It’s a hedge, the human condition will be better in a hundred years no matter what the climate does.
You didn’t answer my question, where did the 300 ppm come from?
It’s painfully obvious that you just can’t understand what is written, right here on the page.
Of course it would be wrong to say "the entire world is cooling because it is cold “in this one place”. It’s as wrong as trying to use Australia to claim the entire world is getting hotter right now. (it is cooling, the data shows this with no doubt)
The real question is, what does it mean? If the “world is cooling” means “some places are getting much much hotter, but the larger areas are cooling, so the global mean is actually going down, but in reality summers in large areas are getting bad.”, that means something.
Same for “most of the year it’s warmer, but the NH winters are so fucking cold of late they are making the global mean negative”. Or “the Pacific is cooling things so much, the waerming from the greenhouse effect isn’t showing up anymore”.
Or, “the dueling influences of a solar minimum, an enhanced greenhouse effect, increasing air pollution, ocean cycles and organic responses to climate change from microbes, is making it really hard to do science, and attribute cause, much less get a good idea of how it all works”.
What is completely unhelpful, is anyone crowing and claiming victory, saying “I was right”.
And obviously the critics, deniers, and greedy fuckholes who don’t want a single penny taken from their record profits from selling fuels, are going to use any and all means to cause doubt, and throw chaff into the mix.
This counters the alarmist and fear tactics of the rabid greens, and the easily fooled. But it makes it a goddamn war, instead of science.
And that’s war where nobody wins.
Nope, once again you are trying to do this with scientists, if you think you are so clever, then you need to publish.
And your failure is complete now, as you are not even aware of who made that report.
http://www.climatecentral.org/what-we-do/people/claudia_tebaldi
The points made before stand, you were already debunked on the use of solar spot charts that you used to counter the sun irradiation, they are not the same thing. You still insist that there is a conspiracy (debunked many times already) so scientists should not be consulted, the evidence remains that you are wrong about CO2 not warming the earth, and then you are insisting the comic was wrong when you can not produce any data to counter what **Kimstu **reported.
Once again, they only pointed at real data (that you can not deny) to show that even a city **can **be an example of an overall trend, only if we had originally used just the city to claim that global warming was happening, then your silly accusation of cherry picking would hold water. After the state of Mississippi the whole USA and then the world are warming, for all you did you only confirmed to others that you **do **know why cherry picking should not be done to service sweeping statements like “has the world has cooled” it has not.
It doesn’t appeal to the golden middle. It appeals to staying away from the fringe of our society that is in any political debate for the money. Both active deniers and active alarmists are doing this, and it’s mostly businesses that like money.
As for your exaggeration - the “global fossil fuel industry” isn’t using 12 T a year to “fight” global warming legislation. A lot of “fossil fuel” companies are on the front lines investing in technology that they can sell. Why? Because oil isn’t nearly cheap enough to produce anymore, and it’s cutting into their profits. They are looking for the next big thing they can patent and use to drive huge shareholder gains.
Additionally, the study that used the entire operating budgets as a basis for how much the “denier” organizations make, it was 900 m across 70 or 80 organizations. Actual US denier lobby group spending when tracking contributions for a cause seems to be in the 40-50 million dollar range. US Fed spending? roughly 15-20 billion. Take away the 2-3B spent on all kinds of research attached to climate change and that’s 12 B just for technology, loans, and that sort of thing. Getting some of that tasty federal money is what companies dream of.
Also note that global fossil fuel industry member, Shell, has long advocated for CO2 restrictions. Heck, Presidents of Shell served as heads of the WWF. And once we start looking into places like the WWF and other alarmist sources, we start to see a much larger source of funding. The WWF averages 500M a year in operating fund contributions. Greenpeace? Another 500M a year. Both ardent supporters of CO2 cap and trade. (I also read somewhere that WWF got a huge starter grant in the 60s from Shell.)
And, you’ll notice, that they don’t spend nearly as much time on PR as denier organizations do. Their money is going elsewhere, campaign contributions, separate research, alarmist-branded “studies” (like the aforementioned 900m figure), and so forth.
Now, I don’t ascribe to a Golden Middle as you and Gigo seem to love to claim. But I don’t operate under the illusion that climate scientists are embattled on one side and the befuddled who are lead by the Kochs and the Fossil Fuel industry are on the other just harassing those poor climate scientists and it’s some sort of terrible calamity that if we could just, you know, convince the people of their error, it’ll all get better! The truth is much, much more complex with multiple levels of political bullshit in the way.
My “golden middle” is the actual science. What it says and, just as important, what it doesn’t say.
Lots of very educated scientists, nah, Occam’s razor tells me that FX has trouble with evidence and confuses (many) basic things like solar spots with total irridiance. It is not the scientists who are wrong.
We only confirmed that when cornered you are willing to claim finally that cherry picking was a very bad thing to do as it can only mislead yourself.
As Kimstu showed you are not using the NCDC data properly, once again a cherry pick is not looking at false data is to just concentrate on a short trend to claim the opposite of what the longer trend and the experts report.
[/quote]
Wrong again, they do not start with the coldest point. They are, once again talking about the number of below zero days. And when they show you all the data the conclusion is that:
As pointed before, if you think your cherry picks are the beesnees, then you should publish, what the evidence shows is that people making policy will listen to the science and the scientists to deal with the problem, and not people that confuse the number of sun spots that can reduce total solar irradiance, with the solar irradiance on graphs.
And once again the actual scientists, even republican ones, are not recommending that we should not control our emissions.
What the fossil fuel groups are doing with environmental orgs is standard operation coming from the tobacco companies that also contribute a lot to health groups. Even today they claim that tobacco is a good force in the social environment.
And while millions of dollars are used by the tobacco companies to health research and other good causes, that remains on the front. In the back they continue to fund politicians, astroturf organizations and think thanks that oppose legislation to control tobacco.
It has to be pointed out that many times the same groups and politicians that support the tobacco industry are also involved in climate change denial, like the Heartland Institute.
So, it’s down to conspiracy theories, again? Goody. So I can disregard all of Michael Mann’s work because he took a grant from Al Jazeera (based in Qatar so all of it’s money comes from Oil)? So I can disregard all of the CRU’s work at East Anglia because both Shell and BP have given them funds?
Shell, Exxon, and BP have all also given funds over to policy projects of both Republican and Democrat administrations over the years. Obviously NOAA, NASA, and all other US Government agencies are perpetuating this FRAUD at the behest of Big Oil.
Thanks, man. I didn’t realize that climate change was a complete fraud until just this minute. You have opened my eyes.
Logic dictates that A + B = C. If you don’t have A and B, you don’t get to assume C just because you feel like it. Can you prove that a single company, and not “the industry,” has given money to Heartland or similar foundations while at the same time giving money to pro think tanks so that they can muddy the waters to their benefit?
Once again, they are not theories, there is plenty of evidence documented.
What you miss about the fossil fuel companies seemingly schizophrenic contributions is that it is similar to what cable companies are doing, invest a lot on how they are to the community, invest also a lot in representatives of either party, the end result is clear: monopolies or duopolies that are increasing rates and demand their congress critters to now kill any “net neutrality” rules.
Wow. People and organizations talk trash about people they don’t agree with. Good proof of what I asked for. You still have provided only opinion. At some point, you have to have proof for a conspiracy theory to be considered reality.
Good day, sir. I’ll leave you to your tin foil hattery.
:rolleyes:
That was not just my opinion, Naomi Oreskes historical research and publications can not be ignored.
http://history.ucsd.edu/people/faculty/oreskes-naomi.html
But for what she found about the point you are trying to avoid, one has to check Oreskes presentation on what she has found.
Another point that you miss is that fossil fuel corporations, like tobacco and cable companies, do know how the game is played. Giving money to both sides is important so even if the candidate they less like is elected they will have still plenty of good will to show and use when pressuring the congress critter to water down any new regulations coming.
I’m not “exaggerating” that point – I’m making the point that the global fossil fuel industry is staggeringly huge, and that as makers of the products primarily responsible for climate change they have a huge financial stake in this “debate”, much greater than the interest the tobacco companies had in fake “health research” about the harmlessness of tobacco. And I don’t see any of the “investments” you’re talking about – I don’t see oil companies investing heavily in solar, or in fuel cells or electric cars. I mostly just see them defending their turf.
As to your last sentence, I agree, of course. And I hope you recognize that the science is very forthright about what it does and doesn’t know, and indeed very conservative in that regard. As I keep having to repeat, Greenpeace activists and the like are not “science”, and I couldn’t care less what they have to say.
OK, look, you can continue to believe that Al Gore and a ragtag bunch of activists is the political equivalent of the sum total of the world’s industry. Frankly, that isn’t even the issue; the issue is that about half of the general population is so profoundly misinformed about climate science that they either believe that climate change is not happening or that human activities are not a significant factor, or that it isn’t a problem, and/or that climate scientists are engaged in a secret conspiracy for personal gain. What I was trying to address – and what that paper was addressing – is the question of why. The answer to me seems self-evident. There is a concerted PR campaign on many different fronts to undermine the science, most of them astroturfed to look like dedicated independent seekers of truth with lofty names like “Science and Public Policy Institute” or rolled in to conservative lobby organizations like Heartland or CEI. It’s exactly what the tobacco industry was doing a generation ago, but on a vastly greater scale. Indeed some lobbyists and occasional corrupt scientists have been involved in both. And they are successful because, as Bill Maher once said, there is a large segment of the population whose acquaintance with science is limited to wondering where the sun goes at night. He probably thought he was kidding. More seriously, there is truly a large segment of the population that is disinterested in science and is easy prey to campaigns that establish this false equivalency between opposing “sides” that are supposedly engaged in a huge debate. If you have a chance, look for an excellent article called “Phaeton’s Reins” by climate scientist Kerry Emanuel that eloquently discusses some of the factors that brought this about.
I am unimpressed by your Shell link. It perfectly illustrates a classic PR tactic that Wendell Potter – a former PR tactician himself – talks about: turn the argument around and declare that “we are not the problem, we are part of the solution!”. It conveys that message nicely without actually saying anything of substance. If you want something of substance, you might consider the corpulent former Exxon CEO Lee Raymond (who recently retired with a $450 million package, not that there’s any money in the oil industry) who was instrumental in divesting Exxon of some of its forward-looking alternate-energy projects while at the same time funding one of the most reprehensible underhanded campaigns of climate change denial that has ever been seen even in that sordid industry.
Oh, and I suppose you do understand it?? Climate is extremely complicated, we cant even predict the weather right half the time, how are we gonna predict what the climate will be like 50 years from now??
And global warming has paused last 15 years, even the biggest alarmists have been forced to admit this.
And I’m not buying their official explanation why it has paused: Study explains global warming ‘pause’
Add Climategate to the whole mix and you got broken science.
You have to be a complete moron to still believe global warming is as bad as the “experts” say it is
In other words, you can’t defend your unsupported assertion that “dumping as much CO2 into the atmosphere as we possibly can” is in fact “something that would be good for humans”.
You’re just dodging it with the irrelevant (and also unsupported) assertion that life is going to get better for humans anyway irrespective of whether increased CO2 is advantageous or disadvantageous.
[QUOTE=watchwolf49]
You didn’t answer my question, where did the 300 ppm come from?
[/QUOTE]
:dubious: You don’t seem to be all that great at answering questions yourself. Anyway, atmospheric CO2 is produced mostly by organic decay and respiration, release of CO2 from the oceans, volcanic and forest-fire emissions, and human-specific activities (primarily combustion of fossil fuels and deforestation).
Climate records indicate that for the past several hundred thousand years before the industrial era, atmospheric CO2 concentrations have been cycling between about 180 and about 300 ppm. The sudden sharp increase in CO2 concentration in the past century or so, combined with the change in proportion of different kinds of carbon isotopes reflecting a higher proportion of fossil carbon, tells us that the additional 100+ ppm is due to human activity.
No. Your standards of skepticism are broken, you need to be even more skeptic about the ones pushing for that conspiracy theory about “climategate”
Science Writer Peter Hadfield reporting how climate gate actually convinced him how the deniers and the conspiracy theorists do not deserve any attention because the merchants of doubt got it wrong or they willfully omitted the context.
(Reply to Kimstu):
Just to add to that, blanket statements like “more CO2 may be good for us” reflect a profound misunderstanding of how rapid forcings affect the climate and the ecosystem. It’s not the end-point – which takes thousands of years to stabilize – that is the issue. It’s the rate of change. That can’t be emphasized enough, and there is plenty of evidence about how the climate reacts to strong carbon forcing. The ecosystem is very vulnerable as well to rates of change that exceed the adaptive capabilities of key species. You end up with multiple global disruptions at once – destabilization of global climate, rapid temperature changes globally, extreme changes in temperature and precipitation regionally due to long-term changes in circulation systems, changes in ocean chemistry, and other disruptions that potentially lead to biological tipping points and – eventually – to mass extinctions. The best current estimates are that a temperature rise of less than 2°C at the current trajectory would put 30% of species at risk of extinction, and double that temperature at the equivalent trajectory would likely be a significant threat to the entire global ecosystem.
BTW, nice point about the isotopic signature of anthropogenic CO2.
Weather and climate are different things, and short-term weather prediction is different from long-term climate prediction. For instance, I personally can’t predict at all what the weather will be next week, but I can predict with very high confidence that the average temperature next week will be lower than the average weekly temperature five months from now.
As I pointed out earlier, climate science is indeed very complicated and a lot of its estimates and projections are extremely uncertain. Every mainstream climate scientist acknowledges that (and as for me personally, I certainly understand much less about the subject than professional climate science researchers do). But that doesn’t mean that nobody knows anything at all about climate or that any guess is as good as any other.
Like the OP, you’re mixing up the concept of a recent short-term decrease in some temperature indicators with the idea of the whole long-term process of global warming somehow stopping or “pausing”.
The two are not the same thing. Just because some temperature indicators are currently not increasing doesn’t mean that our continual pumping up of greenhouse-gas concentrations isn’t still adding to the total energy budget of the planet.
That’s not an argument against its validity. Plenty of people “aren’t buying” various scientific theories about, e.g., evolution or geology, but that doesn’t mean the science is wrong.
Do you have an actual scientific argument that you consider refutes the scientific explanation you mentioned, or are you just “not buying” it because you’ve decided you don’t like it?
What you are doing now, FXMastermind, is not so much debating as delusional raving in desperate defense of ignorance and error.
Once again, you did not prove that the xkcd comic is wrong. On the contrary, the data from St. Louis confirms it is right.
Let’s recap: The xkcd comic in question makes the point that the severity of minimum winter temperatures in St. Louis has been sharply decreasing in recent decades.
And the data I cited for St. Louis from the National Weather Service forecast archive confirms that point, as follows:
Number of Subzero F Daily Low Temperatures (Annually) in St. Louis:
1960-1969: 2, 4, 4, 13, 1, 3, 3, 1, 3, 0
1970-1979: 5, 0, 4, 2, 2, 1, 4, 13, 7, 8
1980-1989: 2, 4, 10, 9, 4, 3, 1, 0, 1, 5
1990-1999: 2, 0, 0, 1, 4, 0, 4, 6, 0, 2
2000-2009: 0, 1, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 2
2010-2013: 1, 1, 0, 0
I.e., the severity of minimum winter temperatures in St. Louis has been sharply decreasing in recent decades.
Nonsense, the OP is clear, and says nothing of the sort. The explanation being objected to is based on the paper I linked to in the OP.
Okay, now this is funny.
FXMastermind when he thinks he has a valid argument:
FXMastermind when his argument has been conclusively shown to be wrong:
