Losing the Fear of Generating CO2

[Heissonear]

What, specifically, do you think the climate sensitivity to a doubling of CO2 is and why?

A good honest question. I will present detail later, pull them up like PDO and Earth's temperature correlation over recorded time, .......
...................

 

[Heissonear]

Are we looking at observations as time passes or pushing CO2 Alarmism? The recently released looks non-IPCC-ish for 2015. Right?

 

[amanuensis63]

A good honest question. I will present detail later, pull them up like PDO and Earth's temperature correlation over recorded time, .......
...................

PDO has nothing to do with CO2 climate sensitivity. Just saying.

 

[amanuensis63]

Justa looks at Mother Nature first. And sees all that is needed to explain what we observe. Simple, unless you turned to be an Alarmist.

Or if you accidentally looked at science.

 

[[serious]]

Nice try. You have it backwards, atmospheric CO2 change follows Earths temperature.

The SkepticalScience is loaded with disinformation for warmist to spread as their gospel.

Yeah! Fire produces heat, so how can heat produce fire?

Take THAT oil rag pile extremists!

 

[Justatruthseeker]

THESE ARE CALLED GRAPHS! In the top left hand side you can see the ACTUAL temperature in red and the grey is how the climate models fit the data when you only look at NATURAL FORCINGS.

Look at the graph at the bottom...it shows the fit when you use NATURAL AND HUMAN FORCINGS (things like CO2 generation).

Note how much better it is when you include HUMAN FORCINGS!

Wow!



You would be wrong. But that's OK! Not everyone knows about SCIENCE. You can learn it! It's easy to learn! And FUN!

Over 95% of Global warming models all have one thing in common: That what we actually observe is wrong, since according to you they are right.

But back to claims of being the warmest period:

Your charts match because you keep fudging the data.

Watch the magic show folks. Notice how the average temperature drops for the designated year with each new graph the Global Warming people put out.

It's no wonder it keeps rising, you keep lowering the average for prior years with every new graph.

 

[Justatruthseeker]

The reality:

 

[Chalnoth]

Justa looks at Mother Nature first. And sees all that is needed to explain what we observe. Simple, unless you turned to be an Alarmist.

That doesn't answer the question. "Looking at Mother Nature" means performing some kind of observation. What kind of observation, specifically? Why do you think that observation means what you say it means?

 

[Chalnoth]

Over 95% of Global warming models all have one thing in common: That what we actually observe is wrong, since according to you they are right.

This is an example of lying with graphs.

The key to why these graphs are so deceptive is at the far left, at 1983: notice that all of the models start from the exact same point, and both of the temperature records immediately drop (while half the models go up and another half go down). Roy Spencer is the person that made this graph, and what he did was select a period in the recent temperature record that was particularly warm, and normalized all of the graphs to that specific point in time.

The more common thing to do, which is far less deceptive, is to take a 30-year average (such as the period from 1981-2010). Do that, and the models and the temperature records agree quite closely.

Here's a blog post that goes into detail on the deception here, and shows what happens when you select a 30-year baseline:
http://blog.hotwhopper.com/2014/05/roy-spencer-grows-even-wearier.html

Note that Roy Spencer used the 5-year baseline for a particularly warm group of years specifically to create this graph. He did the more standard thing of using the 1981-2010 baseline for other graphs in the exact same post.

 

[Chalnoth]

The reality:

Yet another example of lying with graphs. There are a few problems with this:
1. They plotted the monthly data. This causes large short-term swings in temperature to appear that hide the underlying trend. The best thing to do is to plot a 3-year or 5-year moving average. This smooths out the variations and makes the underlying changes clear.
2. They didn't plot all of the data. Both the UAH and RSS data are available starting 1979. Don't you think it's curious that the plots don't start until 1997? There's 18 years of data they're leaving out! There's a reason for that: starting with a later period that was unusually warm masks the underlying trend.

Fix those two issues, and the trend appears quite clearly.

 

[Chalnoth]

By the way, for comparison to that deceptive temperature graph you linked, here is the UAH's website:
http://nsstc.uah.edu/climate/

And here is the graph posted at their front page, which includes all of the global data:

Even though though the graph is still just monthly, the warming trend is clear as day when you look at the whole picture. If you use a 3-year or 5-year moving average, the warming trend just becomes more obvious.

 

[Justatruthseeker]

Justa looks at Mother Nature first. And sees all that is needed to explain what we observe. Simple, unless you turned to be an Alarmist.

Last I checked observation was a main ingredient of the scientific method. So I am guilty as charged.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific_method

"To be termed scientific, a method of inquiry is commonly based on empirical or measurable evidence subject to specific principles of reasoning."

And why wouldn't I look to nature, since nature is what we are studying and trying to explain is it not? Why would I look anywhere else? Why would I ignore every planet we studied during this time frame also heated up - to which we have no answers as to why? Well, mainstream doesn't, but since they ignore 99% of everything, that's not surprising. Once you stop leaving out those principles of reasoning and replacing logic with Fairie Dust, you'll be much better off.

Ahhh, they don't fit your beliefs - so even though their cause of heating is unknown to mainstream scientists, you know it's not the same thing that heated the earth. Even if it's done the same thing consistently for at minimum 400,000 years?

What heated them is the same thing that heated us.

Surprising

Still surprised 2 years later

Which you know transfers superheated plasma.

Baffled and Surprised

But to you they are surprising and baffling, because they do not fit into your system of beliefs, being the electromagnetic events they are.

Learn the Ropes

 

[amanuensis63]

Over 95% of Global warming models all have one thing in common: That what we actually observe is wrong, since according to you they are right.

You clearly misunderstood the graph. The graph is modeling temperatures that have already occurred. It is called "hindcasting" (among people who actually understand the science).

 

[Subduction Zone]

And once again, I need to post this graph:

This shows that warming clearly occurs after CO2 release, it does not lead. It may lead slightly at the poles, but the poles are not the world. Please note on this graph the blue is the GLOBAL AVERAGE TEMPERATURE CHANGE. The Red is the Antarctic Temperature Change, and the yellow dots are the CO2 levels. Please note that the Global Changes, postdate the CO2 increases.

This article explains the work that Shakun did:

http://www.skepticalscience.com/skakun-co2-temp-lag.html

Or you can go to nature, pay the fee, and read what he actually wrote:

http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v484/n7392/full/nature10915.html

The graph is from the Nature article so I do not see to much point in paying at least $35.00 to read just this one article.

 

[juvenissun]

There isn't a significant economic sacrifice, though. In fact, in the current economic climate the government's finances (in the US and Europe) would be made better-off if they borrowed money to spend on infrastructure (because the extra spending puts people who are currently out of work to work, which increases future tax receipts as being out of work today makes you less employable tomorrow). So there might not be an economic cost at all. There could well be pure gains to be had here, with no drawbacks. It is somewhat implementation-dependent, but even the most pessimistic estimates of the cost of aggressive action to reduce CO2 use show a pretty small cost.

That said, the specific result is that if we don't consider any of the "fast feedbacks" then a doubling of CO2 will result in about 1C of warming. The fast feedbacks (melting of ice, increased water vapor, etc.) triple this value to about 3C. There is a fair amount of uncertainty to this number. Estimates typically range from 2C to 5C. But any sensitivity in the range from 2C to 5C will be very nasty for us if we continue to emit CO2 (the higher range is nasty even if we stop today: it's just worse if we continue).

OK, that is about all we can say in terms of science. No wonder many people are skeptical on what politicians said about the threat of CO2. I have no problem about a warming up earth at the current time. But I doubt the effort on the reduction of CO2 emission is worthwhile. I think no matter what we do, the earth is going to warm up continuously for another 100 years.

 

[DogmaHunter]

Derailing your own thread with a fallacy of relative privation.

Bringing up potentially bigger problems in the world doesn't diminish lesser ones.

When considering the lives the next 3-4 generations of humans, I'ld say climate change is a bigger threat then a few thousand imbeciles playing Rambo in Iraq and Syria.

If all else fails, you can still turn Syria and Iraq in a giant parking lot (not that I suggest we do that - but it is nevertheless an option). But climate change... you can't bomb that problem away.

 

[amanuensis63]

OK, that is about all we can say in terms of science. No wonder many people are skeptical on what politicians said about the threat of CO2. I have no problem about a warming up earth at the current time. But I doubt the effort on the reduction of CO2 emission is worthwhile. I think no matter what we do, the earth is going to warm up continuously for another 100 years.

It is nice when someone can come out firmly and clearly in favor of not taking responsibility for our own actions! Bravo! Now if only your hypothesis matched up with anything in the science!

1. CO2 is a known greenhouse gas
2. Isotopic composition of the atmospheric CO2 shows direct human causation for much of the recent run-up in excess CO2
3. Modeling the various natural and anthropogenic factors against temperature trends over the past shows a major dominance of human factors in the recent warming.

Basically your position sounds more like willful disavowal of science in the hopes of not having to take responsibility for our actions.

Good luck with that!

 

[Paul of Eugene OR]

It is nice when someone can come out firmly and clearly in favor of not taking responsibility for our own actions! Bravo! Now if only your hypothesis matched up with anything in the science!

1. CO2 is a known greenhouse gas
2. Isotopic composition of the atmospheric CO2 shows direct human causation for much of the recent run-up in excess CO2
3. Modeling the various natural and anthropogenic factors against temperature trends over the past shows a major dominance of human factors in the recent warming.

Basically your position sounds more like willful disavowal of science in the hopes of not having to take responsibility for our actions.

Good luck with that!

An excellent summary.

 

[Subduction Zone]

It is nice when someone can come out firmly and clearly in favor of not taking responsibility for our own actions! Bravo! Now if only your hypothesis matched up with anything in the science!

1. CO2 is a known greenhouse gas
2. Isotopic composition of the atmospheric CO2 shows direct human causation for much of the recent run-up in excess CO2
3. Modeling the various natural and anthropogenic factors against temperature trends over the past shows a major dominance of human factors in the recent warming.

Basically your position sounds more like willful disavowal of science in the hopes of not having to take responsibility for our actions.

Good luck with that!

I suppose the "It won't harm me" argument is valid if you don't have any children, or don't care for your children, close relatives, or humanity in general. It does not seem to be a very "Christian" sentiment.

 

[juvenissun]

It is nice when someone can come out firmly and clearly in favor of not taking responsibility for our own actions! Bravo! Now if only your hypothesis matched up with anything in the science!

1. CO2 is a known greenhouse gas
2. Isotopic composition of the atmospheric CO2 shows direct human causation for much of the recent run-up in excess CO2
3. Modeling the various natural and anthropogenic factors against temperature trends over the past shows a major dominance of human factors in the recent warming.

Basically your position sounds more like willful disavowal of science in the hopes of not having to take responsibility for our actions.

Good luck with that!

How do you see that?