http://fivethirtyeight.com/features/the-natural-gas-boom-could-accelerate-climate-change/
Nice article. The time scale of the GHGE benefit of switching to natural gas depends very sensitively on the amount of natural gas leakage involved, due to the transient nature of methane in the atmosphere.
CH4 content for the last 10,000 years was flat at around 600 parts per billion.
Then around 1900 it began increasing. It’s atmospheric content has now tripled
to over 1,800 parts per billion.
CO2 content over the last 10,000 years was flat at around 270 parts per million
untill about 1950 when it began to significantly increase & is now 400 parts per million.
It is assumed that an increase in radiative forcing has resulted from the increase in atmospheric content of these two greenhouse gasses, as
well as the increase in chlorofluorocarbon & nitrous oxide content, also greenhouse gasses.
It is also assumed this increase in radiative forcing is strong enough (& the climate system sensitive enough) that it is the dominant cause of
the global warming recorded with thermometers since the end of the coldest period that has occurred since the last glacial maxima ended
10,000 years ago, the little ice age.
What the following graph shows clearly, is, for the 10,000 years prior to the present warming recorded after the little ice age ended, global
temperatures fluctuated greatly, despite CH4 & CO2 concentrations remaining low & stable.
The present warming is well within natural variability, especially when compared directly to warming & cooling events during the previous
10,000 years. Temperature variations during this time period were not influenced by radiative fluctuations driven by greenhouse gas content
fluctuations.
Frack on.
The_observer said:
CH4 content for the last 10,000 years was flat at around 600 parts per billion.Then around 1900 it began increasing. It’s atmospheric content has now tripled
to over 1,800 parts per billion.
CO2 content over the last 10,000 years was flat at around 270 parts per million
untill about 1950 when it began to significantly increase & is now 400 parts per million.
It is assumed that an increase in radiative forcing has resulted from the increase in atmospheric content of these two greenhouse gasses, as
well as the increase in chlorofluorocarbon & nitrous oxide content, also greenhouse gasses.
It is also assumed this increase in radiative forcing is strong enough (& the climate system sensitive enough) that it is the dominant cause of
the global warming recorded with thermometers since the end of the coldest period that has occurred since the last glacial maxima ended
10,000 years ago, the little ice age.
What the following graph shows clearly, is, for the 10,000 years prior to the present warming recorded after the little ice age ended, global
temperatures fluctuated greatly, despite CH4 & CO2 concentrations remaining low & stable.
The present warming is well within natural variability, especially when compared directly to warming & cooling events during the previous
10,000 years. Temperature variations during this time period were not influenced by radiative fluctuations driven by greenhouse gas content
fluctuations.
Frack on.
Never give up do you Observer!
>>Greenhouse gasses – mainly CO2, but also methane – were involved in most of the climate changes in Earth’s past. When they were reduced, the global climate became colder. When they were increased, the global climate became warmer. When CO2 levels jumped rapidly, the global warming that resulted was highly disruptive and sometimes caused mass extinctions. Humans today are emitting prodigious quantities of CO2, at a rate faster than even the most destructive climate changes in earth’s past.<<
http://www.skepticalscience.com/climate-change-little-ice-age-medieval-warm-period.htm
What caused LIA?
Some people incorrectly believe that past climate changes were caused by fluctuations in CO2.
This could not be further from the truth, & anyone still espousing this view is either terrible ignorant
or a flat out liar.
After temperatures rise, on average it takes 800 years before carbon starts to move. The extraordinary thing is that the lag is well accepted by
climatologists, yet virtually unknown outside these circles. The fact that temperature leads is not controversial.
Peak Warming Man said:
What caused LIA?
Several causes have been proposed: cyclical lows in solar radiation, heightened volcanic activity, changes in the ocean circulation, an inherent variability in global climate, or decreases in the human population.
The_observer said:
Some people incorrectly believe that past climate changes were caused by fluctuations in CO2.
This could not be further from the truth, & anyone still espousing this view is either terrible ignorant
or a flat out liar.
After temperatures rise, on average it takes 800 years before carbon starts to move. The extraordinary thing is that the lag is well accepted by
climatologists, yet virtually unknown outside these circles. The fact that temperature leads is not controversial.
No doubt about it Observer you must be very ignorant or a flat out liar.
>>Earth’s climate has varied widely over its history, from ice ages characterised by large ice sheets covering many land areas, to warm periods with no ice at the poles. Several factors have affected past climate change, including solar variability, volcanic activity and changes in the composition of the atmosphere. Data from Antarctic ice cores reveals an interesting story for the past 400,000 years. During this period, CO2 and temperatures are closely correlated, which means they rise and fall together. However, based on Antarctic ice core data, changes in CO2 follow changes in temperatures by about 600 to 1000 years, as illustrated in Figure 1 below. This has led some to conclude that CO2 simply cannot be responsible for current global warming.
This statement does not tell the whole story. The initial changes in temperature during this period are explained by changes in the Earth’s orbit around the sun, which affects the amount of seasonal sunlight reaching the Earth’s surface. In the case of warming, the lag between temperature and CO2 is explained as follows: as ocean temperatures rise, oceans release CO2 into the atmosphere. In turn, this release amplifies the warming trend, leading to yet more CO2 being released. In other words, increasing CO2 levels become both the cause and effect of further warming. This positive feedback is necessary to trigger the shifts between glacials and interglacials as the effect of orbital changes is too weak to cause such variation. Additional positive feedbacks which play an important role in this process include other greenhouse gases, and changes in ice sheet cover and vegetation patterns.<<
http://www.skepticalscience.com/co2-lags-temperature.htm
The LIA was a regional, rather than global, phenomenon.
dv said:
The LIA was a regional, rather than global, phenomenon.
No.
The Little Ice Age is a period between about 1300 and 1870 during which Europe and North America were subjected to much colder winters than during the 20th century. The period can be divided in two phases, the first beginning around 1300 and continuing until the late 1400s. There was a slightly warmer period in the 1500s, after which the climate deteriorated substantially. The period between 1600 and 1800 marks the height of the Little Ice Age.
http://www.eh-resources.org/timeline/timeline_lia.html
IPCC Working Group I: The Scientific Basis
Evidence from mountain glaciers does suggest increased glaciation in a number of widely spread regions outside Europe prior to the 20th century, including Alaska, New Zealand and Patagonia (Grove and Switsur, 1994).
This article covers it well. http://www.forbes.com/sites/peterferrara/2013/05/26/to-the-horror-of-global-warming-alarmists-global-cooling-is-here/
Although record lows & maximum glacier growth in all regions of the entire globe may not have occurred exactly simultaneously, the little ice age was global over the period mentioned above.
Consider the so called ‘global warming’ occurring now. According to RSS satellite data for lower tropospheric temperature trends the ‘globe’ has warmed at a rate of 0.123 K / decade since 1979. But the trends regionally differ greatly. The northern mid latitudes rate of decadel warming is 0.180 K / d compared to the southern mid latitudes rate of only 0.071 K/d.
The rate of warming in the north polar region 60.0 N to 82.5 N is 0.328 K / decade yet in the south polar region 70.0 S to 60.0 S the trend is actually negative with a cooling trend of – 0.014 K / decade.
Hardly global at all.
The_observer said:
dv said:
The LIA was a regional, rather than global, phenomenon.
No.
The Little Ice Age is a period between about 1300 and 1870 during which Europe and North America were subjected to much colder winters than during the 20th century. The period can be divided in two phases, the first beginning around 1300 and continuing until the late 1400s. There was a slightly warmer period in the 1500s, after which the climate deteriorated substantially. The period between 1600 and 1800 marks the height of the Little Ice Age.
http://www.eh-resources.org/timeline/timeline_lia.htmlIPCC Working Group I: The Scientific Basis
Evidence from mountain glaciers does suggest increased glaciation in a number of widely spread regions outside Europe prior to the 20th century, including Alaska, New Zealand and Patagonia (Grove and Switsur, 1994).This article covers it well. http://www.forbes.com/sites/peterferrara/2013/05/26/to-the-horror-of-global-warming-alarmists-global-cooling-is-here/
Although record lows & maximum glacier growth in all regions of the entire globe may not have occurred exactly simultaneously, the little ice age was global over the period mentioned above.
Consider the so called ‘global warming’ occurring now. According to RSS satellite data for lower tropospheric temperature trends the ‘globe’ has warmed at a rate of 0.123 K / decade since 1979. But the trends regionally differ greatly. The northern mid latitudes rate of decadel warming is 0.180 K / d compared to the southern mid latitudes rate of only 0.071 K/d.
The rate of warming in the north polar region 60.0 N to 82.5 N is 0.328 K / decade yet in the south polar region 70.0 S to 60.0 S the trend is actually negative with a cooling trend of – 0.014 K / decade.
Hardly global at all.
>>Evidence suggests that the Medieval Warm Period may have been warmer than today in many parts of the globe such as in the North Atlantic. This warming thereby allowed Vikings to travel further north than had been previously possible because of reductions in sea ice and land ice in the Arctic. However, evidence also suggests that some places were very much cooler than today including the tropical pacific. All in all, when the warm places are averaged out with the cool places, it becomes clear that the overall warmth was likely similar to early to mid 20th century warming.<<
>>The Medieval Warm Period has known causes which explain both the scale of the warmth and the pattern. It has now become clear to scientists that the Medieval Warm Period occurred during a time which had higher than average solar radiation and less volcanic activity (both resulting in warming). New evidence is also suggesting that changes in ocean circulation patterns played a very important role in bringing warmer seawater into the North Atlantic. This explains much of the extraordinary warmth in that region. These causes of warming contrast significantly with today’s warming, which we know cannot be caused by the same mechanisms.<<
http://www.skepticalscience.com/medieval-warm-period.htm
PermeateFree said:
Data from Antarctic ice cores reveals an interesting story for the past 400,000 years. During this period, CO2 and temperatures are closely correlated, which means they rise and fall together. However, based on Antarctic ice core data, changes in CO2 follow changes in temperatures by about 600 to 1000 years.>>>( ha ha yes )<<<
In the case of warming, the lag between temperature and CO2 is explained as follows: as ocean temperatures rise, oceans release CO2 into the atmosphere. In turn, this release amplifies the warming trend, leading to yet more CO2 being released. In other words, increasing CO2 levels become both the cause and effect of further warming. This positive feedback is necessary to trigger the shifts between glacials and interglacials as the effect of orbital changes is too weak to cause such variation.
well that’s the alarmists favourite theory as it relies on greenhouse gas forcing. What is interesting with this theory is that the initial warming caused by planetary & orbital cycles is supposedly strong enough to warm the oceans significantly enough to release a great amount co2 to act as >>positive feedback<<, warming the planet far more than it otherwise would be,,, yet the global temperature eventually manages to fall significantly while this positive feedback is peaking
The_observer said:
PermeateFree said:Data from Antarctic ice cores reveals an interesting story for the past 400,000 years. During this period, CO2 and temperatures are closely correlated, which means they rise and fall together. However, based on Antarctic ice core data, changes in CO2 follow changes in temperatures by about 600 to 1000 years.>>>( ha ha yes )<<<
In the case of warming, the lag between temperature and CO2 is explained as follows: as ocean temperatures rise, oceans release CO2 into the atmosphere. In turn, this release amplifies the warming trend, leading to yet more CO2 being released. In other words, increasing CO2 levels become both the cause and effect of further warming. This positive feedback is necessary to trigger the shifts between glacials and interglacials as the effect of orbital changes is too weak to cause such variation.well that’s the alarmists favourite theory as it relies on greenhouse gas forcing. What is interesting with this theory is that the initial warming caused by planetary & orbital cycles is supposedly strong enough to warm the oceans significantly enough to release a great amount co2 to act as >>positive feedback<<, warming the planet far more than it otherwise would be,,, yet the global temperature eventually manages to fall significantly while this positive feedback is peaking
Nothing alarmist about it Observer, just plain old facts. I suggest you read through that link I supplied, it might help with your understanding.
PermeateFree said:
Nothing alarmist about it Observer, just plain old facts. I suggest you read through that link I supplied, it might help with your understanding.
you’re educated by skepticalscience.com. That explains a lot.
Recent reports that 97% of published scientific papers support the so-called consensus on man-made global warming are based on a paper by John Cook et al. The authors are all associated with the controversial global warming activist website Skeptical Science. Their conclusions were as follows:
Among abstracts expressing a position on AGW , 97.1% endorsed the consensus position that humans are causing global warming.
Since it was published in 2013, there have been many critiques of the Cook et al. paper. Some of these have come from sceptics, but mainstream climatologists and experts from outside the climate debate have also voiced damning opinions of the study.
José Duarte
José Duarte, a social psychologist at Arizona State University wrote a detailed and outspoken critique of the paper at his website, saying that a paper based on rating of journal abstracts by activists was:
. . .completely invalid and untrustworthy (and by customary scientific standards, completely unpublishable.) I had no idea this was happening. This is garbage, and a crisis. It needs to stop, and papers need to be retracted immediately, especially Cook, et al (2013).
Duarte looked at several aspects of Cook’s work, setting out what he said was evidence of scientific fraud:
Examples of the unbelievable bias and transparent motives of the raters in Cook, et al (2013) below. These are excerpts from an online forum where the raters apparently collaborated with each other in their ratings. It’s worse than that – the first example is evidence of fraud if this was during the operational rating period. If it was during training, it’s practice for fraud.
He also pointed out that the hostility of the Skeptical Science team to sceptics was enough on its own to entirely invalidate the study:
. . . these people aren’t going to be borderline cases. They’re extreme. . .They’re at war. They really hate dissenters. . .Their worldview is extremely binary and hostile – most environmentalists are quite a bit more moderate and less hateful than they are. They’re a pretty special population. Some of the scientists whose papers they rated had already been savaged on their crazy website. . .we now know the ‘study’ was a political operation from start to finish. We have explicit evidence. . . that raters cheated, were incredibly biased against dissenting scientists and were even alert for their papers, and that some raters were pretty much willing to code any thing as endorsement.
Richard Tol
Reported results are inconsistent and biased. The sample is not representative and contains many irrelevant papers. Overall, data quality is low. Cook’s validation test shows that the data are invalid. Data disclosure is incomplete so that key results cannot be reproduced or tested.
Legates et al
David Legates and colleagues addressed Cook’s paper as part of their published comment on a related paper by Bedford et al. In it they criticised Cook’s findings, noting that it depended on seamlessly interchanging three different and mutually exclusive definitions of the consensus.
They went on to note that it was impossible to determine from the paper to what extent the abstracts examined by Cook and his colleagues supported the standard definition. However, examination of Cook’s data suggested that only 41 of the 11,944 abstracts examined actually did so.
Mike Hulme
The article is poorly conceived, poorly designed and poorly executed. It obscures the complexities of the climate issue and it is a sign of the desperately poor level of public and policy debate in this country that the energy minister should cite it. It offers a similar depiction of the world into categories of ‘right’ and ‘wrong’ to that adopted in : dividing publishing climate scientists into ‘believers’ and ‘non-believers’. It seems to me that these people are still living (or wishing to live) in the pre-2009 world of climate change discourse. Haven’t they noticed that public understanding of the climate issue has moved on?
http://www.thegwpf.org/content/uploads/2014/09/Warming-consensus-and-it-critics1.pdf
The_observer said:
PermeateFree said:Nothing alarmist about it Observer, just plain old facts. I suggest you read through that link I supplied, it might help with your understanding.
you’re educated by skepticalscience.com. That explains a lot.
Recent reports that 97% of published scientific papers support the so-called consensus on man-made global warming are based on a paper by John Cook et al. The authors are all associated with the controversial global warming activist website Skeptical Science. Their conclusions were as follows:
Among abstracts expressing a position on AGW , 97.1% endorsed the consensus position that humans are causing global warming.Since it was published in 2013, there have been many critiques of the Cook et al. paper. Some of these have come from sceptics, but mainstream climatologists and experts from outside the climate debate have also voiced damning opinions of the study.
José Duarte
José Duarte, a social psychologist at Arizona State University wrote a detailed and outspoken critique of the paper at his website, saying that a paper based on rating of journal abstracts by activists was:
. . .completely invalid and untrustworthy (and by customary scientific standards, completely unpublishable.) I had no idea this was happening. This is garbage, and a crisis. It needs to stop, and papers need to be retracted immediately, especially Cook, et al (2013).Etc., etc., etc.
José Duarte (the main critic in Observer’s post), If you are into this guy as apparently The_observer is, his blog makes interesting reading.
Social Psychology and Scientific Validity
(This site is brand new and under construction.)
I’m a PhD candidate in Social Psychology at Arizona State University. I research envy, and I also work on issues of methodological validity in social science. Beyond that, I’m deeply interested in philosophy of science, the misuse of statistics, and how to be a good scientific consumer.
http://www.joseduarte.com/
—————————————————————————————————————————————————
Below is the paper in question for you to compare and make your minds up as to whom the nutters are.
Quantifying the consensus on anthropogenic global warming in the scientific literature
By John Cook1,2,3, Dana Nuccitelli2,4, Sarah A Green5, Mark Richardson6, Bärbel Winkler2, Rob Painting2, Robert Way7, Peter Jacobs8 and Andrew Skuc.
Abstract
We analyze the evolution of the scientific consensus on anthropogenic global warming (AGW) in the peer-reviewed scientific literature, examining 11 944 climate abstracts from 1991–2011 matching the topics ‘global climate change’ or ‘global warming’. We find that 66.4% of abstracts expressed no position on AGW, 32.6% endorsed AGW, 0.7% rejected AGW and 0.3% were uncertain about the cause of global warming. Among abstracts expressing a position on AGW, 97.1% endorsed the consensus position that humans are causing global warming. In a second phase of this study, we invited authors to rate their own papers. Compared to abstract ratings, a smaller percentage of self-rated papers expressed no position on AGW (35.5%). Among self-rated papers expressing a position on AGW, 97.2% endorsed the consensus. For both abstract ratings and authors’ self-ratings, the percentage of endorsements among papers expressing a position on AGW marginally increased over time. Our analysis indicates that the number of papers rejecting the consensus on AGW is a vanishingly small proportion of the published research.
http://iopscience.iop.org/1748-9326/8/2/024024/article
———————————————————————————————————————————————
Below is an extract from a NASA publication, which everyone knows are a real bunch of nutcases.
>>Consensus: 97% of climate scientists agree
Ninety-seven percent of climate scientists agree that climate-warming trends over the past century are very likely due to human activities,1and most of the leading scientific organizations worldwide have issued public statements endorsing this position. The following is a partial list of these organizations, along with links to their published statements and a selection of related resources.<<
http://climate.nasa.gov/scientific-consensus/
———————————————————————————————————————————————————-
Plus there is one hell of a lot of stuff on the site below and far too long to post here.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific_opinion_on_climate_change
—————————————————————————————————————————————————————————
Yet more survey work and please read how it was done.
>>Conclusions
4. How does this study compare to the often-quoted 97% consensus?
Our results are consistent with similar studies, which all find high levels of consensus among scientists, especially among scientists who publish more often in the peer-reviewed climate literature.
Cook et al. (2013) found that 97% of papers that characterized the cause of recent warming indicated that it is due to human activities. (John Cook, the lead author of that analysis, is co-author on this current article.) Similarly, a randomized literature review found zero papers that called human-induced climate change into question (Oreskes, 2004).
Other studies surveyed scientists themselves. For instance, Doran and Kendall-Zimmermann (2009) found lower levels of consensus for a wider group of earth scientists (82% consensus) as compared to actively publishing climatologists (97% consensus) on the question of whether or not human activity is a “significant contributor” to climate change. Our results are also in line with those of e.g. Bray and von Storch (2008) and Lichter (2007).
In our study, among respondents with more than 10 peer-reviewed publications (half of total respondents), 90% agree that greenhouse gases are the largest – or tied for largest – contributor to recent warming. The level of agreement is ~85% for all respondents.<<
http://ourchangingclimate.wordpress.com/2014/08/11/faq-for-the-article-scientists-views-about-attribution-of-global-warming/
—————————————————————————————————————————————————————-
All the above have been conducted with extensive survey analysis to reach their conclusions, yet here is The_Observer with a small handful of Global Warming Deniers saying they are all wrong. Now where have I heard that before?
PermeateFree said:
José Duarte (the main critic in Observer’s post), If you are into this guy as apparently The_observer is, his blog makes interesting reading.
Social Psychology and Scientific Validity
yet here is The_Observer with a small handful of Global Warming Deniers saying they are all wrong.
(This site is brand new and under construction.)
I’m a PhD candidate in Social Psychology at Arizona State University. I research envy, and I also work on issues of methodological validity in social science. Beyond that, I’m deeply interested in philosophy of science, the misuse of statistics, and how to be a good scientific consumer.
http://www.joseduarte.com/
José Duarte, a social psychologist at Arizona State University and a self-described supporter of consensus positions on climate change.
quote
“One of the things that surprises me about AGW skeptics and lukewarmers is that they don’t seem to worry about the future consequences to themselves if they’re wrong. Most of them aren’t elderly, so they’ll likely be around for decades. If AGW turns out to be a serious problem, I expect skeptics to be pilloried. So it’s ballsy to be a skeptic – I won’t be surprised by violence against them in 2050 if warming becomes a problem.”
oh yeh factfree, Duarte sounds like a real denier nutcase,, LOL
& of Mike Hulme
one of the authors of the Hartwell Paper, published by the London School of Economics in collaboration with the University of Oxford in May 2010. The authors argued that, after what they regard as the failure of the 2009 Copenhagen Climate Summit, the Kyoto Protocol crashed. They claimed that Kyoto had “failed to produce any discernable real world reductions in emissions of greenhouse gases in fifteen years.” They argued that this failure opened an opportunity to set climate policy free from Kyoto and the paper advocates a controversial and piecemeal approach to decarbonization of the global economy..cook et all are lying grubs, like you
The_observer said:
PermeateFree said:José Duarte (the main critic in Observer’s post), If you are into this guy as apparently The_observer is, his blog makes interesting reading.
Social Psychology and Scientific Validity
yet here is The_Observer with a small handful of Global Warming Deniers saying they are all wrong.
(This site is brand new and under construction.)
I’m a PhD candidate in Social Psychology at Arizona State University. I research envy, and I also work on issues of methodological validity in social science. Beyond that, I’m deeply interested in philosophy of science, the misuse of statistics, and how to be a good scientific consumer.
http://www.joseduarte.com/José Duarte, a social psychologist at Arizona State University and a self-described supporter of consensus positions on climate change.
quote
“One of the things that surprises me about AGW skeptics and lukewarmers is that they don’t seem to worry about the future consequences to themselves if they’re wrong. Most of them aren’t elderly, so they’ll likely be around for decades. If AGW turns out to be a serious problem, I expect skeptics to be pilloried. So it’s ballsy to be a skeptic – I won’t be surprised by violence against them in 2050 if warming becomes a problem.”oh yeh factfree, Duarte sounds like a real denier nutcase,, LOL
& of Mike Hulme
one of the authors of the Hartwell Paper, published by the London School of Economics in collaboration with the University of Oxford in May 2010. The authors argued that, after what they regard as the failure of the 2009 Copenhagen Climate Summit, the Kyoto Protocol crashed. They claimed that Kyoto had “failed to produce any discernable real world reductions in emissions of greenhouse gases in fifteen years.” They argued that this failure opened an opportunity to set climate policy free from Kyoto and the paper advocates a controversial and piecemeal approach to decarbonization of the global economy..cook et all are lying grubs, like you
Like Global Warming Deniers everywhere Observer, you are losers, yet you hang around by your fingernails just waiting for someone to step on them.
DV, you should know better by now than to post stuff like this :p
The_observer said:
PermeateFree said:José Duarte (the main critic in Observer’s post), If you are into this guy as apparently The_observer is, his blog makes interesting reading.
Social Psychology and Scientific Validity
yet here is The_Observer with a small handful of Global Warming Deniers saying they are all wrong.
(This site is brand new and under construction.)
I’m a PhD candidate in Social Psychology at Arizona State University. I research envy, and I also work on issues of methodological validity in social science. Beyond that, I’m deeply interested in philosophy of science, the misuse of statistics, and how to be a good scientific consumer.
http://www.joseduarte.com/José Duarte, a social psychologist at Arizona State University and a self-described supporter of consensus positions on climate change.
quote
“One of the things that surprises me about AGW skeptics and lukewarmers is that they don’t seem to worry about the future consequences to themselves if they’re wrong. Most of them aren’t elderly, so they’ll likely be around for decades. If AGW turns out to be a serious problem, I expect skeptics to be pilloried. So it’s ballsy to be a skeptic – I won’t be surprised by violence against them in 2050 if warming becomes a problem.”oh yeh factfree, Duarte sounds like a real denier nutcase,, LOL
& of Mike Hulme
one of the authors of the Hartwell Paper, published by the London School of Economics in collaboration with the University of Oxford in May 2010. The authors argued that, after what they regard as the failure of the 2009 Copenhagen Climate Summit, the Kyoto Protocol crashed. They claimed that Kyoto had “failed to produce any discernable real world reductions in emissions of greenhouse gases in fifteen years.” They argued that this failure opened an opportunity to set climate policy free from Kyoto and the paper advocates a controversial and piecemeal approach to decarbonization of the global economy..cook et all are lying grubs, like you
The fact is, it’s completely right…
We have far more to lose by being right about the effects of AGW then we do by being wrong. Simple risk management says that it’s better to prepare for the worst than then to hope for the best.
I think you would have to be a proper moron not to support action against climate change.
PermeateFree said:
The_observer said:
PermeateFree said:José Duarte (the main critic in Observer’s post), If you are into this guy as apparently The_observer is, his blog makes interesting reading.
Social Psychology and Scientific Validity
yet here is The_Observer with a small handful of Global Warming Deniers saying they are all wrong.
(This site is brand new and under construction.)
I’m a PhD candidate in Social Psychology at Arizona State University. I research envy, and I also work on issues of methodological validity in social science. Beyond that, I’m deeply interested in philosophy of science, the misuse of statistics, and how to be a good scientific consumer.
http://www.joseduarte.com/José Duarte, a social psychologist at Arizona State University and a self-described supporter of consensus positions on climate change.
quote
“One of the things that surprises me about AGW skeptics and lukewarmers is that they don’t seem to worry about the future consequences to themselves if they’re wrong. Most of them aren’t elderly, so they’ll likely be around for decades. If AGW turns out to be a serious problem, I expect skeptics to be pilloried. So it’s ballsy to be a skeptic – I won’t be surprised by violence against them in 2050 if warming becomes a problem.”oh yeh factfree, Duarte sounds like a real denier nutcase,, LOL
& of Mike Hulme
one of the authors of the Hartwell Paper, published by the London School of Economics in collaboration with the University of Oxford in May 2010. The authors argued that, after what they regard as the failure of the 2009 Copenhagen Climate Summit, the Kyoto Protocol crashed. They claimed that Kyoto had “failed to produce any discernable real world reductions in emissions of greenhouse gases in fifteen years.” They argued that this failure opened an opportunity to set climate policy free from Kyoto and the paper advocates a controversial and piecemeal approach to decarbonization of the global economy..cook et all are lying grubs, like you
You are a very dishonest person Observer, how you cut and paste other peoples posts to give the wrong impression, just like you do with science. You are not just a liar, but grubby little individual.
diddly-squat said:
We have far more to lose by being right about the effects of AGW then we do by being wrong. Simple risk management says that it’s better to prepare for the worst than then to hope for the best.
I think you would have to be a proper moron not to support action against climate change.
This is what I reckon too, and I’m always right.
party_pants said:
diddly-squat said:We have far more to lose by being right about the effects of AGW then we do by being wrong. Simple risk management says that it’s better to prepare for the worst than then to hope for the best.
I think you would have to be a proper moron not to support action against climate change.
This is what I reckon too, and I’m always right.
it really is engineering 101… manage the risk through hazard mitigation…
diddly-squat said:
We have far more to lose by being right about the effects of AGW then we do by being wrong. Simple risk management says that it’s better to prepare for the worst than then to hope for the best.
I think you would have to be a proper moron not to support action against climate change.
That’s exactly the sort of thinking I’d expect to see from an environmental raping mining engineer!
sibeen said:
diddly-squat said:
We have far more to lose by being right about the effects of AGW then we do by being wrong. Simple risk management says that it’s better to prepare for the worst than then to hope for the best.
I think you would have to be a proper moron not to support action against climate change.
That’s exactly the sort of thinking I’d expect to see from an environmental raping mining engineer!
Just goes to prove that the world is coming to the realisation that what we are doing to it is plain stupid. However a few very dumb people remain to be convinced.
sibeen said:
diddly-squat said:
We have far more to lose by being right about the effects of AGW then we do by being wrong. Simple risk management says that it’s better to prepare for the worst than then to hope for the best.
I think you would have to be a proper moron not to support action against climate change.
That’s exactly the sort of thinking I’d expect to see from an environmental raping mining engineer!
Let’s be absolutely clear…. I’m not for a moment suggesting that coal doesn’t play a part in our future energy mix…
diddly-squat said:
Simple risk management says that it’s better to prepare for the worst than then to hope for the best.I think you would have to be a proper moron not to support action against climate change.
Asteroid strike?
AwesomeO said:
diddly-squat said:Simple risk management says that it’s better to prepare for the worst than then to hope for the best.I think you would have to be a proper moron not to support action against climate change.
Asteroid strike?
this is why we have things like gene banks…
diddly-squat said:
their is a big difference between reasonable risk management & the futile spending of trillions of dollars to “prepare for the worst” diddly.
Just how much of the worlds money are you willing to spend?
What’s the climate sensitivity to a 2 x co2 scenario? 1C ??? 10C ???
The_observer said:
diddly-squat said:We have far more to lose by being right about the effects of AGW then we do by being wrong. Simple risk management says that it’s better to prepare for the worst than then to hope for the best.
I think you would have to be a proper moron not to support action against climate change.
their is a big difference between reasonable risk management & the futile spending of trillions of dollars to “prepare for the worst” diddly.
Just how much of the worlds money are you willing to spend?
What’s the climate sensitivity to a 2 x co2 scenario? 1C ??? 10C ???
so money is the problem??
what if I told you we could grow the economy and still move to a low carbon future… would that be an acceptable solution?
what if I told you we could grow the economy and still move to a low carbon future… would that be an acceptable solution?
and there is even a thread about this.
:-)
diddly-squat said:
The_observer said:
diddly-squat said:We have far more to lose by being right about the effects of AGW then we do by being wrong. Simple risk management says that it’s better to prepare for the worst than then to hope for the best.
I think you would have to be a proper moron not to support action against climate change.
their is a big difference between reasonable risk management & the futile spending of trillions of dollars to “prepare for the worst” diddly.
Just how much of the worlds money are you willing to spend?
What’s the climate sensitivity to a 2 x co2 scenario? 1C ??? 10C ???
so money is the problem??
what if I told you we could grow the economy and still move to a low carbon future… would that be an acceptable solution?
yes money is a problem if massive amounts are spent based on a climate sensitivity of 6C if the real figure is 1C.
low carbon = nuclear
Nicolas Lewis and Judith Curry have been critics of the procedures used by the UN Intergovernmental panel on Climate Change (IPCC). The critical measurement is the climate sensitivity, the increase in global temperatures from a doubling of CO2, Using data from the IPCC Lewis and Curry found the climate sensitivity to be at the low end of what was reported by the IPCC.
This paper is one of several new papers with similar findings. Patrick Michaels and Chip Knappenberger produced a useful graph of twenty studies with climate sensitivity estimates lower than the high end of the IPCC findings.
These studies bring into question the body of work that use high end projections from climate models to claim significant species extinction and significant sea level rise (beyond 7 inches by the end of the century ) Such work should be considered as speculation, at best.
As with the IPCC work, none of the recent work can be considered definitive. There is still far too much uncertainty, particularly the values of the aerosols – tiny droplets in the atmosphere. The models used by the IPCC calculate that the net effect of the aerosols and cloud adjustments to aerosols is a strong cooling. Yet, this remains to be independently, empirically demonstrated. See links under Challenging the Orthodoxy and http://www.climatechange2013.org/images/report/WG1AR5_SPM_FINAL.pdf, page 14
Unsettled Climate: On her web site, Curry has an additional discussion on uncertainty that deserves repeating:
At the heart of the recent scientific debate on climate change is the ‘pause’ or ‘hiatus’ in global warming – the period since 1998 during which global average surface temperatures have not increased. This observed warming hiatus contrasts with the expectation from the 2007 IPCC Fourth Assessment Report that warming would proceed at a rate of 0.2ºC/per decade in the early decades of the 21st century. The warming hiatus raises serious questions as to whether the climate model projections of 21st century have much utility for decision making, given uncertainties in climate sensitivity to carbon dioxide, future volcanic eruptions and solar activity, and the multidecadal and century scale oscillations in ocean circulation patterns.
It is becoming clear to many involved in climate science that the prediction in the Fourth Assessment Report of a warming of 0.2ºC/per decade in the early decades of the 21st century ia wrong. Now, some in the climate establishment have produced over 50 explanations why the predicted warming is not occurring. None of these explanations are satisfactory. Nature is demonstrating that the claims of certainty by the climate establishment are wrong. See links under Seeking a Common Ground.
The_observer said:
diddly-squat said:
The_observer said:their is a big difference between reasonable risk management & the futile spending of trillions of dollars to “prepare for the worst” diddly.
Just how much of the worlds money are you willing to spend?
What’s the climate sensitivity to a 2 x co2 scenario? 1C ??? 10C ???
so money is the problem??
what if I told you we could grow the economy and still move to a low carbon future… would that be an acceptable solution?
yes money is a problem if massive amounts are spent based on a climate sensitivity of 6C if the real figure is 1C.
low carbon = nuclear
maybe you should try answering the question, you know, in your own words…
So, if “the expectation from the 2007 IPCC Fourth Assessment Report “ isn’t coming about, don’t you just replug the numbers into the equations and alter the forecast?
“what if I told you we could grow the economy and still move to a low carbon future…”
You mean like Australia did in the 2012-2013 financial year…
diddly-squat said:
The_observer said:
diddly-squat said:so money is the problem??
what if I told you we could grow the economy and still move to a low carbon future… would that be an acceptable solution?
yes money is a problem if massive amounts are spent based on a climate sensitivity of 6C if the real figure is 1C.
low carbon = nuclear
maybe you should try answering the question, you know, in your own words…
why do you have to resort to that type of response?
EROEI is the pproblem & renewables don’t cut the mustard
diddly-squat said:
The_observer said:
diddly-squat said:so money is the problem??
what if I told you we could grow the economy and still move to a low carbon future… would that be an acceptable solution?
yes money is a problem if massive amounts are spent based on a climate sensitivity of 6C if the real figure is 1C.
low carbon = nuclear
maybe you should try answering the question, you know, in your own words…
& you’re link to your article ain’t your words pal
and in my words, the paper by Nic Lewis and Judith Curry provides a best estimate for equilibrium climate sensitivity of 1.64 C
& a transient climate response of 1.33 C for a 2 x co2 senario ,,
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2014/09/24/significant-new-paper-by-nic-lewis-and-judith-curry-lowers-the-range-of-climate-sensitivity-using-data-from-ipcc-ar5/
The_observer said:
diddly-squat said:
The_observer said:yes money is a problem if massive amounts are spent based on a climate sensitivity of 6C if the real figure is 1C.
low carbon = nuclear
maybe you should try answering the question, you know, in your own words…
why do you have to resort to that type of response?
EROEI is the pproblem & renewables don’t cut the mustard
I answered that way in indication that I’m waiting for your response…