

http://www.ft.com/cms/s/0/7a8529ec-f2d1-11e2-a203-00144feabdc0.html?ftcamp=published_links%2Frss%2Fglobal-economy%2Ffeed%2F%2Fproduct#axzz2a408xCwl

7/25/2013 9:52:01 AM

I can't read that article without registering. However I have noticed a lot of climate scientists saying that all the missing heat is really going into the deeper part of the ocean. The only problem with that is that the water closer to the surface isn't warmer than usual and without warming up its kind of impossible for the deeper water to warm...unless its caused by volcanic activity

7/25/2013 3:59:27 PM

that's really weird... i'm not a member of that site and i read it this morning. now that i click it in this thread it's behind the paywall. It wasn't meant to add fuel to either side of this debate... just an interesting read to be honest.

try this link?
http://tinyurl.com/lepwm7n

[Edited on July 25, 2013 at 5:05 PM. Reason : ]

7/25/2013 4:47:48 PM

Quote :

"http://www.columbia.edu/~mhs119/Temperature/dTs_60+132mons.gif"

I laugh every time I see that graph on the left because of how badly they doctored the data the make it. I've got a blink comparator somewhere of that graph before changes were made to the adjustment procedures and it's startling to see just how much they lowered the pre-1950s temperatures and how much they raised the post-1970s temperatures.

Quote :

"The latter explains the current "lack of increasing temperatures" you describe, which is quite consistent with an overall trend of warming being offset by the downward portion of the multi-decadal oscillation."

Why is it that, among the gung-ho AGW supporters, this argument is only used to try explain the failure of the models. It offsets warming we expected. Why is it not equally possible that those multi-decadal oscillations could be responsible for the observed warming?

7/25/2013 10:48:45 PM

Because after controlling for oscillations, there's still an overall upward trend?

7/25/2013 11:54:35 PM

Very true. Of course this warming isn't unprecedented in world history, and there is no solid factual basis to link it to the manmade emission of CO2.

7/26/2013 1:43:03 PM

Quote :

"Why is it not equally possible that those multi-decadal oscillations could be responsible for the observed warming?"

Oh I think it could be. Obviously I don't speak for the other hung-ho AGW folks, and I don't intend to. But even accepting the "heavily doctored" temperature graph, that could be well within some natural century-scale cycle. Absolutely.

But that doesn't change the fact that CO2 is a greenhouse gas. The Earth is a blackbody and if you add heat to a blackbody then you raise its equilibrium temperature. The fact that the equilibrium temperature was wobbling around to begin with doesn't absolve you of responsibility for the consequences.

7/26/2013 1:54:33 PM

http://www.news.cornell.edu/stories/2005/07/ethanol-biodiesel-corn-and-other-crops-not-worth-energy

Basically, using bio-mass for ethanol is a waste of time and money

7/28/2013 5:24:23 PM

^that's not a fair statement. using corn and other staple food crops for ethanol is debatable, since it takes almost as much energy that is produced and it increases food costs, especially impacting the poor who rely on things corn. but in places where sugar cane grows it can be used as a much better ethanol producing crop since it has a much higher yield compared to the energy put in.

other plants that folks are researching like switch grass, etc, have the potential to produce ethanol without tapping into the staple food crops that raise food prices that impact the poor.

7/28/2013 7:21:56 PM

Switchgrass is a dead end because George bush.

7/28/2013 8:22:30 PM

the study found that corn, switchgrass, wood bio-mass, sunflower, and soybean all took more energy to produce ethanol than could be obtained via the ethanol combustion.

Quote :

"In terms of energy output compared with energy input for ethanol production, the study found that: corn requires 29 percent more fossil energy than the fuel produced; switch grass requires 45 percent more fossil energy than the fuel produced; and wood biomass requires 57 percent more fossil energy than the fuel produced. In terms of energy output compared with the energy input for biodiesel production, the study found that: soybean plants requires 27 percent more fossil energy than the fuel produced, and sunflower plants requires 118 percent more fossil energy than the fuel produced."

7/28/2013 8:27:05 PM

Please don't interpret this as me defending corn ethanol, but that paper is from 2005; models out-of-date technology, yields, and input data; uses a nonstandard system boundary and indefensible approaches to allocation between coproducts; and is simply wrong on other aspects.

If you're interested in one of the many papers debunking or contradicting your linked study, published in a premier journal like PNAS or Science instead of an obscure low-impact imprint like Natural Resources Research, I might suggest http://www.pnas.org/content/103/30/11206.short or http://www.sciencemag.org/content/311/5760/506.full. Both of those are from 2006, and the energy balance has improved significantly since then.

7/29/2013 2:00:07 AM

Yeah, the entire point of switchgrass research is that we don't have efficient enzymes to break it down and convert it into fuel. It doesn't surprise me that it takes mucho fossil fuels today. The point is that in the future it could be fantastic.

7/29/2013 8:01:32 AM

why did aaronburo come into this thread and randomly post an article about ethanol from 2005?

7/29/2013 9:25:27 AM

^^yep. I fully support alternative fuel research since it will eventually lead to energy independence if managed propery.

7/29/2013 1:16:58 PM

Smath, according to several prominent articles in recent months (I am about to run errands, so I don't have time to dredge them up right now) the US is already energy independent, i.e. we are now an exporter of oil and natural gas. The reason why gas is still $3.xx is because oil companies have decided that it is more profitable to export that oil instead of using it domestically to lower our fuel prices. Also, there is little political will to shift our consumption away from oil and more onto natural gas. I implore you to stop spouting the "energy independence" nonsense as you are an educated individual.

7/29/2013 1:46:44 PM

We are not a net exporter of oil. A statement that is always right is not a useful statement. The fact that we export oil is almost entirely pointless. We export plenty of refined oil products due to our globally unique refining capacity - a fact that is slightly more useful.

Natural gas has recently boomed in the US.



But I'm not a fan of a policy based on 2 years of experience that reverses the pattern of prior decades. What you know about our future production still boils down to promises.

7/29/2013 2:44:57 PM

Quote :

"Smath, according to several prominent articles in recent months (I am about to run errands, so I don't have time to dredge them up right now) the US is already energy independent, i.e. we are now an exporter of oil and natural gas. The reason why gas is still $3.xx is because oil companies have decided that it is more profitable to export that oil instead of using it domestically to lower our fuel prices. Also, there is little political will to shift our consumption away from oil and more onto natural gas. I implore you to stop spouting the "energy independence" nonsense as you are an educated individual. "

exactly what part of what i'm saying don't you agree with exactly?

should I not support research into alternative energy like switch grass ethanol?

should we not strive to stop using oil imported from overseas?

should we not strive to use energy from domestic sources, preferably clean alternative sources (as opposed to dirty shale oil, inefficient corn based ethanol, etc)

I believe you are incorrect about the united states being energy independent at this time. (yes, the US exports oil and natural gas, but we still rely heavily on imports from canada, the middle east, etc.)

[Edited on July 29, 2013 at 2:47 PM. Reason : ]

7/29/2013 2:47:21 PM

Oil is sold on a global market, it doesn't matter how much we import or export in regards to energy independence.

(unless you are advocating nationalizing the domestic oil and gas industries, then its relevant)

7/29/2013 2:57:05 PM

^quite true. However natural gas is not sold on a global scale and thanks to the recent boom the cost of natural gas in the US is way way waaaaay less than Europe or Japan.

Quote :

" If you're interested in one of the many papers debunking or contradicting your linked study, published in a premier journal like PNAS or Science instead of an obscure low-impact imprint like Natural Resources Research, I might suggest http://www.pnas.org/content/103/30/11206.short or http://www.sciencemag.org/content/311/5760/506.full. Both of those are from 2006, and the energy balance has improved significantly since then."

Thanks for posting that, I'll have to read it when I get a chance. However, overall I want the gov't to keep ethanol OUT of my gasoline! Reduces my fuel efficiency and has the potential to hurt my vehicles' engines and fuel systems*

*I would say it's a much bigger problem for my 21 year old car, and lesser for my 2013 MY car. Nonetheless in my owners manual for my newer car its says to avoid gasoline with ethanol in it if possible.

[Edited on July 29, 2013 at 3:57 PM. Reason : k]

7/29/2013 3:55:49 PM

my brother in law is a mechanic and has been saying for years how much damage he sees as a result of ethanol. older cars just weren't meant to use it. (just ask doc brown)

7/29/2013 4:11:25 PM

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-23538771

8/2/2013 9:10:16 AM

Quote :

" However natural gas is not sold on a global scale and thanks to the recent boom the cost of natural gas in the US is way way waaaaay less than Europe or Japan."

natural gas IS sold on a global market

8/2/2013 11:11:51 AM

Quote :

"http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-23538771"

from Bjørn Lomborg

Quote :

"Although CNN and many others faithfully retell the press release from Princeton (http://bit.ly/16bK3bn), Spiegel now reveals that the authors consciously left out 8 studies that showed the exact opposite of their conclusions (http://bit.ly/15yVbjv). Moreover, almost all of their studies are short-term (yes, a heat wave makes people more prone to violence, but hot nations are not inherently more violent than cold ones). Only one-sixth of their studies reach beyond a decade, and of these, two clearly show that *cold* causes more violence, not heat (in Europe and in China, doi:10.1007/s10584-009-9659-2, doi:10.1007/s10584-005-9024-z)"

[Edited on August 2, 2013 at 11:27 AM. Reason : q]

8/2/2013 11:27:25 AM

Quote :

"natural gas IS sold on a global market"

Are you sure it's not local? If it's a global market, it's done differently than oil. Natural gas in the US is 75% less expensive than in Europe.

[Edited on August 2, 2013 at 1:51 PM. Reason : And that's before taxes come into the picture]

8/2/2013 1:45:19 PM

yes

8/2/2013 1:54:48 PM

The proposition that international shipments of LNG exist is correct.

8/2/2013 2:33:41 PM

http://www.investopedia.com/university/commodities/commodities12.asp

8/2/2013 3:12:33 PM

Japan needs it to be a global commodity. It's largely replaced nuclear's role after the Tsunami. Basically all of what they use is from the international market. Whether this is a good or sustainable idea is another story.

8/4/2013 12:55:25 PM

I can't wait for Japan (and Germany to completely crash due to getting rid of nuclear. It will be a wake-up call for the way we have to go if we really want to get off of fossil fuels

8/4/2013 5:18:02 PM

with the latest elections Japan is likely to restart the nuclear units faster, with the LDP in charge (I have yet to read up in detail). But even the optimistic case will only see 1/2 the capacity connected in 1-2 years. For the northeast coastal plants, I imagine that even the operators themselves would get a little cold feat. It's tied into a lot of global and social issues, and in the grand scheme of things, decisions for China's coastal plants will have a larger long term impact on the atmosphere and fossil fuel trade.

8/4/2013 9:32:46 PM

Thanks for the info mrfrog, some interesting stuff.

8/5/2013 9:01:51 AM

huh. we've got proof of a warming trend now! it's in the adjustments made to the temperature record. Who would have thought that CO2 caused scientists to increase temperatures, lol





hmmm

8/10/2013 7:46:56 PM

If you want a better perspective of those in total denial, read the comments on this article:

http://www.wral.com/task-force-coasts-should-prepare-for-rising-seas/12790386/

Here's a few:

Quote :

"bmac I hear you. Like back during the dinos times there weren't any glaciers, now there is. We are finding fossils under the ice. So how did they get there if the glaciers were here first. I agree we may be speeding up the climate change, but the earth does and will adapt like it has for millions of years. Lib scare tatics at its best."

Quote :

"They re Right, I was at the Beach and from 9:00 am to 3:oo pm the Ocean raised about 50 feet. Than something strange happened, It started to go Down again, and it went back to where it was in the First. Yeah, It's called High Tide and Low Tide. More Liberal Hog Wash. BUT since they said it ,it Must be True. The Oceans have been Rising since the Beginning of time. At one time we were a ball of Fire. According to the Education Channel I watched. Where did the Oceans Seas, and other water systems come from, They don't Know. Maybe it is when GOD Flooded the Earth during Noah's days."

Quote :

"How do the seas rise when there is a set amount of water on earth? Even if ice melts, the water level remains the same. The only thing that changes any of this, are glaciers at high altitudes, but even still, it is not enough to change the world sea levels so drastically. This is just another government money grab. Be smarter than this, people."

8/19/2013 9:56:00 AM

Not that those comments aren't stupid/ignorant, but to worry about sea level rising just makes me laugh.

8/19/2013 1:10:37 PM

Why? Because you don't think it's actually happening? Or you know you'll be dead before it has any real affect on you personally?

8/19/2013 1:11:48 PM

B/c the sea level rise is well within the range of natural fluctuations and yes, it is nothing to worry about.

[Edited on August 19, 2013 at 1:22 PM. Reason : has nothing to do with me not caring. i just prefer to care about real problems]

8/19/2013 1:22:04 PM

8/19/2013 1:32:29 PM

^^^^

lol

Because a million displaced human beings is a real gut-buster.

Amirite?

8/20/2013 12:00:40 AM

Quote :

"Because a million displaced human beings is a real gut-buster."

It would seriously be no laughing matter...if it was actually something to worry about. But it's not. It's just fear mongering, which several warmists have admitted is needed to get people to try and take man made global warming seriously. The sea level is increasing at a average rate of 2.77mm per year, and has been increasing since the last ice age.

Wake me up when that number is bumped over a decimal place.

[Edited on August 23, 2013 at 2:05 PM. Reason : k]

8/23/2013 2:03:46 PM