Is Global Warming Unstoppable?

Quote:
Originally Posted by ufourya
Just another delusional 'denier', I guess, overwhelmed by his political bias, no doubt. Wonder who is paying him to say these horrible lies?

Exactly.
__________________


You're a pip, A.L.R.I.C.. Thank you for adding your imprimatur to my sarcasm.

Menawhile, how about answering a few questions you have avoided?

 

BTW, you can't write that and then cite a newspaper...

What is it I should answer, for NTH time!

 

"...The data is (sic) publicly available and can be examined by anyone.,,"

Another absolutely false assertion.

Have you read any of the whistleblower's emails from the CRUminals?

They regularly REFUSED to disclose raw data and methodology to persons qualified to have them. They broke the law while evading FOI requests for data. This is unquestionably demonstrated. Why would you persist in making these false assertions?

Oh, yes, that's right. You apparently have no regard for the truth.

 

Wrong again! I just did it, and there it is!

This man is a scientist who is an IPCC reviewer. You think he changes his views when he moves from writing and reviewing the scientific literature to expressing opinions in a non-reviewed venue? Your point is invalid.

 

I will give you this much of this one. I confess I omitted the caveat nearly to the sentence "every environmental etc" and I admit it is a critical difference. You can accuse me of "moving the goal posts" if you wish, but I have been consistent with including the caveat nearlytin other posts of a similar nature. Am I guilty of oversight, you bet!

That said, the corrected thought still stands: "nearly every major environmental environmental regulation has had a greater benefit than it's capital cost"

CRS Report: RL30326 - Cost-Benefit Analysis of EPA Regulations: An Overview An Overview - NLE
Cost-Benefit Analysis: Regulatory Reform or Favoring the Regulated? -- Britannica Online Encyclopedia

(an excerpt from: "The estimated annual benefits of 88 major final Federal regulations reviewed by OMB from October 1, 1994 to September 30, 2004 range from $69.6 billion to $276.8 billion, while the estimated annual costs range from $34.8 billion to $39.4 billion."

Once again I could post others, but what do I know, I'm only an alarmist!

 

Well, despite the fact that it seems unlikely a caveat was simply forgotten in light of the emphatic capitalization of EVERY, I'll accept your admission of having erred. I'll have to frame this!

Now, to the first report. In a real sense here, we are trying to compare apples and oranges. The apples of quantitative results with the oranges of qualitative results. In other words, environmental regulations are mostly made for reasons having to do with improving the QUALITY of the environment (in this discussion, I will entirely disregard whether they are mostly successful or not - unlike the DDT example.) The difficulties of even a quantitative assessment are noted in the summary of the report you cite:

It is difficult to obtain completely independent estimates of the total costs and benefits of EPA regulations. While there have been some attempts by independent parties to produce comprehensive estimates of the total costs and benefits of EPA regulations, these efforts generally rely on the information provided by EPA in its analyses. OMB has estimated total quantified costs and benefits of environmental regulation; but noting the many uncertainties, OMB concluded that although the analyses can provide useful general information about existing programs, they may not be useful for evaluating individual regulations except for indicating needs for further data and analysis.

This doesn't sound to me as thoughconcrete conclusions are drawn here and the report accepts EPA's own assessments of quantitative result without independent review. So...we'e not left with much.

Oooops, gotta go. Something important just came up. See ya.

 

You glossed over a key detail or two.

The idea that one person banned DDT, while technically true, is hilarious. How did one person ever get such authority? Well, maybe it's because that one person was the Administrator of the EPA. But that's just some busybody, eh?

Every major decision the EPA makes is made by the Administrator (though in reality they are usually just signing off on what the scientists conclude, 2001-2008 excepted). You present the issue as if the guy read Silent Spring and decided to ban DDT the next day. Far from the truth. Hearings were held on the issue over the course of many months, and various studies were done.

The Stockholm Convention explicitly allows use of DDT for disease control, as does EPA regulation. South Africa uses it today, as does India.

Now, you are correct that DDT is not acutely hazardous to humans. You can eat the stuff if you really wanted. But that doesn't make DDT a good substance. Recent studies have shown that DDT causes birth defects, and it is a suspected carcinogen.

DDT also has various other negative environmental effects. If we had persisted in using DDT in the manner of the 60s, we would have made our national emblem extinct.

While DDT was used in the waning days of malaria in the US, it was largely eliminated before DDT had been discovered.

No one ever said that human lives were expendable because there are "too many humans". That's not only a strawman, it's offensive.

 

Ack! I've been using it on my sandwiches!

Kidding

 

Ufourya,

Thank you,
"Well, despite the fact that it seems unlikely a caveat was simply forgotten in light of the emphatic capitalization of EVERY, I'll accept your admission of having erred. I'll have to frame this!"


Now back to the discussion,

What value do you put on a Bald Eagle? I never saw them as a child, but I see them quite often, both on the coast and in the interior. I can thank Rachel Carson for that.

 

Alric, were you going to address any of the points in that article? Or just make fun of it?

 

You should tell this to the IPCC.



This is the graph that was featured in the IPCC's 2007 climate assessment report. It is overlain by four separate trend-lines, each with a start-date carefully selected to give the impression that the rate of warming over the past 150 years has itself been accelerating, especially between 1975 and 1998.

This same graph was presented again by Dr. Rajendra Pachauri, chairman of the IPCC (who, by the way, has a background as a railroad engineer) , at the Copenhagen conference.

Not very surprisingly, they failed to put a trend line in from 2001 or 2002 until 2010 to show the current cooling period.

Again, if the IPCC expects us to accept this as legitimate science, then we must accept that the most recent 8 or 9 years indeed show cooling.

Below I've reconstructed their graph, showing 150, 100, 50, and 25 year trends of warming and adding in the recent cooling trend line. I don't think this graph would have been as effect at Copenhagen (which is experiencing a heavy snow at the moment.) But in the interest of being fair, I thought it is important to expose their trend line trickery.

 

What is the trend line trickery again? I would have to see how that graph was used but it is not equivalent to attempt to disprove or disregard more than a 100 years of data with the last 8, specially when those 8 might not be there. You do see many points in the last 150 years where the temp has dipped only to come back en force.

And yes. I'll just make fun if you try to use a newspaper editorial to make an argument.

 

But the AGW influence on temperature is minuscule.
If AGW made temps rise above previous prehistoric temp highs,then I would be a bit concerned.But temps are no where near past highs.
If we were at the highest temp in the last million years today,and you added the hockey stick amount of temp rise,it would still be a minuscule amount.
Furthermore judging from the rhythm of the Vostok graph, it appears we are near the end of the present interglacial period.
We should be entering the next ice age very soon.
But we cant say whether temps wont naturally rise equal to the highest previous levels before diving into ice age.
If they do, it would be foolish to presume that it had anything to do with AGW.
Because they have risen above todays temps ,many times in the past.
Also,there are temp swings on the Vostok graph which are hundreds or thousands of times larger in magnitude compared to the hockey stick ,in a similar timeframe.

 

There were no humans or civilization a million years ago. Do you really want to test if civilization could survive in paleoclimate? Or even the US, to be more nationalistic.

Again the rate of change in the past has never been as fast as today's. This rate of change at this magnitude is truly unprecedented in human history as a species.

 

Mojo,

"But the AGW influence on temperature is minuscule."

First, please define "miniscule" and second how do you conclude that AGW has been or will be "miniscule"

.5C for example may not seem like much to you or me, but if you were ice, the difference between +.25C and -.25 is pretty significant.

 

Look at the right end of the Vostok graph.
We are at +2 C.Past highs were +3 C .
Look at the temp swings in the last 1/4 in of the graph.
Those one inch vertical lines are each in a similar timeframe as the hockey stick and they are over 3degrees change.
The glaciers must have always melted at the height of interglacial warming.
Humans and polar bears survived the past meltings so theres no reason to assume we wont in the future.
Glaciers will melt and that is natural.
They will grow back and we'll start the whole thing over in about 125,000 years.

 

Look at the x-axis in that graph. The spikes are about 25k years.

 

Once again, to those that have open minds, tonight on CBC's nature of things is about the impact of climate change on Bylot island in the High arctic.

You may not believe in global warming, but this chronicles a couple of studies that have been going on for decades. (and the conclusions are terrifying. The DOCUMENTED loss of ice in the last two decades is staggering, both from Greenland and Elsmere Island. All you deiners who like to spout off how the ice isn't melting have neither spent time in the north, nor spent anytime talking to or listening to anyone who has. Those that "don't believe" can spend as much time with charts and graphs arguing that this is not happening, but I am going to act! You can sit with your heads in the sand, as the water rises!

But what do I know, I'm just an alarmist!

 

Alric,

Actually, saying the warming comes back "en force" may be misleading.

Take Lord Monckton's letter to Rajendra Pachauri, the head of the IPCC (and a railroad engineer - lol). In it he demonstrates that the rate of most recent warming is not different than warming we've experienced before that scientists readily attribute to the sun.

By the way, it means nothing if you make fun of the *source* of an article. You need to be able to make fun of the *data* within the article. So Ufourya posted an article, written by a PhD with 13 published papers, and you laugh at it? That means nothing. If you can't refute the points you shouldn't comment.

 

This statement is as wrong as saying that true = false.