How Global Warming Really Works

[StrangeLife]

You might be surprised that I actually agree with you to a point.

Something just flew by my window. brb...

http://www.mentalfloss.com/sites/default/legacy/blogs/wp-content/uploads/2010/11/425AirportFlyingPigs.jpg

Holy shit.

1891 was not the hottest year on record. 1891 was the first year that there was a reliable standard worldwide for temperature recording. So when they say a year was the hottest since 1891, they mean the hottest ever reliably recorded worldwide. Jees.

Just checking that you were awake (and I needed a place to put in those cowfarts)


But the hottest year is still 16 years in the past.... right before China really took off and pretty much doubled humanity's impact on the atmosphere over night. Yet, the temperature curve didn't change much. Seemed to just follow a pre-ordained trajectory. Kinda like it would have done, if the increase was not caused by human influence. Interesting..

And .69 degrees per century is not "very slight". It is unprecedented in human history, and alarming.

Definitely not.

We have had multiple ice ages, we've found dinosaurs in the polar regions and the Sahara desert used to be a jungle. Without having accurate readings, we know that the temperature has fluctuated rapidly throughout the planets history. And it will continue to do so in the future - regardless of how much we protest.


Jonathan Strickland's article is interesting, but his main source is a group who calls themselves "Union of Concerned Scientists". Something tells me they're not much fun to hang with...

 

[phrodeau]

Something just flew by my window. brb...

http://www.mentalfloss.com/sites/default/legacy/blogs/wp-content/uploads/2010/11/425AirportFlyingPigs.jpg










Just checking that you were awake (and I needed a place to put in those cowfarts)


But the hottest year is still 16 years in the past.... right before China really took off and pretty much doubled humanity's impact on the atmosphere over night. Yet, the temperature curve didn't change much. Seemed to just follow a pre-ordained trajectory. Kinda like it would have done, if the increase was not caused by human influence. Interesting..







Definitely not.

We have had multiple ice ages, we've found dinosaurs in the polar regions and the Sahara desert used to be a jungle. Without having accurate readings, we know that the temperature has fluctuated rapidly throughout the planets history. And it will continue to do so in the future - regardless of how much we protest.


Jonathan Strickland's article is interesting, but his main source is a group who calls themselves "Union of Concerned Scientists". Something tells me they're not much fun to hang with...

I said "human history". I guess you weren't awake.

The last abrupt climate fluctuation was about 12,000 years ago, prior to the invention of writing.

 

[KingOrfeo]

We have had multiple ice ages, we've found dinosaurs in the polar regions and the Sahara desert used to be a jungle. Without having accurate readings, we know that the temperature has fluctuated rapidly throughout the planets history. And it will continue to do so in the future - regardless of how much we protest.

But, we also know it never happened this fast before, not nearly. That is unprecedented.

 

[trysail]

But, we also know it never happened this fast before, not nearly. That is unprecedented.

Utter nonsense.

The historic temperature record isn't anywhere near accurate enough to make that kind of wild speculation.


How can people be so incredibly gullible?


The truth of the matter is that you haven't got the foggiest idea in hell.



http://wattsupwiththat.files.wordpress.com/2014/02/clip_image0041.jpg
​

 

[trysail]

Do you really believe that Russian temperature records from, say, 1917-1950 are reliable?

Do you honestly believe that Chinese temperature records from, say, 1913-1980 are reliable?

Do you seriously believe that Sub-Saharan African temperatures from, say 1850-2012 are accurate?

Do you really believe that oceanic temperatures from, say 1800-1970 are accurate? (the oceans, as you know, cover 70% of the earth's surface).

“Global Warming refers to an obscure statistical quantity, globally averaged temperature anomaly, the small residue of far larger and mostly uncorrelated local anomalies. This quantity is highly uncertain, but may be on the order of 0.7C over the past 150 years. This quantity is always varying at this level and there have been periods of both warming and cooling on virtually all time scales. On the time scale of from 1 year to 100 years, there is no need for any externally specified forcing. The climate system is never in equilibrium because, among other things, the ocean transports heat between the surface and the depths. To be sure, however, there are other sources of internal variability as well.

Because the quantity we are speaking of is so small, and the error bars are so large, the quantity is easy to abuse in a variety of ways.”
​

-Richard S. Lindzen, Ph.D.
Alfred P. Sloan Professor of Meteorology
Massachusetts Institute of Technology
​

​

 

[RobDownSouth]

But the hottest year is still 16 years in the past.... right before China really took off and pretty much doubled humanity's impact on the atmosphere over night. Yet, the temperature curve didn't change much. Seemed to just follow a pre-ordained trajectory. Kinda like it would have done, if the increase was not caused by human influence. Interesting..

"16 years in the past"? Only if you don't count 2005 or 2010.

"Temperature curve didn't change much"? To the contrary, the decade 2000-2009 was far above the statistical norm.

 

[StrangeLife]

I said "human history". I guess you weren't awake.

The last abrupt climate fluctuation was about 12,000 years ago, prior to the invention of writing.

Define "human" then. Because up until about 1000 years ago our footprint on the ecology were pretty indistinguishable from the rest of the fauna. Going from Homo Neanderthalensis to Homo Sapiens wouldn't have made a big difference to the atmosphere. In fact, we've probably not done anything significant until the coal and iron industries started up.

So apart from the last century or two, even the climate conspirators agree that whatever happened to the temperature during "the age of humanity", we didn't cause it.

"16 years in the past"? Only if you don't count 2005 or 2010.

"Temperature curve didn't change much"? To the contrary, the decade 2000-2009 was far above the statistical norm..

I was referring specifically to the latest numbers from JMA. Apart from the doomsday prophesies, not all climate conspirators agree on the numbers apparently.

And like TrySail put it, there is no "statistical norm" going back any significant distance. The vikings weren't great meteorologists, so all we have beyond about a couple of centuries is dendrochronology.

 

[dan_c00000]

So stranger still has no evidence to prove his point. Why am I not shocked?

Maybe you should take a look at reality. For example, how there's actually a country that will be destroyed by climate change.

Even a company that fuels climate change denial has to acknowledge the reality that climate change is happening. In fact they even told their investors this.

So let's recap about the massive ownage I just dumped on stranger and trysail (he's already my bitch).

1. The vast majority of science says climate change is happening and it's caused by humans.
2. Those refuting this are funded by companies/people with an interest in denying this.
3. Even the companies funding these people acknowledge climate change is occurring.
4. You have no legit sources to back up any of your claims.
5. You have no scientific credentials.
6. http://i742.photobucket.com/albums/xx69/arto-del-funko/You-Are-Owned.jpg

 

[4est_4est_Gump]

Most of those finding for man-made climate change are fighting for government funding.


Most of them are Socialists using the issue for redistributive Social Justice.

 

[chillywilly2]

OK, if we stop all man made emissions causing global warming today, how long will it take to get back to a so called normal and will things actually cool down

 

[chillywilly2]

Will Making companies pay a carbon tax stop global warming, if so, how long will it take and what kind of temps can I look forward to.


we had a great year for snowmobiling...can I look forward to another

 

[KingOrfeo]

OK, if we stop all man made emissions causing global warming today, how long will it take to get back to a so called normal and will things actually cool down

Will Making companies pay a carbon tax stop global warming, if so, how long will it take and what kind of temps can I look forward to.


we had a great year for snowmobiling...can I look forward to another

Wait a bit. The new IPCC report linked above is from Working Group 2, dealing with "Impacts, Adaptation, and Vulnerability," not with mitigation. Mitigation options are the focus of WG3, a different working group that should be releasing its report later this month.

 

[chillywilly2]

I'll wait...till then, I'm heating my house and driving to work.

I did my part...I got a 4 stroke snowmobile instead of a oil burning 2 stroke

 

[StrangeLife]

So stranger still has no evidence to prove his point. Why am I not shocked?

I have nothing to prove Dan. I'm not the one making wild claims.

Maybe you should take a look at reality. For example, how there's actually a country that will be destroyed by climate change.

Yes, that kind of stuff has happened regularly throughout human history. Pompeji was destroyed by a volcano in 79 AD for instance. It's a living planet we have. If you fear natures wrath don't build in lowlands, in earth quake zones, near a volcano, on a river bank and so on. If you are sloppy, bad things might happen.

So let's recap about the massive ownage I just dumped on stranger and trysail (he's already my bitch).

Your latest propaganda regurgitations? Oh I'm sure the (very well paid) Global Warming Conglomerate spindoctors love you. And they don't even have to give you a cut of their fat paychecks... you're doing it for free.

1. The vast majority of science says climate change is happening and it's caused by humans.

Ah yes, the classic "lemming" argumentation. The mob is always right...

http://bashers.nl/wp-content/uploads/2010/12/white-eat-shit-a-billion-flies-can-t-be-wrong-men-s-tees_design.png

2. Those refuting this are funded by companies/people with an interest in denying this.

This goes for both sides Dan. Have no illusions - this is a hot political topic and the fear-mongers are using their heaviest artillery.

Take the aforementioned Tim Gore for example. Currently he has himself a nice juicy gig as policy manager-something for OXFAM. How many milliseconds do you think it would take before he was told to clear his desk and turn in his keys, if he were to change his public stance on global warming?

You seem to live in a world of black and white - you are on the side of the angels and the other side is mean and crooked like a Disney villain.

Newsflash my friend: There are few angels on either side.

The Church Of Global Warming is as well funded and agenda-guided as the skeptic side.

3. Even the companies funding these people acknowledge climate change is occurring.

Of course they do. Everybody does. The only constant as far as the climate goes, is change. It has changed constantly ever since the Earth got an atmosphere and it will do so in the future as well.

But is that a bad thing? And are we to blame for it? Now that's the question.

4. You have no legit sources to back up any of your claims.

Once again, I'm not the one making claims here. That's you and your church brothers who do that.

My position is, that we don't have nearly enough reliable information to make any claim, and only a fool makes drastic far-reaching policy decisions on pure conjecture.

5. You have no scientific credentials.

Correction: I have no scientific credentials that you know of. That's not quite the same. But then again, who is worse? The guy with no credentials or the guy who abuses his credentials to further a paid political agenda under the guise of scientific credibility?

6. http://i742.photobucket.com/albums/xx69/arto-del-funko/You-Are-Owned.jpg

Oh Dan - you are SO owned that if you were my house I wouldn't even have a mortgage. http://s29.postimg.org/97m7zdkoj/tongue.gif


http://s7.postimg.org/5gl2ihmuj/danpown.jpg


Heel bitch!

 

[phrodeau]

(edited)

If you are sloppy, bad things might happen.

No shit.

http://www.fmmagazine.com.au/wp-content/uploads/2010/05/pollution1-617x262.jpg
http://i.telegraph.co.uk/multimedia/archive/02705/china_2705692b.jpg
http://neilorme.com/pics/DirtyCity.jpg
http://r3zn8d.files.wordpress.com/2012/04/bp-oil-spill-2.jpeg
http://www.csmonitor.com/var/ezflow_site/storage/images/media/content/2013/0707-train/16285203-1-eng-US/0707-train_full_600.jpg

 

[dan_c00000]

Is strange still posting? I mean after that epic destruction does it even matter? I love how he's still got none of the following.

https://police.fullerton.edu/images/evidence.jpg

Anyway, http://www.nairaland.com/attachments/1222649_1027478_closed_2_jpgc49ab300ff7d2a951ea01ed3f267b300_jpgc8779a64a3015e509f8bf42e92b7666b

 

[trysail]

That's one helluva correlation you've got going there.




​

http://www.climate4you.com/images/MSU%20UAH%20GlobalMonthlyTempSince1979%20AndCO2.gif


​

 

[KingOrfeo]

Wait a bit. The new IPCC report linked above is from Working Group 2, dealing with "Impacts, Adaptation, and Vulnerability," not with mitigation. Mitigation options are the focus of WG3, a different working group that should be releasing its report later this month.

As to what can be done, that IPCC working group's report on climate-change mitigation strategies is now out. Full report here in pdf.

It’s not going to be easy: the 1,250 experts who wrote the report concluded that in order to avoid what’s generally agreed to be catastrophic warming, global greenhouse gas emissions by 2050 are going to have to drop to about 40 to 70 percent of what they were in 2010. By the end of the century, they’ll have to be at zero, or possibly even less than that (more on that below).

But it is possible, according to the thousand-plus scenarios run by the scientists. And it’s even affordable, they insist: taking action will depress annual economic growth rates only by about .06 percent. By the end of the century, the New York Times notes, countries that pay that expense now will likely be richer — do nothing, and they’ll be almost 5 percent poorer than they otherwise would have been. Speaking to reporters Saturday, Charles Kolstad, a lead author of the report, emphasized this above all else: “The longer we wait, the costlier it will be.”

 

[StrangeLife]

It’s not going to be easy: the 1,250 experts who wrote the report concluded that in order to avoid what’s generally agreed to be catastrophic warming, global greenhouse gas emissions by 2050 are going to have to drop to about 40 to 70 percent of what they were in 2010. By the end of the century, they’ll have to be at zero, or possibly even less than that (more on that below).

In the meantime the hunt for Bigfoot has been intensified by employing alien technology on loan from Hangar-A in Area 51...

 

[Sean Renaud]

I wish I was Republican enough to see the connection.

 

[KingOrfeo]

I wish I was Republican enough to see the connection.

There's no Bigfoot anyway; Manbearpig ate him, and then starving polar bears ate him.

 

[KingOrfeo]

Summary of the report, from Salon:

The potential pathways toward change are multifaceted, complicated and, in many cases, controversial. The IPCC makes it a point not to recommend specific policies, but instead to summarize the scientific and technical knowledge available from which policymakers can then act. Below, a pared-down list of what we can do to get where we need to be:

1. Switch to renewables

Clearly, a crisis brought about by the burning of fossil fuels isn’t going to be solved by more of the same. Halving, and ultimately eliminating, greenhouse gas emissions requires eliminating their source as well. In the next two decades, according to the report, fossil fuel use will need to decline by about 20 percent — phasing out coal, in particular, would have a significant impact. Investment in low-carbon energy, conversely, will need to double.

2. Put a price on carbon

An international carbon tax could be a cost-effective way to coax those CO2 emissions down to a management level. Plus, it’s “a general principle,” the report notes, that “mitigation policies that raise government revenue generally have lower social costs than approaches which do not.”

3. Take the carbon out of the atmosphere

This one’s more controversial: If we can’t break free of fossil fuels, or if we vastly overshoot our emissions goals, carbon capture and storage technology is put forth as a way of retroactively taking back what we’ve done. The controversy arises from the fact that such technologies don’t currently exist at scale, and there’s no indication that they’ll be available or affordable in the future. Preventing the need to do this in the first place, the report’s authors are careful to note, is probably a better plan.

4. Build greener buildings

The buildings we live and work in account for 32 percent of global energy use; energy demand and the consequent emissions could increase anywhere from 50 to 150 percent by mid-century. Approaching new construction with energy efficiency in mind, and retrofitting our old buildings by the same principles, are both necessary, and would effect massive change.

5. Plan better cities

Over half of the world’s population has been living in urban areas since 2011; by 2050, it could be as many as 70 percent of us. The next two decades, according to the report, are therefore an important window of opportunity during which to get cities right. The best urban planning will integrate things like well-placed residential and employment centers, efficient use of land and space and access to and investment in public transportation. With that can and should come benefits to city dwellers: access to energy, limited air and water pollution and continued employment opportunities.

6. Bring industry in line

Despite all our talk about reducing, greenhouse gas emissions between 2000 and 2010 grew at a faster rate than over the three previous decades. Industry accounted for 30 percent of that growth, is responsible for 28 percent of global energy use and currently is the source of more emissions than the transport or building sectors. “Wide-scale upgrading, replacement and deployment of best available technologies” could reduce that energy intensity by up to 25 percent, the report found. And the economic case for reducing emissions is sound: “many emission-reduction options are cost-effective, profitable and associated with multiple benefits,” the report notes. The barriers? Lack of policy and regulations, for one, and lack of experience in material and service efficiency, for another.

7. Set standards for cars and trucks

Emissions from transportation may grow faster than any other sources through 2050, the report warns, rising up to 71 percent over 2010 levels. Better urban planning (see No. 5) can help reduce that burden; switching to low-carbon fuels will need to play a role as well. Yet cutting back in this sector, “will be challenging, since the continuing growth in passenger and freight activity could outweigh all mitigation measures unless transport emissions can be strongly decoupled from GDP growth.”

8. Make better use of land

Afforestation, also known as the opposite of what’s happening now (deforestation), has potential as another way to help remove carbon from the atmosphere, though the report notes that the evidence to suggest this is limited. Ditto planting things that can be used as biofuels — doing so could maybe help reduce greenhouse gas emissions, but to what extent, and at what cost, is poorly understood. Replanting forests, sustainably managing the ones we’ve got and quitting cutting them down are the most cost-effective mitigation options we’ve got, so far as forest land is concerned — in agriculture, best practices include cropland and grazing land management, along with the restoration of organic soils.

9. Live greener, be greener

Obviously, this is going to take more than individual action. But lifestyle and behavioral changes aren’t to be discounted — especially if we can design policies and infrastructure that encourage us to live differently. In buildings, for example, such changes could reduce energy demand by up to 20 percent in the short term and by up to 50 percent by 2050. Changes in consumption, diet and food waste are all listed as important considerations as well.

10. Cooperate internationally

It’s a U.N. report, so this part should come as no surprise: “Effective mitigation will not be achieved if individual agents advance their own interests independently.” Speaking with reporters Saturday, IPCC author Robert Stavins emphasized the ideas of the global commons: While the benefits of taking action are global, the costs of doing so are local, and thus carry unequal weight. For some forms of geoengineering, he added, the reverse is even possible: technologies can have local benefits but a net-negative impact on the rest of the world. This is a global problem that requires a global solution: We’re all in this together, people.

 

[jeninflorida]

Jesus the obana stupidty club is having another meeting....


Why dony you asshats get jobs?

 

[StrangeLife]

Kinda "ho-hum" as far as I can tell....

1. Switch to renewables

The fact that nuclear power - the only realistic alternative to fossil fuel - isn't put prominently forward smells of an agenda-driven piece of work.

2. Put a price on carbon

An international carbon tax could be a cost-effective way to coax those CO2 emissions down to a management level. Plus, it’s “a general principle,” the report notes, that “mitigation policies that raise government revenue generally have lower social costs than approaches which do not.”

Yeah, because higher taxes are the key to paradise.

Gimme a break! And don't feed the government - it's fat enough already.

3. Take the carbon out of the atmosphere

Best idea yet...

4. Build greener buildings

Being done already.

5. Plan better cities

Being done already.

6. Bring industry in line

In so far it can be done without harming our productivity, sure.

7. Set standards for cars and trucks

GTFO and go concentrate on cow-farts. If it comes down to a choice between my car or some pseudo-scientific mass psychosis, the neurotics can take a hike... or a hydrogen bus...

8. Make better use of land

Good idea. Wood is good

9. Live greener, be greener

As long as it doesn't turn into hysteria, then why not?

10. Cooperate internationally

Always a good idea.

 

[KingOrfeo]

The fact that nuclear power - the only realistic alternative to fossil fuel - isn't put prominently forward smells of an agenda-driven piece of work.

I think they would call that inappropriate, because:

The IPCC makes it a point not to recommend specific policies, but instead to summarize the scientific and technical knowledge available from which policymakers can then act.

IOW, this report isn't the place to get into a cost-benefit analysis of nuclear-power hazards.

Yeah, because higher taxes are the key to paradise.

No, because lower carbon is the key to survival.

Gimme a break! And don't feed the government - it's fat enough already.

Then there's really no debt or deficit?

GTFO and go concentrate on cow-farts. If it comes down to a choice between my car or some pseudo-scientific mass psychosis . . .

That is not the choice it comes down to.