How climate change alters regional climate in unpredictable ways

[GeneralVeers]

[quote name='lajoswinkler']There is no more scientific debate on whether global climate change is happening, and not even whether humanity is responsible. [U]It's over.[/U][/QUOTE]
That kind of thinking is entirely uncalled-for in science.

The debate is never over. As I already explained, a gigantic pile of a billion research papers "proving" something can be completely undone by one guy and one paper proving all the others wrong. It's happened many times throughout human history. <generic snarky comment about people not learning from history>


I was going to do that whole thing where I quote three dozen snippets and argue about them--but, you know what? They're not needed. The above does it. "It's over" is an attitude shared by most GW alarmists I run afoul of, and that attitude automatically disqualifies anyone who follows it. No matter what science thread or what web site.

[peadar1987]

For the record, I have never claimed "it's over". It's entirely possible that some hitherto-unknown effect or science will come around and disprove the concept of anthropogenic global warming. However:

-It is daft to assume that this is the case and continue to merrily pump out CO2, when all of the evidence points the other way, in the same way as it would be daft to smoke five packs of cigarettes a day on the assumption that all the studies linking smoking to cancer were flawed in some way.

-If it is disproved, it won't be by the fallacious, facile, and scientifically-shaky arguments you have been putting forward.

[GeneralVeers]

[quote name='peadar1987']For the record, I have never claimed "it's over".[/QUOTE]
Wasn't talking to you.

[quote name='peadar1987']It is daft to assume that this is the case and continue to merrily pump out CO2[/QUOTE]
It's already been shown by the diminishing-returns deal that pumping out additional CO2 (and all other greenhouse gases, which also follow the diminishing-returns rule) will have near-zero measurable effect. Further--and you'll find this next bit worrisome--the diminishing-returns curve works both ways, and the planet will end up following that curve in the other direction. Removing that first unit of CO2 will do next to nothing, and we won't see so much as a degree of cooling until we get CO2 levels nearly down to pre-Industrial levels. And that ain't gonna happen, for reasons gone into in that other thread that imploded like Miley Cyrus' career.

[quote name='peadar1987']If it is disproved, it won't be by the fallacious, facile, and scientifically-shaky arguments you have been putting forward.[/QUOTE]
Of course it will. I've been in almost literally a billion global warming threads, and most alarmists consider [B]ALL[/B] opposing arguments fallacious, facile, and scientifically-shaky. And, probably, if and when global warming is debunked, you won't believe it.

[Dieselpower]

[quote name='WedgeAntilles']Wasn't talking to you.
[/QUOTE]

Wedge, do you think this is a fair way to have a discussion, by answering very selectively and avoiding critical comments of others?

And it has been raised before, you don't seem to understand how science works and how difficult it is to topple a set scientific paradigm.
You will have to come with an alternative theory, a rigorous set of data to back it up and it should explain the trend better than the current theory.

None of this can be found in your answers. Stating this objectively and without attacking you personally: your arguments are of inferior quality to that of the scientific discussion on climate change:

- you tell us you have alternative explanations, yet you often do not have data or arguments to back it up
- when you do provide us with data, it is debunked or found misinterpreted
- you have yet to acknowledge a single flaw or counter-argument to your ideas
- when you can't find arguments, you move towards fatalism and argue we can't change anything anyways
- and finally, you attack us personally, by calling us 'alarmists'

Conclusively, you are not approaching this discussion in a scientific way.
Therefore, I find it increasingly ridiculous that you are criticising the work of thousands of scientists, without being capable of actually articulating why.

As already said by others, the discussion is practically over. Human induced global warming is taking place, and saying it isn't is similar to saying smoking does not lead to cancer.

Looking forward to a reply in which you don't answer selectively. Edited November 23, 2015 by Dieselpower

[peadar1987]

[quote name='WedgeAntilles']
It's already been shown by the diminishing-returns deal that pumping out additional CO2 (and all other greenhouse gases, which also follow the diminishing-returns rule) will have near-zero measurable effect. Further--and you'll find this next bit worrisome--the diminishing-returns curve works both ways, and the planet will end up following that curve in the other direction. Removing that first unit of CO2 will do next to nothing, and we won't see so much as a degree of cooling until we get CO2 levels nearly down to pre-Industrial levels. And that ain't gonna happen, for reasons gone into in that other thread that imploded like Miley Cyrus' career.
[/quote]
If it's already been shown, you'll be able to show us the source. No, don't say it's "basic thermodynamics" again. Or if you do, give us actual numbers to back your assertion up.


[quote]
Of course it will. I've been in almost literally a billion global warming threads, and most alarmists consider [B]ALL[/B] opposing arguments fallacious, facile, and scientifically-shaky. And, probably, if and when global warming is debunked, you won't believe it.[/QUOTE]

Maybe that says more about you than the people who believe global warming is happening.

There have been plenty of valid criticisms and scientifically sound arguments made. Take, for example, the urban heat island effect. It was brought up, and highlighted potentially a very real flaw in the temperature record. It was analysed, corrections made, and it emerged that no significant error had been caused.

That is good science. At the time it was brought up it constituted a perfectly valid opposing argument. Repeating it, and similar arguments, now is fallacious, facile and scientifically shaky.

[cypher_00]

Turns out the "there is a 12 year pause in global warming" argument is also not true:

[url]http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2015/11/151124081510.htm[/url]

[PB666]

[url]http://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-34872956[/url]

What they call extreme heat we call a summer day in Texas. Most of the state is uninhabitable for cities without air-conditioning, if your air conditioning breaks, go to work, a shopping mall or a hotel.
Where I am, i've recorded 112'F (44.5'C) in the shade, for some that's hot, for others its not. The only time I have seen a hotter temperature was in needles California at a gas station, it was 115F (46C) degrees.
The bigger danger is drought and the Edward's aquifer.

[micr0wave]

oh, wow, did you see [URL="http://abcnews.go.com/US/north-carolina-bans-latest-science-rising-sea-level/story?id=16913782"]this link[/URL] in the bbc article ?

[PB666]

[quote name='llanthas']Apparently, the entire state of North Carolina has stuck its fingers in its ears and started saying "LALALALALALALAALALALALLALAL"[/QUOTE]

Well, you have to kniw that the party of abraham lincoln has evolved into the party of Ned Ludd

[GeneralVeers]

[quote name='Wedge from earlier on']It's already been shown by the diminishing-returns deal that pumping out additional CO2 (and all other greenhouse gases, which also follow the diminishing-returns rule) will have near-zero measurable effect.[/QUOTE]

[quote name='peadar1987']If it's already been shown, you'll be able to show us the source.[/QUOTE]
I already did. It's already known fact that more CO2 isn't going to do jack squat. Earth has [B]already[/B] proved this.

As I explained more than once already: the Earth would be several degrees colder with no CO2 in its atmosphere. Thirty degrees colder with no greenhouse gases at all. Doubling CO2 from its pre-Industrial levels [B]DID NOT RAISE EARTH'S TEMPERATURE BY ANOTHER SEVERAL DEGREES.[/B] More than doubling all of Earth's greenhouse gases (methane is somewhere around quadruple its "normal" level) [B]DID NOT RAISE EARTH'S TEMPERATURE BY ANOTHER 30 DEGREES.[/B]

I simply can't simplify it any more simply. Increasing the planet's CO2 from current levels will do next to nothing, because past increases in the planets CO2 have already done next to nothing. Diminishing returns. Fact.

[peadar1987]

[quote name='WedgeAntilles']I already did.
[/quote]
No, you really didn't.

[quote]
It's already known fact that more CO2 isn't going to do jack squat. Earth has [B]already[/B] proved this.

As I explained more than once already: the Earth would be several degrees colder with no CO2 in its atmosphere. Thirty degrees colder with no greenhouse gases at all. Doubling CO2 from its pre-Industrial levels [B]DID NOT RAISE EARTH'S TEMPERATURE BY ANOTHER SEVERAL DEGREES.[/B] More than doubling all of Earth's greenhouse gases (methane is somewhere around quadruple its "normal" level) [B]DID NOT RAISE EARTH'S TEMPERATURE BY ANOTHER 30 DEGREES.[/B]
[/quote]
Numbers smaller than 30 still exist, and would still be bad for the climate.

But at least now you're acknowledging that CO2 causes warming. This is progress.

[quote]
I simply can't simplify it any more simply. Increasing the planet's CO2 from current levels will do next to nothing, because past increases in the planets CO2 have already done next to nothing. Diminishing returns. Fact.[/QUOTE]
"Past increases in the planet's CO2 have already done next to nothing".

Evidence?

[PB666]

[quote name='WedgeAntilles']I already did. It's already known fact that more CO2 isn't going to do jack squat. Earth has [B]already[/B] proved this.

As I explained more than once already: the Earth would be several degrees colder with no CO2 in its atmosphere. Thirty degrees colder with no greenhouse gases at all. Doubling CO2 from its pre-Industrial levels [B]DID NOT RAISE EARTH'S TEMPERATURE BY ANOTHER SEVERAL DEGREES.[/B] More than doubling all of Earth's greenhouse gases (methane is somewhere around quadruple its "normal" level) [B]DID NOT RAISE EARTH'S TEMPERATURE BY ANOTHER 30 DEGREES.[/B]

I simply can't simplify it any more simply. Increasing the planet's CO2 from current levels will do next to nothing, because past increases in the planets CO2 have already done next to nothing. Diminishing returns. Fact.[/QUOTE]

Uh look ALLCAPS and [B]bolded[/B], this is certainly the sign of a master debater in action.
Folks this fellow is scoring on the good ole usenet ____ index now, might just let the thread die rather than waste more time with him.

[Findthepin1]

[quote name='WedgeAntilles']I already did. It's already known fact that more CO2 isn't going to do jack squat. Earth has [B]already[/B] proved this.

As I explained more than once already: the Earth would be several degrees colder with no CO2 in its atmosphere. Thirty degrees colder with no greenhouse gases at all. Doubling CO2 from its pre-Industrial levels [B]DID NOT RAISE EARTH'S TEMPERATURE BY ANOTHER SEVERAL DEGREES.[/B] More than doubling all of Earth's greenhouse gases (methane is somewhere around quadruple its "normal" level) [B]DID NOT RAISE EARTH'S TEMPERATURE BY ANOTHER 30 DEGREES.[/B]

I simply can't simplify it any more simply. Increasing the planet's CO2 from current levels will do next to nothing, because past increases in the planets CO2 have already done next to nothing. Diminishing returns. Fact.[/QUOTE]
Earth takes a while to react to atmospheric changes. Also, the atmosphere in total is what holds a lot of the heat.

[Chakat Firepaw]

[quote name='WedgeAntilles']I already did. It's already known fact that more CO2 isn't going to do jack squat. Earth has [B]already[/B] proved this.

As I explained more than once already: the Earth would be several degrees colder with no CO2 in its atmosphere. Thirty degrees colder with no greenhouse gases at all. Doubling CO2 from its pre-Industrial levels [B]DID NOT RAISE EARTH'S TEMPERATURE BY ANOTHER SEVERAL DEGREES.[/B][/QUOTE]

In what world is 400/280 equal to 2?

And do you know what the difference between a transient response and an equilibrium state are?

[quote name='WedgeAntilles']More than doubling all of Earth's greenhouse gases (methane is somewhere around quadruple its "normal" level) [B]DID NOT RAISE EARTH'S TEMPERATURE BY ANOTHER 30 DEGREES.[/B][/QUOTE]

The other anthropogenic greenhouse gasses combined have a smaller radiative forcing than the increase in CO2. Methane itself only trapping 0.48 W/m^2 compared to CO2's 1.66 W/m^2, (I misremembered earlier when I said about 2).

[quote name='WedgeAntilles']I simply can't simplify it any more simply. Increasing the planet's CO2 from current levels will do next to nothing, because past increases in the planets CO2 have already done next to nothing. Diminishing returns. Fact.[/QUOTE]

So you deny the equilibrium climate sensitivity is about 0.8 K m^2/W, (implying that it is much lower), how do you explain the positive temperature trend? Note that your position rules out anything that simply involves a different reason for the increasing heat content.

[mikegarrison]

[quote name='WedgeAntilles']I simply can't simplify it any more simply. Increasing the planet's CO2 from current levels will do next to nothing, because past increases in the planets CO2 have already done next to nothing. Diminishing returns. Fact.[/QUOTE]
That's out and out a complete and utter untruth. We have a long history (almost a million years) of atmospheric CO2 content and also a long history of temperature. The correlation is shockingly good.

[GeneralVeers]

On 11/23/2015, 3:34:23, Dieselpower said:

Wedge, do you think this is a fair way to have a discussion, by answering very selectively and avoiding critical comments of others?

Of course it's fair. Do you really think I'm going to waste two hours a day on you people? Forget it. The more people yelling at me about whatever, the more stuff I'm going to skip. I like the way SargeRho put it: "I'm out. Retracting nothing though." So, quick rule of thumb for ya: if I skip something, assume that. Assume I had a dental appointment or a date or that I felt like playing Kerbal Space Program instead.

(or, assume I simply got sick of posting in here because this new post-migration editor is absolutely awful)

Edited November 29, 2015 by WedgeAntilles

[Chakat Firepaw]

How about we make the assumption that is more likely to be true?  Namely that you don't actually have a response.

After all, how long could it take you to cover your seeming belief that 400 is twice 280?

Now it would take longer for you to come up with a reason for the increasing temperatures that doesn't involve radiative forcing but that is also a rather important thing to cover if you want to defend your position.

[Jean Deaux]

An engineer I have great respect for calls it all a bunch of rubbish and hogwash.  Check out his fact finding report here.

[GeneralVeers]

Quote

How about we make the assumption that is more likely to be true?  Namely that you don't actually have a response.

Because that assumption would be false. And also counterproductive; trying to provoke a response out of me mostly just makes me want to actually ignore you on purpose and see if you have an aneurysm.....

Quote

Now it would take longer for you to come up with a reason for the increasing temperatures that doesn't involve radiative forcing but that is also a rather important thing to cover if you want to defend your position.

I can do it with two words: bad measurements.

Oh, and here's another one: maybe the alarmists are out-and-out liars. Eight words. Unless "out-and-out" counts as one word?

Actually, that second one could use a few more words. A while back (as in, a decade or two ago) I saw a global warming alarmist write the following, with pretty much exactly these words: "so what if global warming isn't real? if people think it's real, that will scare them into cleaning up the planet, which is a good thing". The minute those words were written, I pretty much lost all respect for the entire global warming alarmist religion.

 

Quote

After all, how long could it take you to cover your seeming belief that 400 is twice 280?

Less time than it would take to cover the fact that 400 and 280 are approximations and the rather wide range of estimates is very neatly covered by the word "double".

 

3 hours ago, Jean Deaux said:

An engineer I have great respect for calls it all a bunch of rubbish and hogwash.  Check out his fact finding report here.

I like the fact that comments are disabled on that video. Prevents a whole lot of problems.

Something you should consider, Jean: there's a number of "how to talk to a global warming skeptic" articles on the web. You might want to read one of those, so you know the alarmist playbook. You're going to see it a lot. All the arguments Chakat posted in his last two or three posts, for example? Seen all of them literally hundreds of times in the last few years of surfing chat forums related to global warming. None of those are his own ideas; they're all from the same script. You're going to see the same old canned arguments thrown at you again and again. Be ready for that.

[Bill Phil]

If you're that much of a skeptic than don't comment here. You have that power, it's not necessary for you to post. Just quietly disagree. 

Most of what you are posting involves insulting others and/or their opinion, making assumptions, and using fallacies. If you have nothing nice to say, don't say anything at all.

Now, you can post an opinion, but you don't need to attack others.

There's not much that can be done about climate change anyways.

Edited November 30, 2015 by Bill Phil

[peadar1987]

Quote

I can do it with two words: bad measurements.

So you think that all of the measurements from all of the sources we have, not just ground-based stations all over the world using multiple technologies, but also space-based observations, are not only wrong, but wrong in such a way that they not only all show warming, but that they all agree as to the trend of the warming?

 

Quote

Oh, and here's another one: maybe the alarmists are out-and-out liars. Eight words. Unless "out-and-out" counts as one word?

All of them? Or just a significant majority? Are the same people who faked the moon landings?

Quote

Actually, that second one could use a few more words. A while back (as in, a decade or two ago) I saw a global warming alarmist write the following, with pretty much exactly these words: "so what if global warming isn't real? if people think it's real, that will scare them into cleaning up the planet, which is a good thing". The minute those words were written, I pretty much lost all respect for the entire global warming alarmist religion.

So you took one throwaway comment that doesn't even relate to the underlying science, and because of it, you dogmatically reject the entire movement. How scientific of you.

Quote

Something you should consider, Jean: there's a number of "how to talk to a global warming skeptic" articles on the web. You might want to read one of those, so you know the alarmist playbook. You're going to see it a lot. All the arguments Chakat posted in his last two or three posts, for example? Seen all of them literally hundreds of times in the last few years of surfing chat forums related to global warming. None of those are his own ideas; they're all from the same script. You're going to see the same old canned arguments thrown at you again and again. Be ready for that.

"None of those are his own ideas"...

That's kind of the whole point when we're presenting things like facts and peer-reviewed science. We don't have the luxury of making things up like you do on such a regular basis.

 

Jean, I can't watch the video, but if there are any specific points you'd like to chat about, I'd be more than happy to.

[PB666]

Three links

1. Dangerous lakes forming on the side of mount Everest. The highest peak in the world is now being effected by warming. 
2. A graphic displaying aspects of climate change
3. Obama says

http://www.bbc.com/news/science-environment-34928569
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/resources/idt-5aceb360-8bc3-4741-99f0-2e4f76ca02bb
http://www.bbc.com/news/science-environment-34960051

I should point out that if we follow the guidance (India has already said it will not) we are due for a 2.7'C increase over pre-1980 global mean average.

I think the point of these is this, stop arguing with the climate change deniers, they are living a pre space-age belief, you can't change the mind of someone who is wantedly ignorant.
The whole point of the thread is that climate change is here, its effects are often unpredictable and that those effect will increase with time. The argument that CO₂ produced today does not have an effect for 15 years is rationally true, the effects are both today and in the future. At any moment we are producing C02 and the environment is absorbing C0₂ as part of the dynamic equilibrium, and this makes it appear that today's CO₂ is not acting today. But this actually reveals is that the impact say of Chinas multifold increase of coal burning may not be fully felt for a decade, at a time when they will have to cut coal production and clean their air, this could result in shocking rises in the temperature of north pacific causing potentially devastating floods in places now suffering from historic droughts. Ultimately what goes into the pacific depths must come up and this does not bode well for certain parts of the US. Overall, regional climatology is set to change, dramatically, it is already changing but the swings that regions experience will alter things like decadal flood plains (25, 100, 500, 1000 year) will, in most places increase in size. Decadal drought probabilities, increase in frequency, magnitude for decadal drought events. Coastal erosion, increase rates of coastal erosion in many places, riparian evolution will increase in rate for many rivers resulting in property loss, man-made dam failures will increase in frequency, .. . . . More money will need to be spend on flood plain and coastal remediation, water plans and water projects, evacuation plans and disaster support, etc. 

 

 

 

 

 

 

[Chakat Firepaw]

19 hours ago, WedgeAntilles said:

Because that assumption would be false. And also counterproductive; trying to provoke a response out of me mostly just makes me want to actually ignore you on purpose and see if you have an aneurysm.....

Given your attempts at responses, it certainly looks to be true.

19 hours ago, WedgeAntilles said:

I can do it with two words: bad measurements.

You would actually have to back that claim up, given the massive amount of measurements which all agree with each other.

19 hours ago, WedgeAntilles said:

Oh, and here's another one: maybe the alarmists are out-and-out liars. Eight words. Unless "out-and-out" counts as one word?

Sure, if you want to go over and join the people ranting about 9/11, the moon landing and the Bavarians.

It's not like this is a handful of people making an odd claim, it's practically every scientific body on the planet and an even greater portion of the people who actually research climate, (for recent publications, we're talking something like over 99.5% of the authors).

19 hours ago, WedgeAntilles said:

Actually, that second one could use a few more words. A while back (as in, a decade or two ago) I saw a global warming alarmist write the following, with pretty much exactly these words: "so what if global warming isn't real? if people think it's real, that will scare them into cleaning up the planet, which is a good thing". The minute those words were written, I pretty much lost all respect for the entire global warming alarmist religion.

That sort of comment is of the school:  "So what if we make a better world for nothing?"

Most of the things you have to do to stop Human Induced Rapid Global Overheating are beneficial in other ways.  (e.g. Coal power plants kill thousands of people a year due to the pollution they generate.)

19 hours ago, WedgeAntilles said:

Less time than it would take to cover the fact that 400 and 280 are approximations and the rather wide range of estimates is very neatly covered by the word "double".

They're actually quite robust measurements and certainly have at least two sigfigs.

1.4 is not even close to double:  A little math would show you that an actual doubling from 280 ppm, (to 560 ppm), would have twice, (1.94 times, to be precise) the radiative forcing effect of an increase to 400 ppm.

I note you also have nothing to say on the difference between a transient response and an equilibrium response.

19 hours ago, WedgeAntilles said:

 

I like the fact that comments are disabled on that video. Prevents a whole lot of problems.

Something you should consider, Jean: there's a number of "how to talk to a global warming skeptic" articles on the web. You might want to read one of those, so you know the alarmist playbook. You're going to see it a lot. All the arguments Chakat posted in his last two or three posts, for example? Seen all of them literally hundreds of times in the last few years of surfing chat forums related to global warming. None of those are his own ideas; they're all from the same script. You're going to see the same old canned arguments thrown at you again and again. Be ready for that.

Shock:  Reality is consistent!

You keep seeing the same responses to your old, long debunked, arguments because they have been wrong for the same reasons the whole time.  It even got to the point that global warming has its own version of the Index to Creationist Claims with the Climate Change Myths list at Skeptical Science.

(BTW:  If you are going to do the single name thing it would be Firepaw.  "Chakat" acts as a honorific, as in "Chakat Fleetfoot" or "Chakat Goldfur".)

[K^2]

10 hours ago, peadar1987 said:

So you think that all of the measurements from all of the sources we have, not just ground-based stations all over the world using multiple technologies, but also space-based observations, are not only wrong, but wrong in such a way that they not only all show warming, but that they all agree as to the trend of the warming?

I think he's going from the outdated information. The measurement stations that were responsible for the infamous "hockey stick" graph were very poorly placed and poorly monitored, resulting in very unreliable data. Unfortunately, the general trend has since been confirmed with satellite data. It's not quite as bad as the "hockey stick" graph suggested, but it's bad enough. Satellite data also confirms very strong correlation with CO₂ levels, which is also alarming.

What we don't know for sure is how much of the effect is actually due to CO₂ levels. There is a lot of very bad theoretical work that's been published over the years, and I am yet to see a model that definitively answers the question. The more thorough and detailed studies tend to have error band that covers everything from "we contribute a little" to "we are responsible for all of it". And we really need to know which one it is. If climate is directly controlled by CO₂ levels, and we are responsible for enough CO₂ output to directly control it, then we "just" need to cut all of the CO₂ output and we'll be fine. If it's already a runaway effect we can't stop, whether it's human-caused or not, we also need to know it now. Wasting resources on trying to limit CO₂ output if it's out of our control by now is stupid. If that is the case, we should be investing all of our resources into finding ways to deal with a changing climate, including improving our cities. That will cost money we can't waste on a hopeless "green" effort.

The problem with climate alarmists isn't that they are wrong. They might very well not be. It's that they are so focused on a sole possible cause and a sole possible solution to climate change. If we let alarmists dictate policy and we don't actually have control over climate change, we are thoroughly screwing our civilization. 

[Vanamonde]

There's been no actual discussion in here for days. It's degenerated into personal animosities, and continuing those does no one any good. Time to move on to other topics.