Man Based Global Warming....

Oh my dog. All they do is recycle the same fallacies over and over!

Tim came back with this:

We discussed that ages ago. With two very lucid posts on how CO2 can both trail, cause and exacerbate increases in temperature. Journals were cited and explanations provided and we are still going on about it.

We also came back to the "there is no warming" idea. Once it was shown again there is warming there was an attempt to dismiss it as "natural phenomena" with no explanation.

They also brought up the high cost of being responsible which, regardless of it being necessary, it is actually more economical and efficient.

This is precisely the definition of close-mindedness. To ignore the data and come up with your own, or the blogs you like.

 

There is nothing wrong with cleaner and more efficient living. However, I would I would prefer our leaders just say that.

Why do we need to greatly improve vehicle fuel economy and invest heavily in public transportation? National Security!!! We use 25% of the oil produced in the world but only have 3% of the oil reserves. That is a huge national security issue that puts the nation in danger. This is reason alone for the US to greatly reduce our use of oil.

California's CO2 regulation is another example. It has nothing to do with CO2, it is California attempting to regulate fuel economy. However, the regulation of fuel economy is specifically reserved for the US congress so California is trying to do an end-around. They are attempting to build public support for their CO2 regulation by blaming the increasing frequency and intensity of wildfires on global warming. Instead they should be blaming their own policy of fire suppression that leads to an ever increasing supply of fuel for wildfires. People are building in areas that naturally burn every few decades and then trying to prevent these wildfires.

 

Is that what all this is about? It might cost you money?! Look at the big picture, long term. Consider ALL the costs, and compound them like you would with interest. It's about time the economic costs of climate change were given some serious consideration.

 

Absolutely nothing, except oil and coal executives will need to find cushy jobs for their kids in another industry. I'm not be facetious.

I think a lot of the resistance exists because the leaders in carbon intensive industries feel entitled having already "made it" and are strongly reluctant to create a new business and risk being entrepreneurial again, when the status quo is so profitable and easy for them.

We need strong incentives to get them off their butts, because long term, they are just dead weight economically while they pollute the planet.

 

It's ALWAYS about money! The problem is that people don't want an honest accounting of the real cost. Just like we don't want to pay "taxes" for universal health care, we are willing to send our middle class to the poor house when they have an medical emergency!

Thems that have,,, don't like giving it up,,, especially to thems that don't!

Icarus

 

You're pointing the finger at the wrong entity. Coal and oil companies produce a product which you, and you alone purchase. Until you destroy your automobile, live off the grid, and purchase no products made by man (since virtually all products made use some oil or coal in their production) then you will never achieve your goal of a "pollution" free world devoid of most human inhabitation. To do so we would all have to live as humans did 10's of thousands of years ago. Not pleasant to say the least.

Humans will always pollute to some degree. Compared to the past, I think we are doing a pretty good job at controlling it to a reasonable level.

It's tiresome to hear again and again that "we" need to do "something" (whatever that may be) with no realistic solutions to your perceived problem with CO2 output. Yes, it is about money, and if you want to solve the problem (as I sit here typing with numb fingers for the eighth cold winter in row) I suggest you start spending your money to fix the problem, whatever it may be...

Rick
#4 2006

 

The energy guys don't like it when you go off grid either.

We need real tax incentives. Possible rebates.

 

That is so dumb. Are you serious? ... I'm ... ughh.. I'm not going to bother with a detailed response. I know I should, but I'm just going to hope most will see your post for what it is.

 

As usual Alric, you are missing the point. Shawn argued that the historic ice core record affirmed his position that CO2 *has* to cause warming (i.e., negative feedbacks could not possibly be significant). The problem is, the ice core record does not affirm this at all.

 

From "Nature" on PBS.

"Polar Bears evolved from Brown Bears when once lush forests became the Tundra".

Now that the area is warming again brown bears and a rich variety of life are taking hold in the north. Just as it was before. Polar bears were a temporary solution and obviously not a good one becasue they haven't learned to take advantage of the new food supplies in the region. Brown Bears are winning the evolutionary game.

 

Absolutely - all costs must be balanced - economic and environmental. Go too far in one direction (the environment) and you end up with this. We know there can be horrific costs to entirely ignoring the environment as well.

 

How dense can you get? Do you not examine any of these denial arguments critically before you parrot them? (That's a rhetorical question, you've already made the answer abundantly clear.) A lag in the same direction is the opposite of the claimed negative feedback! And there is most certainly a strong correlation, regardless of lag (look up the references yourself, I'm not into careful documentation of the obvious and readily available...especially for dead enders who will ignore it anyway.)

The causal mechanism of normal (non-human) global temperature changes doesn't have to be carbon dioxide. We've been over this, but it's like Ground Hog day with you denialists.

You have misstated my position:

That is not what I've said and it is you that are either missing the point or spinning falsehoods around it. I'm not sure whether you are knowingly lying, or simply having comprehension issues. Without the presence of man made CO2 contribution, causes are expected to be different. You are making a specious argument. CO2 must cause warming because of its atomic structure/bond length and because of the spectra of the incident light from the sun. Hoping for the Tooth Fairy to counteract this greenhouse effect is not science...especially when the ice core/CO2 correlation directly contradicts the Tooth Fairy scenario despite the lag.

The ice core record provides fairly strong proof that there is not a negative feedback to carbon dioxide as your source claimed. The world doesn't get colder because of increasing CO2. That is what negative feedback would require.

 

Heck, eight years ago is ancient history. What really matters is last night: in just eight *hours* the temperature here dropped 15 degrees! Therefore global warming is obviously false.

Well, Finally! Thanks for clearing that up. We can all go home now.

 

Wrong answer. Very, very wrong. Carbon tax in some form is the right answer. I don't have any problem with paying to remove carbon from the ground, as long as the end result sequesters it again. If we were paying the expense of that this conversation would not be happening. Instead you are presenting a false economic argument. It's the same argument that would say I should dump all my garbage in the neighbors yard or the street instead of paying for its disposal.

When you pollute MY air space I have a say in what YOU do. (The converse is also true.) The difference is I am willing to pay my share, while you are irresponsible and won't pay yours. Handling differences like this are why we have governments and legal systems. The natural tendency is to only think short term, as you do. It is conterproductive and economic suicide.

 

That measures CO2 which was released in response to warming due to other causes. Today CO2 is itself the primary cause. You really should work on understanding how it is that increasing CO2 can be a cause of warming under some circumstances, and an effect of warming under other circumstances.

 

*It matters which feedback mechanism we're talking about*. Clouds *may* provide negative feedback, and that *may or may not be big enough to be significant*. CO2, whether released by burning fossil fuels or released by natural processes because of warming due to some other cause, always increases global warming.

 

I stated:

Then you stated:

Oh really?? I would like to see a detailed response; or even just a short proposal that would actually work. Me thinks you have none. A realistic approach. Not some vague pie in the sky "living and walking with the lions and tigers utopia" bible picture.

Let's address your problems with the oil and coal industries.

Hmm, so what to do with all those oil and coal executives with those "cushy" jobs as you mentioned in your last post. After all, according to you, they really are the root of our problems (pollution, AGW, excessive energy costs...). Should we line them up against a wall? Should we nationalize ALL energy companies with a net worth above X amount and fire everyone making an salary above an arbitrary amount? Should we "force" them to work for X amount of dollars per year under the threat of imprisonment? Perhaps Mao or Lenin (were they not noted environmentalists ;-)??) may have a better idea on how to solve the problem of execs with "cushy" jobs. Maybe you should apply for one of those cushy jobs at an energy company and shut it down so it will stop polluting...

C'mon, give me a workable solution. One that would encourage industry to adopt. One that does not have to be subsidized endlessly with tax payer dollars. One that works on a bleak winter windless, cloudy day or night in Chicago or New York when energy demands peak. One that the people would pay for knowing it actually works all the time (nuclear energy is one I know works). One that is practicable and affordable. It's not impossible for some industries as with the automotive industry. Toyota did with the Prius. That's why I own one.

Your solutions (or lack thereof) are child like and have no basis in the real world.

Rick
#4 2006

 

That's how virtually every pollution emitted by man is initially handled. Say it's not a factor till......

One example: CFC discharges were considered to be of absolutely no conseqence till it was discovered that they have serious conseqences.

Obviously you don't believe that manmade CO2 increases causes changes in the ocean's pH or that the ocean's pH change is of no effect (from your above statement.)

 

Shawn - why don't you try re-reading what Spencer is saying before getting your panties in such a wad.

Spencer is presenting evidence for an insensitive climate system. GCMs assume the climate system is highly sensitive. That's really all there is to it. Either take it or leave it, but you don't need to resort to personal insults. OK?

“A simple model and satellite observations are used to demonstrate that previous diagnoses of climate feedbacks from the satellite record have a strong bias in the direction of high climate sensitivity (positive feedback). The source of the bias is chaotic radiative forcing generated within the climate system, most likely due to low clouds. Through analysis of frequency histograms of local regression slopes computed throughout the low-pass filtered time series of temperature and total (reflected shortwave SW and emitted longwave LW) radiative fluxes, the radiative forcing signal is shown to have a unique signature separate from the feedback signature. The global oceanic averages of satellite CERES data during 2000 through 2005 reveal a net (SW+LW) feedback parameter of around 8 W m-2 K-1. This strong negative feedback signal exists independent of the low-pass filter time scale, from 10 day to 2 years. In stark contrast, IPCC AR4 models analyzed with the same method all exhibit positive feedbacks of various strengths. It is suggested that the unrealistically high sensitivity of the climate models is the result of a misinterpretation of the co-variability of clouds and temperature when specifying cloud parameterizations. Since only radiative feedback has been assumed in feedback analysis of natural variability (clouds being forced by temperature), the presence of chaotic radiative forcing of temperature by clouds causes the false appearance of positive feedback. In short, cause and effect have been confused. Finally, if such a strong negative feedback has indeed been operating on multi-decadal time scales, this means that the radiative forcing from anthropogenic greenhouse gas emissions is not nearly strong enough to explain the 1°C warming in the last century.â€

 

Richard - clearly I have been around the block enough times to understand your point. And I agree. Just because CO2 lagged temperature increases in the Vostok ice core does not mean CO2 can't cause temperature increases.

But, respectfully, you and Shawn are missing point of what Spencer has demonstrated with empirical data -- that climate models are overstating climate sensitivity.

This does not mean he is saying that increasing CO2 would LOWER temperature -- it means the expected warming from CO2 increases would be far less than models project. Get it?