Man Based Global Warming....

Alric - I can't believe you have the balls to still parade around Mann 2008 which has been ripped to shreds because of the use of contaminated proxy data from Finnish lakes, the flipping of proxies on their heads, etc.

Talk about misinformation and lack of capacity to interpret a simple graph...lol...tell it to the "Mann".

 

The data that makes the problem unmistakable to most people might take a decade or two; that's just an indication of how dense most people are. The next few years will give a new record global temperature, but Denier organizations will argue that it means something else (we're still coming out of the last Ice Age, the Sun is getting warmer, the thermometers are not working correctly, that can't be true it's snowing in South Carolina, so what it was hotter when the dinosaurs lived here, good - better for growing crops, it's not global warming - it's El Nino, etc, etc, etc)

It doesn't matter how careful you are in your reasoning and phrasing and evidence; whatever you argue, they will attack in a plausible sounding fashion designed to convince people with no science background. The Denier organizations, like the Heartland Institute, learned their PR obfuscation craft by arguing that smoking does not cause lung cancer, among other corporate issues. It didn't matter if the research against their position was 100% solid, their job was to confuse people who can't understand the research.

So yes, there will be a new record global temperature in the next few years. Want to bet ?

As I said, they won't come around till the Arctic Ice all melts one summer, and even then there will be Deadenders... ("so what ? There's a captain's Journal from 1537 that says he sailed to the North Pole...")

The science is over. It is now a matter of politics to do something about it. The Deniers are playing classic politics, don't stand there and argue subtle details like Adlai Stevenson.
:brick:

 

Paleoclimatology is just supporting evidence that gives indications of the range of climates that the Earth can have, and how quickly the climate state can flip.

Climate modelers have all the data they need with satellite data and global sensor networks. They can see the entire energy budget of the planet, how the increasing CO2 is slowing down the rate of infrared radiation to space, and the only uncertainties left are subtle feedback loops within the models (warming planet causing more water vapor, how this causes clouds at different altitudes, albedo changes as ice melts leading to permafrost melting and methane/CO2 release, how quickly human emitted CO2 will be reduced, etc...)

The Titanic has been hit, now they are calculating exactly where in it's route it will sink...

 

Reference please.

 

We've been through it all before Alric. Refer back to my previous posts on the Mann data flaws.

Just like you had no answer when 50 years of massive CO2 increases from the 1930s to the 1980s produced no temperature increase and falsified AGW by YOUR own definition...you have no answer to the Mann data problems - either then or now.

 

Why do you say the feedbacks are "subtle"? This is the crux of the problem -- feedbacks are not well understood and a significant - not subtle - positive feedback is a requirement for catastrophic global warming.

 

You should say unpublished out-of-context charts. This is why a cogent argument can not be had with denialists.

Here is the completely different conclusion from NASA charts with references:

http://data.giss.nasa.gov/gistemp/2008/

 

No. we have not been through it because you have never shown peer-reviewed data or analysis to support your arguments.

 

There has been no peer review response to Mann 2008 because it was only published 6 months ago. This hardly demonstrates the many criticisms of Mann's latest paper are not valid.

I really wonder how you make any decisions in life Alric. You can't seem to think for yourself about anything unless somebody has peer reviewed it. How do you even pick out your underwear in the morning?

 

You accuse Berman of "out of context", then you yourself leave out an important chart from NASA's website? It is clear that global sea surface temps have been flat or declining since ~2001. Yet CO2 continues to rise. And again, why did CO2 rise dramatically from the 1930's to the 1980's while global temperatures declined? You yourself have falsified AGW by your own criteria but can't bring yourself to admit it.

 

Because I understand the difference between underwear and science.

 

A debatable point.

EDIT: OK - sorry - I shouldn't insult. Let's stick to the facts. Let's say Mann is right. Mann's claim is really tangential in any case. It neither proves nor disproves AGW. Would you not agree?

 

Looks like the delay tactics of Bush administration are being undone.

http://www.cbc.ca/technology/story/2009/03/23/tech-090323-epa-global-warming.html

 

Here we go. Hold on to your wallet.

 

ok this is the deal.

you believe what you want to. (look in mirror if you are confused as to who "you" is)

i will believe what i want to. end of discussion.

moderator: you may close this thread now. i have spoken

 

Taxes on pollution can be raised while taxes on wealth generating things like income can be lowered - the whole thing should be revenue neutral. Overall, getting carbon out of the economy will generate wealth and improve the quality of our lives.

See saw economics like oil booms and busts should be a thing of the past as it hampers economic growth. The credit crisis is not the only thing that has created this recession.

It was largely the very high price of oil that put the brakes on economic activity. The sooner we lessen our dependence on oil the sooner we can create stable and predictable economic growth.

While taxes will lead to somewhat higher fossil fuel costs in the short term, lower income taxes would more than compensate. Eventually, as millions of PHEVs and EVs, flood the market over the next ten to 20 years, the likelihood of another oil price spike will be diminish.

Similarly as renewable energy power plants become numerous and significant, the price of heating oil and natural gas should become less volatile as well.

For the consumer, EVs will be far cheaper to own and operate. Smart grids and EVs will improve the stability of the electrical grid. So much money is to be made by green industries it's ridiculous.

The productivity gains alone are worth putting a price on (or internalizing the price of) carbon. The companies and countries that can become more efficient energy consumers are going to reap big economic rewards.

A genetically determined, gut reaction against the idea of government interference, collective action, and pollution taxes is not a good reason to ignore the fantastic benefits of a carbon tax/treaty.

I surprised that none of the deniers on this thread have the metacognition to figure out what is really at the core of their discomfort with AGW.

Earlier on in this thread I wrote about the numerous biases at work here, and the genetic predispositons to certain ideological adherrences, and the section from Gwynn Dyer's climate wars is very illustrative of the psychological-based forces within an individual. No one even commented on it, or even argued against the idea.

Hit's too close to home I guess.

 

Absolute bullsh!t. They don't have near the data they need to create reliable models.

For instance, there has only been an extensive ocean temperature network (Argo) in place for about 5 years. Satellite data only goes back to 1979. There are no global historic measures for aerosols. Atmospheric humidity measures are known to be problematic. Terrestrial temperature measures have been demonstrated to be significantly contaminated. The list goes on.

Given climate cycles can run decades or longer, our measurement history is far too short and significant data are either non-existent or poorly measured.