You said rates, I gave you rates, give me a time frame that you find acceptable.
The old escalator thing from SkS, which is their classic masturbatory screed, only works if the other guy actually says somehting like that.
Time frame, please.
Please, your points depend on ignoring the big picture. As mentioned, you are indeed just fighting with yourself.
What, no SkS quote?
Quantifying the consensus on anthropogenic global warming in the scientific literature
Addressed by previous posters.
Accumulated Cyclone Energy [ACE] is not the only measure of activity in weather systems or frequency/violence of storms. The observed rise in extreme weather events is evidence that we are seeing more active weather systems (and as noted in this link, that is not inconsistent with the lack of detected global warming signal in ACE).
Yes, there is. Of course, you can handwave it away by claiming that the change observed so far doesn’t count as “major”, but it is statistically significant. The increase in droughts is particularly salient.
Again, this depends on how you choose to define “important”. If you mean that we haven’t yet undergone an AGW-related extinction event on the scale of the Permian-Triassic one, you’re right. If you’re trying to claim that there is no significant acidification of the oceans underway, you’re wrong.
Yes, there have been tipping point episodes of sudden greenhouse-gas increases and rapid warming in the past.
Yes it has, although disease-vector expansion is still small compared to its predicted growth in the coming decades. For instance, as this article notes, “Lyme disease is the commonest vector-borne zoonosis in the temperate world, and an emerging infectious disease in Canada due to expansion of the geographic range of the tick vector Ixodes scapularis.”
Wrong again. The tipping point event I mentioned above did have massive impact on ocean currents. The North Atlantic Drift is due largely to convection effects of ocean temperature and circulation, and not just to “the earth’s rotation”.
No, the alleged recent increase in polar bear populations is an artefact of recent changes in survey methodology. Climate-change-induced habitat loss remains a serious threat to populations of polar bears and others; habitat loss may impact up to one-third of all animal species.
“More temperature could also mean more rain is deposited in glaciers”? What on earth does that even mean? Rain doesn’t get “deposited in glaciers”. If what you are clumsily trying to express is the fact that increased precipitation due to global warming causes some glaciers to grow instead of shrinking, that is true, but only for a small minority of them: the net volume change of glaciers worldwide remains drastically negative.
Like the glaciers, doubtless some regions will benefit agriculturally from climate change. Again like the glaciers, though, the current trends and longer-term predictions indicate that the net effects worldwide are distinctly harmful rather than beneficial.
When a starving, heat-stroked polar bear eats the last denier.
It seems to me the debate has shifted about what to do. At least; that’s the only debate that counts.
For most people, there is no direct effect of AGW proximate enough to warrant limiting one’s personal choices. Moreover, folks like me and Mr Gore are model archetypes of the typical response: “Let’s do Something collectively, but I personally intend to figure out how to not have that Something affect me personally.”
For this reason, I expect the debate about what to actually do to continue indefinitely, since most really effective measures would substantially affect lives for the average, non-wealthy, individual.
We are not inclined to sacrifice for the common good. We love Great Causes, but we also love our stuff. Unfortunately, the root cause of anthropogenic gases is Stuff and the Good Life, and we will not be willing to reduce consumption or lead lamer lives while we figger out how to make Stuff or have a Good Life with less environmental effect.
Nope, you love just repeating Godwin like arguments, that is repeating points that actually discredit your say so’s.
I’m not positive what your point is, but I think you are saying I am vilifying Al Gore instead of agreeing that AGW is a problem…
I leave it to others to decide if Mr Gore should be “vilified.” He (and I) are archetypes for folks who do not allow their personal lives to be disrupted the way that a Ghandi-esque phiilosophy would require when it comes to AGW. To wit: I must be the change I want to see in the world. Why, I’m looking at new golf clubs right now.
Like if sarcasm and previous posting history could be ignored, others already know. Even conservative scientists know that Gore is more reliable than denialist FUD points.
GIGObuster:
Perhaps I am confused, but it seems to me you think that criticizing Mr Gore for not being the change he wants to see in the world is tantamount to denying AGW science.
If so, why would you think that?
Could one accept the science and simultaneously be critical of our collective personal inaction, holding up Mr Gore as a typical example of how we as individuals have no intention of personally suffering for the sake of the common good?
More transparent one can not be, once again the idea is to personalize the issue, and indeed it is like a Godwin, it just shows a lack of any original ideas to deal with the issue. But contrarians still think it is a point that it can still fly (on this message board? Yeah, right). What many can see is that some still think that it is ok to discredit the subject by continue to remind people about Gore’s ideas on how to deal with the issue, when as pointed many times before:
“To invoke Gore is a way to obfuscate about climate science, for which Gore has neither responsibility, claim nor blame”
It has to be pointed out that not all experts think that just the ideas of Gore on carbon neutrality are the only ones that should be considered.
The OP asked a question about Global Warming. This is a very one-sided question. Some of the responses alluded to Climate Change. This is a not a response that agrees with the OP, though some would have it so.
What are we arguing here: Global Warming or Climate Change?
Also - anyone who brings the Bible into this conversation, other than a memory of what has possibly happened before - please state if you are claiming a religious stance, or if you are claiming that ancient sources may have had a possibly accurate description (handed down through the ages) of previous climate history.
I swear I’m trying to figure out your point here.
You are correct that I have no original ideas on what to do. Nor do I even have any idea what to do based on assimilation of ideas from others.
Once again, I’m not invoking Mr Gore as a way to “obfuscate about climate science.” I am invoking him as an archetype for why nothing substantive is going to happen.
At an individual level, none of us are going to sacrifice for the common good. Not lifestyle; not money; not time.
Yet there are no large-scale solutions that will not involve sacrifices along those lines.
Are there?
Just stop there, it is indeed the lack of ideas that is leading you to the embarrassing use of a clutch like Gore for cheap shots that anyone can see is being used only to avoid confronting the issue in good faith. Specially when you never mention what specifically is what Gore proposes, that is a big bit of evidence that demonstrates that bringing Gore into the discussion has only been made to **also **dismiss the solutions that he proposes. (it is indeed a misrepresentation to claim that he is not proposing solutions or not doing any efforts to become carbon neutral)
Not expecting that you are completely aware of what Gore is proposing or doing, as usual I post for the others that would think that your points here have a leg to stand on.
To get better ideas, the ones with less prejudging in their minds should read sources like Skeptical Science and Realclimate.org where real scientists contribute and tell others about what science is reporting on this issue, because most of the mainstream media many times gets it wrong, and denier sources many times manage to corrupt what the science actually says.
Don’t you get it?
Agreeing 99.3% with him is like denying that humans produce CO2 or that the sun has spots.
It’s either total agreement or you’re a heretic and actually desire to see melting glaciers.
See, here’s my problem.
If I understand the above post, the idea is that we “reduce” our carbon footprint. So if I’m a Tanzania with a footprint of 300 pounds, and Al is a jetsetter with a footprint of 100 tons, we should both step up to the bar and reduce our footprint.
This is a little like saying the fat guy living on 10,000 calories a day should cut his consumption, and the starving Ethiopian living on 500 calories a day should also cut his consumption, because there’s a food crisis.
I find this unreasonable, narcissitic, and unlikely to produce any broadscale diminution in carbon footprints. We wealthy are going to buy our way out of any personal sacrifice, and the poor are going to try to catch up to our consumption.
What are your suggestions, based on your own passion and expertise for the topic?
Not the point here, the point remains that you were not aware of it.
And “we should both step up to the bar” ‘and do the same level of effort’ is not the point of being carbon neutral, that is again a misrepresentation of what Gore or many others are saying, currently the developing nations are not forced to “step to the bar” as you are saying, they have more flexibility, but that does not mean that they would follow the same paths as the developed nations, once again, dealing with the problem does not mean being forced to not develop, nor does it mean that they should follow the same way to develop as the USA did:
But those Mexico solutions you present are precisely the kind of thing I have a problem with…
They are “solutions” that mandate goals, but they are not solutions that actually execute those goals.
What I’m looking for is your notion of what to actually do.
If I weigh 300 pounds, I might create a mandate for myself to only weigh 250 pounds within two years. I might insist upon reporting my weight and progress. I might sign an agreement to stop weighing so much. I might stipulate that GIGObuster should check on my progress.
None of those things are actually approaches to losing weight, and none of them require me to do something today since the time limit is so distant and the sanction for failure so vague.
That’s why people are fat and that’s why humanity’s carbon footprint will not be reduced.
What does GIGObuster think he should do today personally, and what should the US do today?
It is clear that even when told about the specific links it is too tough for a few to look at them as they do want to remain ignorant. As it is clear that in reality some like the Chief are ignorant about what they claim to “follow” are doing.
Not posting for him for others, Personally one has to read good sources and follow the advice. But there is something even more important, as it has been demonstrated, the inaction at high levels by the USA is happening because currently there are many deniers in congress, as the blind can not lead the blind it is very important to work at local levels to ensure that people that will follow what is needed will be elected.