Climate change: A cooling consensus

[RandomGuy]

GLOBAL warming has slowed. The rate of warming of over the past 15 years has been lower than that of the preceding 20 years. There is no serious doubt that our planet continues to heat, but it has heated less than most climate scientists had predicted. Nate Cohn of the New Republic reports: "Since 1998, the warmest year of the twentieth century, temperatures have not kept up with computer models that seemed to project steady warming; they’re perilously close to falling beneath even the lowest projections".



Mr Cohn does his best to affirm that the urgent necessity of acting to retard warming has not abated, as does Brad Plumer of the Washington Post, as does this newspaper. But there's no way around the fact that this reprieve for the planet is bad news for proponents of policies, such as carbon taxes and emissions treaties, meant to slow warming by moderating the release of greenhouse gases. The reality is that the already meagre prospects of these policies, in America at least, will be devastated if temperatures do fall outside the lower bound of the projections that environmentalists have used to create a panicked sense of emergency. Whether or not dramatic climate-policy interventions remain advisable, they will become harder, if not impossible, to sell to the public, which will feel, not unreasonably, that the scientific and media establishment has cried wolf.

Dramatic warming may exact a terrible price in terms of human welfare, especially in poorer countries. But cutting emissions enough to put a real dent in warming may also put a real dent in economic growth. This could also exact a terrible humanitarian price, especially in poorer countries. Given the so-far unfathomed complexity of global climate and the tenuousness of our grasp on the full set of relevant physical mechanisms, I have favoured waiting a decade or two in order to test and improve the empirical reliability of our climate models, while also allowing the economies of the less-developed parts of the world to grow unhindered, improving their position to adapt to whatever heavy weather may come their way. I have been told repeatedly that "we cannot afford to wait". More distressingly, my brand of sceptical empiricism has been often met with a bludgeoning dogmatism about the authority of scientific consensus.

Of course, if the consensus climate models turn out to be falsified just a few years later, average temperature having remained at levels not even admitted to be have been physically possible, the authority of consensus will have been exposed as rather weak. The authority of expert consensus obviously strengthens as the quality of expertise improves, which is why it's quite sensible, as matter of science-based policy-making, to wait for a callow science to improve before taking grand measures on the basis of it's predictions.


Anyway, Mr Cohn cites a few scientists who are unruffled by the surprisingly slow warming.


It might seem like a decade-long warming plateau would cause a crisis for climate science. It hasn’t. Gerald Meehl, a Senior Scientist at the National Center for Atmospheric Research, has seen hiatus periods before. They “occur pretty commonly in the observed records,” and there are climate models showing “a hiatus as long as 15 years.” As a result, Isaac Held, a Senior Research Scientist at NOAA’s Geophysical Fluid Dynamics Laboratory, says “no one has ever expected warming to be continuous, increasing like a straight line.” Those much-cited computer models are composed of numerous simulations that individually account for naturally occurring variability. But, Meehl says, “the averages cancel it out.”

Isn't this transparently ad hoc. The point of averaging is to prune off exceedingly unlikely possibilities. It does not vindicate a model to note that it gives no weight—that it "cancels out"—its only accurate constitutive simulations.

If "hiatus periods are commonly observed" is the right way to think about the current warming plateau, then the rest of Mr Cohn's article, examining various explanations of the puzzle of the hiatus would be unnecessary. But, as all the pieces discussing the warming plateau make perfectly clear, climate scientists are actually pretty baffled about the failure of their predictions. Is it the oceans? Clouds? Volcanoes? The sun? An artifact of temperature data?

As a rule, climate scientists were previously very confident that the planet would be warmer than it is by now, and no one knows for sure why it isn't. This isn't a crisis for climate science. This is just the way science goes. But it is a crisis for climate-policy advocates who based their arguments on the authority of scientific consensus. Mr Cohn eventually gets around to admitting that


In the end, the so-called scientific consensus on global warming doesn’t look like much like consensus when scientists are struggling to explain the intricacies of the earth’s climate system, or uttering the word “uncertainty” with striking regularity.
But his attempt to minimise the political relevance of this is unconvincing. He writes:


The recent wave of news and magazine articles about scientists struggling to explain the warming slowdown could prolong or deepen the public’s skepticism.
But the “consensus” never extended to the intricacies of the climate system, just the core belief that additional greenhouse gas emissions would warm the planet.

If this is true, then the public has been systematically deceived. As it has been presented to the public, the scientific consensus extended precisely to that which is now seems to be in question: the sensitivity of global temperature to increases in atmospheric carbon dioxide. Indeed, if the consensus had been only that greenhouse gases have some warming effect, there would have been no obvious policy implications at all. As this paper has maintained:


If ... temperatures are likely to rise by only 2°C in response to a doubling of carbon emissions (and if the likelihood of a 6°C increase is trivial), the calculation might change. Perhaps the world should seek to adjust to (rather than stop) the greenhouse-gas splurge. There is no point buying earthquake insurance if you do not live in an earthquake zone. In this case more adaptation rather than more mitigation might be the right policy at the margin. But that would be good advice only if these new estimates really were more reliable than the old ones. And different results come from different models.
We have not been awash in arguments for adaptation precisely because the consensus pertained to now-troubled estimates of climate sensitivity. The moralising stridency of so many arguments for cap-and-trade, carbon taxes, and global emissions treaties was founded on the idea that there is a consensus about how much warming there would be if carbon emissions continue on trend. The rather heated debates we have had about the likely economic and social damage of carbon emissions have been based on that idea that there is something like a scientific consensus about the range of warming we can expect. If that consensus is now falling apart, as it seems it may be, that is, for good or ill, a very big deal.

http://www.economist.com/blogs/democracyinamerica/2013/06/climate-change?spc=scode&spv=xm&ah=9d7f7ab945510a56fa6d37c30b6f1709

------------------------------------
FWIW. I thought it well written commentary.

Cue the usual people saying the usual things in 3, 2, 1...

[MannyIsGod]

If "hiatus periods are commonly observed" is the right way to think about the current warming plateau, then the rest of Mr Cohn's article, examining various explanations of the puzzle of the hiatus would be unnecessary. But, as all the pieces discussing the warming plateau make perfectly clear, climate scientists are actually pretty baffled about the failure of their predictions. Is it the oceans? Clouds? Volcanoes? The sun? An artifact of temperature data?

Pretty stupid thing to say, honestly. The reason he provides possible explanations is for context as to understand why the system moves in an uneven "herky jerky" fashion and to better understand it. Not to mention that SO much of the focus outside of the scientific community tends to be in atmospheric temperatures when oceanic heat content is the far more important metric regarding the Earth's energy budget.

[Wild Cobra]

Pretty stupid thing to say, honestly. The reason he provides possible explanations is for context as to understand why the system moves in an uneven "herky jerky" fashion and to better understand it. Not to mention that SO much of the focus outside of the scientific community tends to be in atmospheric temperatures when oceanic heat content is the far more important metric regarding the Earth's energy budget.
Wow...

We agree. the oceans are more important.

So tell me Manny. Since sea water is optically opaque within about a 1mm depth to the spectra from CO2, how does it warm the oceans? My understanding is that there isn't enough heat transfer before radiated back upward, and the extra water vapor created is calculated actually cools the ocean.

We are back to solar being the key for changes in my view.

[RandomGuy]

Pretty stupid thing to say, honestly. The reason he provides possible explanations is for context as to understand why the system moves in an uneven "herky jerky" fashion and to better understand it. Not to mention that SO much of the focus outside of the scientific community tends to be in atmospheric temperatures when oceanic heat content is the far more important metric regarding the Earth's energy budget. [/COLOR]

Yeah, that was the part of the piece that I found a bit dodgy as well.

My hunch is the the "missing" heat is in the oceans, given the specific heat of water when compared to oceans.

We are talking about long term trends, so I am not going to hang my hat on any 5-10 year period for anything.

I would also agree with the blogger in the OP that the data has not changed the public policy calculus yet.

[RandomGuy]

Wow...

We agree. the oceans are more important.

So tell me Manny. Since sea water is optically opaque within about a 1mm depth to the spectra from CO2, how does it warm the oceans? My understanding is that there isn't enough heat transfer before radiated back upward, and the extra water vapor created is calculated actually cools the ocean.

We are back to solar being the key for changes in my view.

"Extra water vapor"... wouldn't that trap more heat close in?

[boutons_deux]

15 years is a squiggle, not long enough to counter the longer term anthropogenic global warming.

arctic sea ice and glacier melt continue to worsen every year.

[AntiChrist]

Good description of these computer models

4MTk_gQOTcM

[Wild Cobra]

"Extra water vapor"... wouldn't that trap more heat close in?
Why?

At the current levels, it's already at optical opacity. I believe the net water vapor change is about 1% from a low to high value. I can look up accepted values if you like, but the change is very small. Now considering sensitivity is based on doubling of a value... How much merit do you really think this might have?

[Wild Cobra]

So tell me Manny. Since sea water is optically opaque within about a 1mm depth to the spectra from CO2, how does it warm the oceans? My understanding is that there isn't enough heat transfer before radiated back upward, and the extra water vapor created is calculated actually cools the ocean.

We are back to solar being the key for changes in my view.

http://omlc.ogi.edu/spectra/water/gif/segelstein81.gif (http://omlc.ogi.edu/spectra/water/abs/index.html)

CO2 spectra is about 4.5 um and about 12-17 um. These are at less that 100 microns of penetration.

Just how does this limited increase in surface skin temperature convect so much change to the mass of the ocean?

Is it magic?

[Wild Cobra]

Good description of these computer models

4MTk_gQOTcM

LOL...

Yep...

I also found an interesting acknowledgement from Dr. Roy Spencer. First paragraph of an article:


Dr. Roy Spencer, a world-renowned climatologist, admits he is “open to the possibility” the greenhouse gas theory is in 'error': is a paradigm shift imminent?

link: Dr Roy Spencer Signals Greenhouse Gas Theory Paradigm Shift (http://johnosullivan.livejournal.com/20405.html)

[RandomGuy]

Why?

At the current levels, it's already at optical opacity. I believe the net water vapor change is about 1% from a low to high value. I can look up accepted values if you like, but the change is very small. Now considering sensitivity is based on doubling of a value... How much merit do you really think this might have?

I have no idea. I am not an expert, nor have I spent the time to understand it.

One of the reasons I don't wander into the trenches on this. My interests lie elsewhere.

[RandomGuy]

LOL...

Yep...

I also found an interesting acknowledgement from Dr. Roy Spencer. First paragraph of an article:



link: Dr Roy Spencer Signals Greenhouse Gas Theory Paradigm Shift (http://johnosullivan.livejournal.com/20405.html)

Already argued and dismissed long ago, if memory serves. Dr. Spencer believes nothing of the sort, but gets trotted out by people like you taking it out of context, per par, hypocrite.

[Wild Cobra]

Already argued and dismissed long ago, if memory serves. Dr. Spencer believes nothing of the sort, but gets trotted out by people like you taking it out of context, per par, hypocrite.
I think he just knows if he is a heretic to the dogma, his job is in jeopardy. He can only push against the agenda so much before being a problem for them.

[Wild Cobra]

Already argued and dismissed long ago, if memory serves. Dr. Spencer believes nothing of the sort, but gets trotted out by people like you taking it out of context, per par, hypocrite.

You should perhaps visit his web site before denying his words. He believes in the AGW effect of CO2, he just doesn't believe the positive feedback associated with it is as strong as others claim.

Link to his site: Dr. Roy Spencer dot com (http://www.drroyspencer.com/)

Read in his words, what he believes. I suggest reading his links within titled Global Warming: Natural or Manmade?, and Global Warming 101.

Here is something of interest at his site as well:

http://www.drroyspencer.com/wp-content/uploads/CMIP5-19-USA-models-vs-obs-20N-20S-MT.png (http://www.drroyspencer.com/2013/06/epic-fail-73-climate-models-vs-observations-for-tropical-tropospheric-temperature/)

[RandomGuy]

You should perhaps visit his web site before denying his words. He believes in the AGW effect of CO2, he just doesn't believe the positive feedback associated with it is as strong as others claim.

Link to his site: Dr. Roy Spencer dot com (http://www.drroyspencer.com/)

Read in his words, what he believes. I suggest reading his links within titled Global Warming: Natural or Manmade?, and Global Warming 101.


Thanks for the link. The man may have actually hit on the solution to our energy problem in the June 27th post.

From what I can tell, he may be trying to tap into the energy produced by your posting on the subject:

http://www.drroyspencer.com/wp-content/uploads/lapaz_img1-550x301.jpg



hehehehehehe..... j/k man. Gentle poke in the ribs, 'cause the humor seemed to goog to pass up.

The good doctor is all well and good, until he goes outside his field:



Affordable, abundant energy is required to generate wealth, and without wealth, you can’t help those who can’t help themselves. I thought that’s what our President wanted to do..help the poor? But how can we do that if we punish the wealth generators at every turn?

In fact, I can’t imagine a better plan for purposely destroying the economy. Strike it at its heart, the availability of abundant low-cost energy.

Until we come up with affordable and widely deployable renewable energy sources, a war on fossil fuels is a war on the poor. Basic Economics 101. Wealth diverted to wasteful projects (or wealth destroyed) is no longer available for more deserving projects.

Sorry, when he starts bloviating about "punishing wealth creators", that is where I stop taking him very seriously on his choice of public policy.

It is obvious the man thinks he knows far more about economics than he actually does. Par for the course from the right wing, IMO.

[RandomGuy]

Wind, solar, and biomass all have very low energy densities compared to fossil fuels or nuclear, which are very dense concentrations of energy. Generating a substantial (i.e. realistic) amount of renewable energy is VERY expensive in materials and land. How many poor kids you want to take food and medical care from to pay for it?

The "energy density" sawhorse gets trotted out as if it is meaningful in and of itself, without context, it is one of Darrins' favorites, because it sounds, to him, like the most convincing argument.

Cost, cost, cost. It comes down to the economics. LEC. Cost trends.


This isn’t a science fiction movie we are living in. I’m afraid the low-information voter won’t “get it” until we have brownouts and blackouts. As more coal-fired power plants are shut down, that day is fast approaching.

The coal power plants in the US are old, old, old, and need replacing anyway.

He has a very solid tell here, when he bemoans this, but the fracking boom has done more to kill the coal industry than anything else.

Those coal plants are simply being replaced with natgas generators, and to a limited extent wind, both of which have become a LOT cheaper relative to coal.

He talks about how expensive "land" is for all the renewable energy, but what about the land needed for coal?

Mountaintop removal, ash sludge, heavy metals leaked into streams. Coal has its own set of unique costs that he does not touch on.


Why do you think he doesn't mention those costs, WC?

[boutons_deux]

The first decade of 21st century was warmest since 1850.
http://media.treehugger.com/assets/images/2013/07/global-temperatures.jpg.662x0_q100_crop-scale.jpg
http://www.treehugger.com/climate-change/first-decade-21st-century-was-warmest-1850.html

[boutons_deux]

Most Comprehensive Paleoclimate Reconstruction Confirms Hockey Stick (http://thinkprogress.org/climate/2013/07/08/2261531/most-comprehensive-paleoclimate-reconstruction-confirms-hockey-stick/)
The past 2000 years of climate change have now been reconstructed in more detail than ever before by the PAGES 2k project. The results reveal interesting regional differences between the different continents, but also important common trends. The global average of the new reconstruction looks like a twin of the original “hockey stick”, the first such reconstruction published fifteen years ago.

http://thinkprogress.org/wp-content/uploads/2013/07/PAGES2k_MBH991.png

Green dots show the 30-year average of the new PAGES 2k reconstruction. The red curve shows the global mean temperature, according HadCRUT4 data from 1850 onwards. In blue is the original hockey stick of Mann, Bradley and Hughes (1999 ) with its uncertainty range (light blue). Graph by Klaus Bitterman.

78 researchers from 24 countries, together with many other colleagues, worked for seven years in the PAGES 2k project (http://translate.googleusercontent.com/translate_c?depth=1&hl=en&ie=UTF8&prev=_t&rurl=translate.google.com&sl=de&tl=en&u=http://www.pages-igbp.org/workinggroups/2k-network/index.php&usg=ALkJrhjVJwkYO6n9d442cbPsLBZXNvbsHQ) on the new climate reconstruction. “2k” stands for the last 2000 years, while PAGES stands for the Past Global Changes (http://translate.googleusercontent.com/translate_c?depth=1&hl=en&ie=UTF8&prev=_t&rurl=translate.google.com&sl=de&tl=en&u=http://www.pages.unibe.ch/&usg=ALkJrhj1X_Xckfur0vRBy8RlVIbuO3mzWQ) program launched in 1991. Recently, their new study was published in Nature Geoscience (http://translate.googleusercontent.com/translate_c?depth=1&hl=en&ie=UTF8&prev=_t&rurl=translate.google.com&sl=de&tl=en&u=http://www.nature.com/ngeo/journal/vaop/ncurrent/full/ngeo1797.html&usg=ALkJrhizOdXzaW66kdL3Sb3t_iLiyQasoQ). It is based on 511 climate archives from around the world, from sediments, ice cores, tree rings, corals, stalagmites, pollen or historical documents and measurements (Fig. 1). All data are freely available (http://translate.googleusercontent.com/translate_c?depth=1&hl=en&ie=UTF8&prev=_t&rurl=translate.google.com&sl=de&tl=en&u=http://hurricane.ncdc.noaa.gov/pls/paleox/f%3Fp%3D519:1:3691012416357865::::P1_STUDY_ID:1418 8&usg=ALkJrhiVrdm7K-vP_utkBBu-Br1bnFYdaA) .

http://thinkprogress.org/climate/2013/07/08/2261531/most-comprehensive-paleoclimate-reconstruction-confirms-hockey-stick/

[Wild Cobra]

The coal power plants in the US are old, old, old, and need replacing anyway.

Yes, and many of them cannot be cleanly updated to meet the new coal burning standards. Just don't discount that new technology allows for coal to be a good source of energy still.




Those coal plants are simply being replaced with natgas generators, and to a limited extent wind, both of which have become a LOT cheaper relative to coal.

I will dispute the claim that wind is cheaper. Right now, the equipment is still new and it's highly subsidized. As with anything, when we start having to perform more repairs, rebuilds, etc. on them, it will be costly.




He talks about how expensive "land" is for all the renewable energy, but what about the land needed for coal?

An inconsequential point in my view since we normally place windmills in places not used, but it probably has merit. A single coal mine, which is normally underground, has a smaller footprint than thousands of acres of solar farms for the same energy a coal mine furnishes.




Mountaintop removal, ash sludge, heavy metals leaked into streams. Coal has its own set of unique costs that he does not touch on.

Not with modern regulations. If you wish to compare new technology against coal, is there really cause to bias it with past practices? Is the argument weak enough that the truth needs bending?




Why do you think he doesn't mention those costs, WC?

I would need to read that part over. Have no plans to. I'm not against alternate means of power, but I do think wind will be far more trouble than its worth. I hope time shows my suspicions wrong rather than right.

[RandomGuy]

Yes, and many of them cannot be cleanly updated to meet the new coal burning standards. Just don't discount that new technology allows for coal to be a good source of energy still.



I will dispute the claim that wind is cheaper. Right now, the equipment is still new and it's highly subsidized. As with anything, when we start having to perform more repairs, rebuilds, etc. on them, it will be costly.



An inconsequential point in my view since we normally place windmills in places not used, but it probably has merit. A single coal mine, which is normally underground, has a smaller footprint than thousands of acres of solar farms for the same energy a coal mine furnishes.



Not with modern regulations. If you wish to compare new technology against coal, is there really cause to bias it with past practices? Is the argument weak enough that the truth needs bending?



I would need to read that part over. Have no plans to. I'm not against alternate means of power, but I do think wind will be far more trouble than its worth. I hope time shows my suspicions wrong rather than right.

Sigh.

You are arguing for the sake of arguing, and no small amount of what you posted here is, respectfully, based on some ignorance about coal mining, and coal usage. If you spent a fraction of the time reading about real world coal mining as you do bitching about global warming scams, you might learn it isn't worth protecting. We can do better.

It isn't as cheap as you think it is, especially once you start adding in all the hidden costs. Even removing the CO2 restrictions, coal is very dirty to mine, dirty to burn, and dirty to store the ash.

All that pollution requires $$$$$$. We have to use the big, bad EPA to force the companies to pay for these externalities, otherwise they won't, and end up essentially stealing from some people to make profits and sell to others. Pollution is one thing where the free market fails miserably.

But, since we have a strong enough government to force these companies, even in Texas, to pay the full costs of their dirty fuel, it is simply not economically viable.

It is the free market making coal obsolete, and CO2 emission restrictions currently have very little to do with that.

If you like, I will be happy to put together some decent, non-partisan stuff for you to read.

[Wild Cobra]

Random, I have seen how coal produced energy is getting more and more expensive, and this is because of the added environmental regulations. It is still and on demand energy source not to be suddenly removed. It appears we now have enough natural gas to stop building coal plants, and slowly phase them out. As for things like disposing of the waste material, I don't know what they do, but perhaps we should bury it in older mines.

I just hope we don't make inferior drywall out of it like the Chinese do.

[boutons_deux]

WC,

strip mining takes entire mountains down, fills the valleys and rivers with crap. And in the case of Appalachia, the land is not unused land like solar and wind, but pristine mountains, forests, wildlife, destroyed forever.

Even coal in underground mines produce mountains of tailings.

Coal, coal industry, coal company mgmt are dirty filthy crap.

[Wild Cobra]

WC,

strip mining takes entire mountains down, fills the valleys and rivers with crap. And in the case of Appalachia, the land is not unused land like solar and wind, but pristine mountains, forests, wildlife, destroyed forever.

Even coal in underground mines produce mountains of tailings.

Coal, coal industry, coal company mgmt are dirty filthy crap.

Do we still strip mine?

[Wild Cobra]

OK, now called surface mining, but law requires restoration.

Do you really think it's that bad?

[Wild Cobra]

So Boutons.

What is your cost effective solution to replace the fact that about 50% of US electrical power generation is done by burning coal?

[boutons_deux]

I'd classify coal ash and coal mining tailing as hazardous, toxic materials, every toxic dump a Super Site, and force the owners to clean it up.

If the owners aren't around, the govt computes the clean up costs, then extracts that number from ALL coal mining companies.

I'd forbid any further strip mining.

I'd give all coal-fired plants 5 years to scrub their emissions completey, no cadmium, so sulfur, no heavy metals, no methyl mercury, no CO2, nothing, or shut down.

I'd forbid all exports of coal, since we know the other countries would burn US coal, esp China, with little or no pollution, ash controls.

If the coal companies can mine cleanly, and coal-fired plants can burn coal cleanly, I say fine.

[Wild Cobra]

If the coal companies can mine cleanly, and coal-fired plants can burn coal cleanly, I say fine.
Well, I'm pretty sure that the current law is adequate. Regulations set to take effect are already making several coal facilities to close.

Seems to me that you would never be satisfied until emissions are zero...

[FuzzyLumpkins]

Well, I'm pretty sure that the current law is adequate. Regulations set to take effect are already making several coal facilities to close.

Seems to me that you would never be satisfied until emissions are zero...

I am pretty sure you barely know what the regulations are. You didn't know if there were any strip mines in the country to begin with.

[boutons_deux]

btw, talking about coal...

Bulletproof Security: Mining Company Hires Paramilitary Commandos to Guard Their Precious Equipment, and Wisconsin Is Unhappy

http://www.commondreams.org/sites/commondreams.org/files/imce-images/security_site_gun1_0.jpg

In response (http://www.wisconsinwatch.org/2013/07/09/paramilitary-style-guards-are-going-to-stay-mining-company-vows/) to protests (http://www.duluthnewstribune.com/event/article/id/271905/) against test drilling for a controversial (http://www.milwaukeemag.com/article/4292013-BattlefortheHills)proposed $1.5 billion open-pit iron ore mine in northern Wisconsin by Gogebic Taconite, the mining company has hired (http://host.madison.com/wsj/news/local/environment/bulletproof-arizona-security-team-raises-hackles-at-gogebic-mine-site/article_24cb77d0-9444-5ba8-948c-acad96f5e315.html)masked, camouflaged, assault-rifle-toting guards from a self-described, Arizona-based "no compromise" security force that boasts (http://www.bulletproofsecurities.com/)of "rigorous tactical firearms training" and "professional operators" who combine "logistics with tactical support" to "instinctively and smoothly manage surrounding threats." Thanks to the mindless Rambo-ing up, the "surrounding threats" are now mostly the once-peaceable (http://thepoliticalenvironment.blogspot.com/2013/07/the-wisc-dnr-offers-another-hilarious.html), now-pissed (http://www.indiancountrynews.com/index.php/tv/indian-country-tv-com/13869-hired-guns-in-the-penokee-mountains-6min) residents who, in a letter (http://wispolitics.com/1006/130708JauchBewley.pdf)from Democratic legislators, blast the company's “confrontational and incendiary step that will clearly do more to intimidate local citizens and increase local tensions than it will to make you, your staff, or your equipment any safer.”

“Some of the local people are wondering what the heck? It’s come to a sad situation when you’ve got to have a machine gun to protect a business that people around here don’t want.” - Paul DeMain, editor of the News from Indian County.

Update: More (http://tpmdc.talkingpointsmemo.com/2013/07/arizona-businessman-armed-guards-payday-loans-wisconsin-mine-assault-rifles.php?ref=fpb) on the Arizona businessman behind Bulletproof. Besides mercenaries-for-hire, he also deals in real estate and payday loans.

http://www.commondreams.org/sites/commondreams.org/files/imce-images/securitymine.jpg


http://www.commondreams.org/sites/commondreams.org/files/imce-images/security_site_gun1_0.jpg

Will these watched-"Commando"-too-many-times shitbag assholes actually shoot up protesting citizens?

[Th'Pusher]

An open letter from evangelical scientists warning of the dangers of climate change

http://www.cornwallalliance.org/docs/an-open-letter-to-the-signers-of-climate-change-an-evangelical-call-to-action-and-others-concerned-about-global-warming.pdf

[Wild Cobra]

Will these watched-"Commando"-too-many-times shitbag assholes actually shoot up protesting citizens?

I would be fine if they killed Eco-terrorists. However, they pulled the plug several hours before you posted your Common Dreams article.

[boutons_deux]

An open letter from evangelical scientists warning of the dangers of climate change

http://www.cornwallalliance.org/docs/an-open-letter-to-the-signers-of-climate-change-an-evangelical-call-to-action-and-others-concerned-about-global-warming.pdf

How many $Ms do these scientists have to outbid BigCarbon's lobbyists for Congressional votes-for-sale?

[AntiChrist]

http://www.nature.com/news/climate-change-the-forecast-for-2018-is-cloudy-with-record-heat-1.13344

[Wild Cobra]

http://www.nature.com/news/climate-change-the-forecast-for-2018-is-cloudy-with-record-heat-1.13344
LOL...\

seriously?

I trust the Farmers Almanac before any of the Climate Experts.

[Homeland Security]

Climate change is simultaneously much more severe than expected and much less severe than expected, and consensus is simultaneously heating up and cooling. Whatever. At the end of the day I'll either not need to change anything at all, or I'll need to adapt a little bit. The people who will suffer are the ones who suffer anyway, no big deal. Who's going to watch the All-Star Game?

[boutons_deux]

LOL...\

seriously?

I trust the Farmers Almanac before any of the Climate Experts.

you trust BigCarbon propaganda and anything BC's whore denial scientists vomit.

[boutons_deux]

What if God came back? Louis CK explains climate change to the Christians
http://redgreenandblue.org/2013/08/10/what-if-god-came-back-louis-ck-explains-climate-change-to-the-christians/

[TeyshaBlue]

What if God came back? Louis CK explains climate change to the Christians
http://redgreenandblue.org/2013/08/10/what-if-god-came-back-louis-ck-explains-climate-change-to-the-christians/



you trust BigCarbon propaganda and anything BC's whore denial scientists vomit.

Delicious.

[Jacob1983]

Why do people think that every Christian on Earth does not believe in climate change/global warming?

[boutons_deux]

a huge portion of US "Christians" deny biological evolution, believe in End Times, 6000 year old earth, God loves USA better than other countries, all dinosaurs in the Noah's Ark, etc, etc. :lol

[Jacob1983]

So you can't speak for all Christians in America and around the world? You are just generalizing and assuming shit about Christians right?

[TeyshaBlue]

lol

[TeyshaBlue]

Granular analysis is hard! :cry

Easier to stay with insipid rationalizations/generalizations.

[boutons_deux]

So you can't speak for all Christians in America and around the world? You are just generalizing and assuming shit about Christians right?

the ones that push their shitty "Christianity" into public schools and other areas of taxpayer financed government, and those "Christians" that support them.

[Wild Cobra]

Here's an interesting new study:

link: Bounding the role of black carbon in the climate system: A scientific assessment (http://saga.pmel.noaa.gov/publications/pdfs/2013/jgrd50171_boundingBC.pdf)


We estimate that black carbon, with a total climate forcing of +1.1 W m-2

This is over the same period of time as the IPCC AR4 (1750 to 2005) which concludes the net global warming is 1.6 W m-2.

Here is another interesting peer reviewed paper:

link: The effects of solar variability on the Earth's climate (http://www.inventus.org/posterous/file/2009/04/228344-3559301.pdf)


The TSI reconstructions shown in figure 1 suggest a maximum increase in TSI
of ca. 3.9 W m-2 since the Maunder minimum. This corresponds to a radiative
forcing of the order of 0.7 W m-2, which, using a climate-forcing parameter: of
0.5 K W-1 m2 (IPCC 2001), would suggest a solar-induced warming in global average
surface temperature of ca. 0.35 K since that time.


Doesn't leave much for CO2 warming...

The two studies together suggest solar + BC is 1.8 W m-2, when the total net warming is only 1.6...

[DUNCANownsKOBE]

Why do people think that every Christian on Earth does not believe in climate change/global warming?
Because Christian leaders chosen by Christians (i.e. Pat Robertson) are outspoken climate change deniers.

Don't want to be represented by Pat Robertson's views? Quit tithing your money into his pockets.

[TeyshaBlue]

Because Christian leaders chosen by Christians (i.e. Pat Robertson) are outspoken climate change deniers.

Don't want to be represented by Pat Robertson's views? Quit tithing your money into his pockets.

Do you seriously suggest that the majority of Christians tithe for Robertson, or whomever? Yeah, I'm sure there's plenty from a numerical standpoint. From a percentage, I'd peg that somewhere around 3-5% of practicing Christians. So, no, they're not Christian leaders. That they are supported by Christians is true.

[TeyshaBlue]

Most view them as the scammers they are. For every mega country club church, you've got 1000 local congregations that aren't subscribing to that bullshit.

[DUNCANownsKOBE]

Do you seriously suggest that the majority of Christians tithe for Robertson, or whomever?
Yes.

Driving through Northwest Texas, I saw town after town after town that was dirt poor but had a completely modern Church building with flashing signs about "The Lake of Fire!" as I drove by. Rural American towns everywhere are as batshit as Robertson.

60% of America believes the story of Noah's Ark actually happened. That stat alone speaks volumes.

[TeyshaBlue]

That's a hilarious sampling to be drawing conclusions from, tbh.

Noah's Ark =/= tithing for Robertson. WTF.

[TeyshaBlue]

I grew up in a rural town. They never were, and still aren't batshit crazy for Robertson.

[TeyshaBlue]

Might just be my neck of the woods. Those East Texas folks are kinda loopy.

[DUNCANownsKOBE]

That's a hilarious sampling to be drawing conclusions from, tbh.

Noah's Ark =/= tithing for Robertson. WTF.
I have a feeling NW Texas is probably no more crazy (in fact even less crazy) than rural Churches in the deep South.

Here are more stats:

36% of America thinks global climate change is a hoax
25% of America thinks jeebus will come down for the rapture sometime during their lifetime

[TeyshaBlue]

25% seems a bit low, tbh. Doesn't mean they tithe to Robertson et al.

[TeyshaBlue]

And considering that Christians make up about 78% of the population, those figures seem small in context.

[DUNCANownsKOBE]

25% seems a bit low, tbh. Doesn't mean they tithe to Robertson et al.
It means they're as batshit as Robertson, as a matter of fact they're more batshit cause they actually believe the shit he says whereas he just says it so he can make it rain with det tithing money.

And I'm sorry but believing the story of Noah's Ark actually happened is just as stupid and crazy as anything Robertson has said, but for whatever reason everyone has just accepted it as a normal belief, kinda like the way people accept the fact little kids believe in the tooth fairy and Santa Claus.

[Jacob1983]

I have never given a penny to Pat Robertson and I classify myself as an agnostic Christian. Why is climate change an all or nothing argument? You either have to believe that evil man caused climate change or you don't believe in science. What kind of thinking is that? What if you think that climate change is a natural process/occurrence and man's involvement is minimal? I personally go with the natural process attitude toward it. With that being said, I do believe that using cars and other fossil fuels probably do hurt the environment but not to the extent that Al Gore and The Day After Tomorrow say they do.

[boutons_deux]

http://sas-origin.onstreammedia.com/origin/gallupinc/GallupSpaces/Production/Cms/POLL/mtmhrggv0u278tchtddptw.gif

http://sas-origin.onstreammedia.com/origin/gallupinc/GallupSpaces/Production/Cms/POLL/p3gshqcilkmy2v6l50vyqg.gif

http://sas-origin.onstreammedia.com/origin/gallupinc/GallupSpaces/Production/Cms/POLL/krapogu7vkyiw8jwir3tsg.gif


http://sas-origin.onstreammedia.com/origin/gallupinc/GallupSpaces/Production/Cms/POLL/p_yjcwwaxuor-xzl2te4qa.gif


http://www.gallup.com/poll/155003/hold-creationist-view-human-origins.aspx

10Ms of "Christians", esp ignorant, uneducated Repug "Christians", aka "the base", are new earth anti-evolution creationists.

[Jacob1983]

So what should be done to people that are uneducated, Christian Republicans? Should they be executed? Anyone that disagrees with you should die right?

[Rogue]

^ That's exactly what a chauvinist believes in imho.

[DUNCANownsKOBE]

I have never given a penny to Pat Robertson and I classify myself as an agnostic Christian. Why is climate change an all or nothing argument? You either have to believe that evil man caused climate change or you don't believe in science. What kind of thinking is that? What if you think that climate change is a natural process/occurrence and man's involvement is minimal? I personally go with the natural process attitude toward it. With that being said, I do believe that using cars and other fossil fuels probably do hurt the environment but not to the extent that Al Gore and The Day After Tomorrow say they do.
Oh look, a Christian who denies man-made climate change. What a shocker.

[MannyIsGod]

I grew up in a rural town. They never were, and still aren't batshit crazy for Robertson.

Eh - not all rural towns are the same obviously, but i've driven through a lot of the "heartland" and some towns are fucking crazy when it comes to religion and politics. I believe rural america thinks we 1) abort babies at will, 2) don't support Israel at all, 3) want to take away everyone's guns. Maybe those towns just have people who think that and are vocal, though. But billboards abound on those subjects in so many small towns. Definitely a much higher concentration of people like that in rural america.

[MannyIsGod]

And considering that Christians make up about 78% of the population, those figures seem small in context.

Don't agree with this at all.

[MannyIsGod]

FWIW I think that political leaning has more to say about opinion on climate change than religion. I bet you liberal Christians believe in climate change at a rate similar to that of other liberals.

[TeyshaBlue]

Eh - not all rural towns are the same obviously, but i've driven through a lot of the "heartland" and some towns are fucking crazy when it comes to religion and politics. I believe rural america thinks we 1) abort babies at will, 2) don't support Israel at all, 3) want to take away everyone's guns. Maybe those towns just have people who think that and are vocal, though. But billboards abound on those subjects in so many small towns. Definitely a much higher concentration of people like that in rural america.

That wasn't the conversation DOK and I were having. It was more along the lines of televangelists and country club churches.

[TeyshaBlue]

FWIW I think that political leaning has more to say about opinion on climate change than religion. I bet you liberal Christians believe in climate change at a rate similar to that of other liberals.

I would agree.

[DUNCANownsKOBE]

Liberal Christians are cafeteria Christians. Hating gay people and hating science are quintessential Christian ideals.

The only true Christians in America are the Westboro Baptists tbh, they're the only group that doesn't cherry pick the parts of the bible they like/don't like. They interpret the entire bible verbatim and accept that they aren't very popular because of it.

I disagree with their beliefs, but I respect their intellectual consistency when it comes to the bible.

[Wild Cobra]

Anyone see this?

link: Science or Science Fiction? Professionals’ Discursive Construction of Climate Change (http://oss.sagepub.com/content/33/11/1477.full.pdf)

A few quotes:


Abstract
This paper examines the framings and identity work associated with professionals’ discursive construction of
climate change science, their legitimation of themselves as experts on ‘the truth’, and their attitudes towards
regulatory measures. Drawing from survey responses of 1077 professional engineers and geoscientists, we
reconstruct their framings of the issue and knowledge claims to position themselves within their organizational
and their professional institutions. In understanding the struggle over what constitutes and legitimizes
expertise, we make apparent the heterogeneity of claims, legitimation strategies, and use of emotionality
and metaphor. By linking notions of the science or science fiction of climate change to the assessment
of the adequacy of global and local policies and of potential organizational responses, we contribute to
the understanding of ‘defensive institutional work’ by professionals within petroleum companies, related
industries, government regulators, and their professional association.


The proportion of papers found in the ISI
Web of Science database that explicitly endorsed anthropogenic climate change has fallen from
75% (for the period between 1993 and 2003) as of 2004 to 45% from 2004 to 2008, while outright
disagreement has risen from 0% to 6% (Oreskes, 2004; Schulte, 2008).


The largest group of APEGA respondents (36%) draws on a frame that we label ‘comply with
Kyoto’. In their diagnostic framing, they express the strong belief that climate change is happening,
that it is not a normal cycle of nature, and humans are the main or central cause.


The second largest group (24%) express a ‘nature is overwhelming’ frame. In their diagnostic
framing, they believe that changes to the climate are natural, normal cycles of the Earth.


Ten percent of respondents draw on an ‘economic responsibility’ frame. They diagnose climate
change as being natural or human caused. More than any other group, they underscore that the ‘real’
cause of climate change is unknown as nature is forever changing and uncontrollable.


‘Fatalists’, a surprisingly large group (17%), diagnose climate change as both human- and naturally
caused. ‘Fatalists’ consider climate change to be a smaller public risk with little impact on
their personal life. They are sceptical that the scientific debate is settled regarding the IPCC modeling


The last group (5%) expresses a frame we call ‘regulation activists’. This frame has the smallest
number of adherents, expresses the most paradoxical framing, and yet is more agentic than ‘comply
with Kyoto’.


This research is funded by the Canadian Centre for Corporate Social Responsibility, Social Science and
Humanities Research Council of Canada (SSHRC) Fellowship, Killam Foundation Fellowship, Alberta
Innovates – Alberta Water Research Institute, and Engineers Canada. Earlier versions of this paper were
improved through presentations at EGOS Colloquia in 2009 and 2010 and ETH Academy on Sustainability
and Technology in 2011. All remaining mistakes and oddities are the authors’ responsibility.

[AntiChrist]

Lol

http://freebeacon.com/ofa-gets-zero-attendance-for-climate-change-rally/

[AntiChrist]

FWIW I think that political leaning has more to say about opinion on climate change than religion. I bet you liberal Christians believe in climate change at a rate similar to that of other liberals.

It's not about believing in AGW so much as it is believing in catostrophic AGW.

[AntiChrist]

And we aren't even keeping up with the mildest model predictions.

[Wild Cobra]

Lol

http://freebeacon.com/ofa-gets-zero-attendance-for-climate-change-rally/

Yep, I saw that too.

That is one large turnout!

[Wild Cobra]

It's not about believing in AGW so much as it is believing in catostrophic AGW.

Agreed.

I'd say at least 95% of us who argue against the alarmist viewpoit is because we believe they overplay the anthropogenic effect. I have never met anyone who is an actual denier.

[Wild Cobra]

So Manny...

What do you think of the two papers I linked in post #45?

[scroteface]

Liberal Christians are cafeteria Christians. Hating gay people and hating science are quintessential Christian ideals.

The only true Christians in America are the Westboro Baptists tbh, they're the only group that doesn't cherry pick the parts of the bible they like/don't like. They interpret the entire bible verbatim and accept that they aren't very popular because of it.

I disagree with their beliefs, but I respect their intellectual consistency when it comes to the bible.

Tosefta, Tractate Erubin VIII When a Jew has a Gentile in his clutches, another Jew may go to the same Gentile, lend him money and in turn deceive him, so that the Gentile shall be ruined. For the property of a Gentile, according to our law, belongs to no one, and the first Jew that passes has full right to seize it.


Mas. Yevamoth 61b[Again non-Jews are referred to as "cattle."] All Israelites will have a part in the future world... The Goyim, at the end of the world will be handed over to the angel Duma and sent down to hell.

[scroteface]

Oh look, a Christian who denies man-made climate change. What a shocker.

yo buddy where are your scientific credentials?

[Wild Cobra]

Tosefta, Tractate Erubin VIII When a Jew has a Gentile in his clutches, another Jew may go to the same Gentile, lend him money and in turn deceive him, so that the Gentile shall be ruined. For the property of a Gentile, according to our law, belongs to no one, and the first Jew that passes has full right to seize it.


Mas. Yevamoth 61b[Again non-Jews are referred to as "cattle."] All Israelites will have a part in the future world... The Goyim, at the end of the world will be handed over to the angel Duma and sent down to hell.
Since your posting in the other thread, I did a little reading on this set of documents.

It seems that there are both bad and intentionally incorrect translations of them, as propaganda against the Jewish people. Are you certain you have a correct translation?

[MannyIsGod]

It's not about believing in AGW so much as it is believing in catostrophic AGW.

Actually it is about believing in global warming as that is what the polls on the subject ask but thanks for being wrong for the billionth time. A billion + one is your next post. Par for the course.

[Wild Cobra]

Actually it is about believing in global warming as that is what the polls on the subject ask but thanks for being wrong for the billionth time. A billion + one is your next post. Par for the course.

I think it's more important yet to clarify what you mean by climate change.

So many viewpoints, and they simply cannot be bundled into two camps.

I believe in climate change.

I believe AGW is real.

I simply do not believe CO2 in the primary cause of the warming we see.

That said....

I agree with AntiChrist.

[Jacob1983]

So Dok, when are you going to execute all Christians in America and around the world because they disagree with you on climate change and other things?

[Ignignokt]

Since your posting in the other thread, I did a little reading on this set of documents.

It seems that there are both bad and intentionally incorrect translations of them, as propaganda against the Jewish people. Are you certain you have a correct translation?


you're incorrect. Goyim = Gentile. There is no difference.. from wiki..


In English, the use of the word goy can be controversial. Like other common (and otherwise innocent) terms, it may be assigned pejoratively to non-Jews.[6][7][8] To avoid any perceived offensive connotations, writers may use the English terms "gentile" or "non-Jew".
In Yiddish, it is the only proper term for gentile and many bilingual English and Yiddish speakers use it dispassionately[9] or even deliberately.
The term shabbos goy refers to a non-Jew who performs duties that Jewish law forbids a Jew from performing on the Sabbath, such as lighting a fire to warm a house.

[Wild Cobra]

you're incorrect. Goyim = Gentile. There is no difference.. from wiki..

I'm sorry. Wiki is incorrect in this case. Regular people edit wiki, and wiki is often wrong.

[Ignignokt]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IX9Tk2TMA6Q

[Ignignokt]

I'm sorry. Wiki is incorrect in this case. Regular people edit wiki, and wiki is often wrong.

that may be find and all, but they referenced the American Heritage Dictionary.

[FuzzyLumpkins]

It's not about believing in AGW so much as it is believing in catostrophic AGW.

For you it's been about waffling your stance to the best of your sophist abilities.

Over the last few years we have seen you go from 'it's not warming but instead it's getting cooler. Look at my mailer." to "it may be warming, it may not be warming. Here is a graphic that I will claim came from BEST but it really came from a mailer that shows this." to your above stance of "it's warming but it's nothing to worry about."

[AntiChrist]

For you it's been about waffling your stance to the best of your sophist abilities.

Over the last few years we have seen you go from 'it's not warming but instead it's getting cooler. Look at my mailer." to "it may be warming, it may not be warming. Here is a graphic that I will claim came from BEST but it really came from a mailer that shows this." to your above stance of "it's warming but it's nothing to worry about."


'it's not warming but instead it's getting cooler.Look at my mailer."

Where's the post where I said that?

[FuzzyLumpkins]

'it's not warming but instead it's getting cooler.Look at my mailer."

Where's the post where I said that?

We have done this before. I am not doing it again. If you want to deny your graphs with the downward trajectory from a 10 year interval then so be it.

[AntiChrist]

We have done this before. I am not doing it again. If you want to deny your graphs with the downward trajectory from a 10 year interval then so be it.

Oh, I see what you're talking about. Yes, I have posted graphs that show no significant warming over the past 15 years or so. I think we can agree that that is different from saying it is cooling.

GFY

[FuzzyLumpkins]

Oh, I see what you're talking about. Yes, I have posted graphs that show no significant warming over the past 15 years or so. I think we can agree that that is different from saying it is cooling.

GFY

What do downward trajectory mean?

And nice boutox channeling there, chachi.

[Wild Cobra]

that may be find and all, but they referenced the American Heritage Dictionary.

Dictionary definitions aren't always correct either, especially with ancient translations. These distinctions come from the specific tribes from the son's of Noah.

I'm not going to continue with a religious argument. I suggest you look at various material that covers goyims, Semites, and gentiles so you can speak on the topic informed.

[Big Empty]

Well all i know is in my 35 years of living, it seems to have gotten hotter in the last couple of years than anytime in my life. Ive read articles that the CO2 levels (at least in Hawaii) are at its highest in millions of years. The question is what has caused the CO2 levels to rise?

[MannyIsGod]

Any idiot who thinks that the amount of energy stored in the earth has not risen over the past 15 years probably got their engineering degree from UTSA.

http://www.nodc.noaa.gov/OC5/3M_HEAT_CONTENT/heat_content2000m.png

Care to take a guess which contains more energy, the ocean or atmosphere? Looking at nothing but one data set in a narrow view without regard to the full earth system or the natural oscillations that lead to short term variability and thinking you have a valid point is the sign of someone who isn't very smart.

[AntiChrist]

Yawn

[Wild Cobra]

Any idiot who thinks that the amount of energy stored in the earth has not risen over the past 15 years probably got their engineering degree from UTSA.

http://www.nodc.noaa.gov/OC5/3M_HEAT_CONTENT/heat_content2000m.png

Care to take a guess which contains more energy, the ocean or atmosphere? Looking at nothing but one data set in a narrow view without regard to the full earth system or the natural oscillations that lead to short term variability and thinking you have a valid point is the sign of someone who isn't very smart.
Like usual, you have me lost.

1) The oceans contain magnitudes more heat than the atmosphere.

2) Who do you think you are arguing against? Yourself?

[AntiChrist]

As for the source of Manny's graph (Leviticus et. al. 2012)

http://wattsupwiththat.com/2012/04/23/an-ocean-of-overconfidence/

[Wild Cobra]

As for the source of Manny's graph (Leviticus et. al. 2012)

http://wattsupwiththat.com/2012/04/23/an-ocean-of-overconfidence/

Regardless, what did I miss? What was his point? Besides much of the data being nothing more than educated guesses using models. It's pretty well accepted that the ocean is warming too. If we go back to the graph I posted in post #9, you can see that the ocean absorbs visible light and UV rather deep compared to the IR in the CO2 radiative spectra. I'll bet it takes several decades, maybe hundreds of years for the ocean heat to stabilize from the last major solar increase, which ended about 1950.

[MannyIsGod]

As for the source of Manny's graph (Leviticus et. al. 2012)

http://wattsupwiththat.com/2012/04/23/an-ocean-of-overconfidence/

So you think that's a good critique? You think that the findings of oceanic heat content rising are invalid as shown in Levitus 2013? Is the heat content in oceans rising or not?

[MannyIsGod]

What about this paper, Darrin?

http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/grl.50382/abstract

[MannyIsGod]

I'm not aware of any papers that show a decline - or even a stabilization - in ocean heat content but perhaps in your vast studies on the subject you have come across them and can direct me in their direction. Surely when you claim it hasn't warmed in 15 years you have scientific data that shows the oceans have not warmed so I eagerly await that data. Thanks.

[scroteface]

I'm not aware of any papers that show a decline - or even a stabilization - in ocean heat content but perhaps in your vast studies on the subject you have come across them and can direct me in their direction. Surely when you claim it hasn't warmed in 15 years you have scientific data that shows the oceans have not warmed so I eagerly await that data. Thanks.


hey aren't you a be@ner, what do you know?

[AntiChrist]

I'm not aware of any papers that show a decline - or even a stabilization - in ocean heat content but perhaps in your vast studies on the subject you have come across them and can direct me in their direction. Surely when you claim it hasn't warmed in 15 years you have scientific data that shows the oceans have not warmed so I eagerly await that data. Thanks.

You go ahead and keep kicking that strawman's ass.

[MannyIsGod]

You made the claim that there is no significant warming going on. I posted papers refuting it by showing the largest reservoir of heat - the ocean - is warming. Do you even know what a strawman is? Jesus Christ, Darrin. You're really fucking dumb, you know that?

[scroteface]

You're really fucking dumb, you know that?

You have no room, you're be@ner.

[Wild Cobra]

You made the claim that there is no significant warming going on. I posted papers refuting it by showing the largest reservoir of heat - the ocean - is warming. Do you even know what a strawman is? Jesus Christ, Darrin. You're really fucking dumb, you know that?
He is correct in that there is no significant atmospheric or surface warming. The ocean is another matter.

[Wild Cobra]

You have no room, you're be@ner.
With a small weiner and no balls to debate me.

[Jacob1983]

If climate change is destroying the Earth like Al Gore says it is, can the Earth be saved? Is it worth saving the Earth? How are you going to convince 6 billion people that driving their cars is destroying Earth and that in order to save Earth, they have to give their cars up? Do you really think humanity is going to make a sacrifice like that?

[scroteface]

al gore will save it if you just pay him a carbon tax!

[Jacob1983]

But seriously, how is humanity going to save itself from climate change? Is it really realistic to think that every human being will give up their car just to save the planet?

[boutons_deux]

on Monday’s All In show, Hayes had a good segment on “The Republican allure of climate change denialism (http://video.msnbc.msn.com/all-in-/52740273#52740273).”

He makes the point that I have argued for the past decade (http://thinkprogress.org/climate/2008/06/01/202682/krauthammer-part-2-the-real-reason-conservatives-dont-believe-in-climate-science/), “the real reason conservatives don’t believe in climate science” is they can’t stand the solution.

Hayes plays an excerpt from remarks by hard-core denier Rep. Dana “dinosaur flatulence (http://thinkprogress.org/climate/2010/12/01/207108/dana-rohrabacher-house-science-chair-global-warming-denier/)” Rohrabacher (R-CA):

ROHRABACHER: Just so you’ll know, global warming is a total fraud. The federal government, they want to create global government to control all of our lives. That’s what their game plan is. It’s step by step by step more and bigger control over our lives by higher levels of government. And global warming is simply that strategy in spades.

HAYES: Now, the whole “global warming is a liberal conspiracy” line is understandably a big hit among the conservative base, but in delivering that line, Congressman Rohrabacher tips his hand to the reasoning behind his global warming denialism, which basically goes like this: If global warming is real, then the government would need to intervene to fix it, but we don’t like government intervention. Therefore, global warming cannot be real.
That’s it. That is the logic behind the pervasive view on climate change on the right: We don’t like the solutions to this problem, so we officially declare this not to be a problem.


Luntz’s infamous (and still must-read) 2002 “Straight Talk” memo (http://www.politicalstrategy.org/archives/001330.php) on climate change messaging was designed for conservatives who want to sound like they care about global warming even as they twist the knife in deeper:


Technology and innovation are the key in arguments on both sides. Global warming alarmists use American superiority in technology and innovation quite effectively in responding to accusations that international agreements such as the Kyoto accord could cost the United States billions. Rather than condemning corporate America the way most environmentalists have done in the past, they attack us for lacking faith in our collective ability to meet any economic challenges presented by environmental changes we make. This should be our argument. We need to emphasize how voluntary innovation and experimentation are preferable to bureaucratic or international intervention and regulation.


More than a decade later, the playbook is exactly the same! Basically, as Hayes shows, we progressives can talk about global warming as much as we want as long as we don’t propose anything that might actually solve the problem in a timely fashion.

http://reneweconomy.com.au/2013/why-so-many-conservatives-are-climate-deniers-58541#sthash.36Eu5CH3.dpuf

Amazing that Hayes doesn't come out and say the Real Reason conservatives don't like AGW is that they are paid by BigCarbon to deny AGW. Always Follow The Money.

[Jacob1983]

Why is it America's responsibility to solve/fix global warming? You do realize it's global warming right? Not America warming.

[boutons_deux]

Why is it America's responsibility to solve/fix global warming? You do realize it's global warming right? Not America warming.

It's not America's exclusive responsibility, but as the Biggest Baddest Carbon-spewing, Energy-consuming Planetary Empire currently, America could set the example, take leadership, but of course US's BigCarbon pre-empts that with its $Bs.

[Wild Cobra]

It's not America's exclusive responsibility, but as the Biggest Baddest Carbon-spewing, Energy-consuming Planetary Empire currently, America could set the example, take leadership, but of course US's BigCarbon pre-empts that with its $Bs.

You are behind the times. China is now in the #1 spot.

[TeyshaBlue]

Except we're not the biggest.

lol buzzwords.

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

[TeyshaBlue]

You are behind the times. China is now in the #1 spot.

:cry His RSS feed let him down...again! :cry

[Jacob1983]

Again, what can people do to stop climate change? Do you really think it's possible or even realistic for people to give up their cars? How can someone that lives in Wyoming or Montana give up their car? You gonna buy them a horse?

[TeyshaBlue]

You don't have to give up cars to stop/slow climate change. smh

There's likely 10,000 other targets before we even get to cars.

[Wild Cobra]

Again, what can people do to stop climate change? Do you really think it's possible or even realistic for people to give up their cars? How can someone that lives in Wyoming or Montana give up their car? You gonna buy them a horse?

We are now a dent in the climate problem. We emit very few aerosols, and most the climate scientists will agree CO2 has minor impact without the magical positive feedback that cannot be demonstrated.

Look at what this study says about CO2, and how they amplify it

link: The Role of Ocean-Atmospheric Interactions in the CO2 Climate problem (http://journals.ametsoc.org/doi/pdf/10.1175/1520-0469(1981)038%3C0918%3ATROOAI%3E2.0.CO%3B2)

They say CO2 has a direct surface effect of 1.2 W/m^2 rather than the 3.7 W/m^2 when accounting for the overlap with H2O, for a doubling of CO2. They go on to claim a total of 15.5 W/m^2 with the vapor feedback, and a 2.2 degree increase.

Note...

Their temperate increase for the doubling of CO2 without the feedback is 0.17 degrees...

No matter how much I look, it appears they model such formulas to explain a greater increase in solar energy than they want to account for. They never explain how they eliminated other possible influences properly.

[Wild Cobra]

You don't have to give up cars to stop/slow climate change. smh

There's likely 10,000 other targets before we even get to cars.
There are less than 100 countries that don't use our newer technologies, and emit a substantial level of pollutions.

[MannyIsGod]

Except we're not the biggest.

lol buzzwords.

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

It depends. We're bigger than China per capita. I think thats a more important indicator, quite frankly.

[Wild Cobra]

It depends. We're bigger than China per capita. I think thats a more important indicator, quite frankly.

Yes, we emit more pollution per capita, but less as a total.

What happens when more of China's population starts coming our of the dark ages. It's a pretty small percentage of China's population enjoying fresh water, electricity, transportation freedom, etc.

[boutons_deux]

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/4/4b/CO2_per_capita_per_country.png

http://static.guim.co.uk/sys-images/Guardian/Pix/pictures/2011/2/10/1297340671284/Carbon-graphic-001.jpg

USA is not a dent :lol

USA, thanks the to corruption of BigCarbon, cannot go to China, India, Australia and say "follow our example, we'll help you scrub are your coal burning, etc, etc. We devleoped the technology for our coal plants and will make it available"

[Wild Cobra]

[
USA is not a dent :lol

USA, thanks the to corruption of BigCarbon, cannot go to China, India, Australia and say "follow our example, we'll help you scrub are your coal burning, etc, etc. We devleoped the technology for our coal plants and will make it available"
Please note I specified aerosols, and excluded CO2. Your chart is CO2.

[Wild Cobra]

Boutons, did you notice what the chart shows and says? First off, it is a 2009 total, and compares to 2008.

China is #1, at 7,711 million tons of CO2. 13.4% greater than 2008.

The USA is #2 at 5,425 million tons, 7% less than 2008.

India is #3 at 1,602 million tons, 8.7% greater than 2008.

Russia is #4 at 1,572 million tons, 7.4% less than 2008.

Japan is #5 at 1,098 million tons, 9.7% less than 2008.

Here is a larger/readable version of it in PDF form:

link: Yale CO2 drawing (http://e360.yale.edu/images/digest/carbon_web.pdf)

Now I don't expect the 2008 to 2009 trends to remain constant, but if they did, then China now emits 3 times more CO2 than the USA.

[boutons_deux]

Fox Repug Propaganda network keeping its viewer broadly, deeply, accurately informed on climate

:lol
(http://thinkprogress.org/climate/2013/08/16/2478511/fox-news-theres-no-question-that-the-polar-bear-is-thriving/)
Fox News: ‘There’s No Question That The Polar Bear Is Thriving’ (http://thinkprogress.org/climate/2013/08/16/2478511/fox-news-theres-no-question-that-the-polar-bear-is-thriving/)


http://thinkprogress.org/wp-content/uploads/2013/08/A-male-Polar-Bear-Ursus-m-013-300x180.jpg

http://thinkprogress.org/climate/2013/08/16/2478511/fox-news-theres-no-question-that-the-polar-bear-is-thriving/

[Wild Cobra]

If you say so.

The polar bear is another animal being hunted in excess. There First, the UN had to place hunting limits on seals, now bears. Nothing new to see here.

[boutons_deux]

Researchers Find Historic Ocean Acidification Levels: ‘The Next Mass Extinction May Have Already Begun’ (http://thinkprogress.org/climate/2013/10/03/2725431/unprecedented-ocean-acidification/)

The oceans are more acidic now than they’ve been at any time in the last 300 million years, conditions that marine scientists warn could lead to a mass extinction of key species.

Scientists from the International Programme on the State of the Ocean (IPSO) published their State of the Oceans (http://www.stateoftheocean.org/research.cfm) report Thursday, a biennial study that surveys how oceans are responding to human impacts. The researchers found the current level of acifification is “unprecedented (http://www.theguardian.com/environment/2013/oct/03/ocean-acidification-carbon-dioxide-emissions-levels)” and that the overall health of the ocean is declining at a much faster rate than previously thought.

“We are entering an unknown territory of marine ecosystem change, and exposing organisms to intolerable evolutionary pressure,” the report states. “The next mass extinction may have already begun.”

http://thinkprogress.org/climate/2013/10/03/2725431/unprecedented-ocean-acidification/

[TDMVPDPOY]

watta load of shit, how come china is white? gtfo

[RandomGuy]

As for the source of Manny's graph (Leviticus et. al. 2012)

http://wattsupwiththat.com/2012/04/23/an-ocean-of-overconfidence/

More sociopathic lying about the science. Little wonder you think it is a valid critique.

Per par.

[boutons_deux]

How the "Global Cooling" Story Came to Be
Nine paragraphs, written for Newsweek in 1975, continue to trump 40 years of climate science. It's a record that has its author amazed

http://www.scientificamerican.com/article.cfm?id=how-the-global-cooling-story-came-to-be&page=2

[RandomGuy]

watta load of shit, how come china is white? gtfo

The graph is per capita

more people = larger denominator

[boutons_deux]

The ‘pause’ in global warming is not even a thing

All signs point to an acceleration of human-caused climate change. So why all this talk of a pause?

The idea that global warming has “paused” or is currently chillaxing in a comfy chair with the words “hiatus” written on it has been getting a good run in the media of late.

Much of this is down to a new study analysing why one single measure of climate change – the temperatures on the surface averaged out across the entire globe – might not have been rising quite so quickly as some thought they might.

But here’s the thing.

There never was a “pause” in global warming or climate change. For practical purposes, the so-called “pause” in global warming is not even a thing.

The study in question (http://www.theguardian.com/environment/2014/feb/09/global-warming-pause-trade-winds-pacific-ocean-study) was led by Professor Matt England at the University of New South Wales Climate Change Research Centre.

England’s study found that climate models had not been geared to account for the current two decade-long period of strong trade winds in the Pacific.

Once the researchers added this missing windy ingredient to the climate models, the surface temperatures predicted by the models more closely matched the observations – that is, the actual temperature measurements that have been taken around the globe. England explains the study in this YouTube (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RifZdKP3VPs) video.

England told me:

Global warming has not stopped. People should understand that the planet is a closed system. As we increase our emissions of greenhouse gases, the fundamental thermal dynamics tells us we have added heat into the system. Once it’s trapped, it can go to a myriad of places – land surface, oceans, ice shelves, ice sheets, glaciers for example.
England explained how the winds help the ocean to absorb heat into the thermocline – that’s roughly the area between 100 metres and 300 metres deep. He says once the trade winds drop – which is likely to come within years rather than decades – then the averaged surface temperatures will rise sharply again.

Media outlets across the world have extensively covered England’s paper. National Geographic (http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2014/02/140211-global-warming-pause-trade-winds-pacific-science-climate/?now=2014-02-11-00%3A01) told us the study revealed how the heat had been “hiding” in the oceans.

Over at the ABC (http://www.abc.net.au/news/2014-02-10/scientists-find-explanation-for-global-warming-pause/5248456), we were told the paper gave an explanation for “a pause in global warming” and that “over the past 15 years the rate of global warming has slowed – and more recently almost stalled.”

On The Conversation (https://theconversation.com/global-warming-stalled-by-strong-winds-driving-heat-into-oceans-22954), we had “Global warming stalled by strong winds driving heat into oceans”.

Even though these reports spoke in detail about the complexity of the research (England feels the coverage generally has been very good), they could inadvertently cement the idea that global warming has in some way stopped, when it hasn’t.

But this is almost unavoidable. You can hardly blame journalists and commentators for repeating the phrase that “global warming is in a hiatus” when the offending word is in the title of the scientific paper itself (Recent intensification of wind-driven circulation in the Pacific and the ongoing warming hiatus (http://www.nature.com/nclimate/journal/vaop/ncurrent/full/nclimate2106.html)).

Andrew Bolt, News Corporation Australia’s in-house climate science mangler, :lol could not hide his excitement (http://blogs.news.com.au/heraldsun/andrewbolt/index.php/heraldsun/comments/why_did_matthew_england_deny_the_warming_pause_he_ now_concedes/#147231) that Professor England apparently now “admits” that global warming has stopped.

Yet when it’s all put into context, practically all the signs show the impacts of human-caused climate change are trending dramatically in the wrong direction – just as they have been for several decades.

Sea Level Rise
When the salty water of the oceans heats up, it expands, pushing sea level higher. If ice that’s attached to land – such as the two major ice sheets in Greenland and Antarctica – melt, they also add to the water in the ocean, further pushing up sea levels. Melting glaciers also add to sea level rise.

So what’s been happening while global warming was apparently having a holiday?

Here’s a chart from Australia’s CSIRO science agency showing sea level rise in recent decades. The drop you can see around 2011 was actually down to water being temporarily stored on the Australian land mass (http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/grl.50834/abstract) following the major flooding and rainfall event that year.

Melting cryosphere
The cryosphere – the Earth’s icey areas – obviously don’t think much of the notion that global warming might have stopped.

A study last year in the journal Science (https://www.sciencemag.org/content/340/6134/852.abstract) looked at glaciers in all regions of the world. The study found that the world’s glaciers were melting at a rate of 259 billion tonnes a year between 2003 and 2009.

What about the ice sheets in Antarctica and Greenland, which together hold about 99 per cent of the world’s fresh water?

Between 1992 and 2001, ice was melting from the two main ice sheets at a rate of about 64 billion tonnes a year, according to the latest IPCC assessment (http://www.theguardian.com/environment/planet-oz/2013/sep/27/ipcc-report-climate-change-numbers) of the science.
From 2002 to 2011, the ice sheets were melting at a rate of about 362 billion tonnes a year – an almost six-fold increase. What was that about a pause in global warming?

Climate change impacts
People suffering in extreme heatwaves, droughts and flooding, I would argue, don’t stand there muttering: “At least the average global temperature on the earth’s surface is 0.2C less than some climate models thought it would be.”

During this lovely comfortable hiatus when we’re told by some that global warming has stopped and so we can all stop being such worry pots, what else has been going on?
Australia has experienced its hottest year on record after the most widespread heat wave on record. The risk of bushfires (http://www.theguardian.com/world/planet-oz/2013/oct/23/climate-change-tony-abbott-australia-bushfire-science) is on the rise.

The UK is experiencing extreme flooding (http://www.theguardian.com/environment/2014/jan/10/david-cameron-floods-global-warming-climate-scientists) – again.

Other research has found that globally, all this extra warmth means that monthly heat records are being broken five times more often (http://link.springer.com/article/10.1007%2Fs10584-012-0668-1).

Even if we do want to look at globally averaged temperatures, the “hiatus” has given the world its hottest decade since records began in 1850 (https://www.wmo.int/pages/mediacentre/press_releases/pr_976_en.html).

We could go on and on.

Not so much a “pause” as a “fast forward”

A decade ago, the world was talking about limiting the rise in global temperatures to 2C to avoid dangerous impacts from climate change.

Now, during a time when we are supposed to have been in a “hiatus”, almost nobody thinks that guardrail is achievable.

Now, the talk is of 3C or 4C or higher.

Temperatures on the surface – measured by thermometers and then averaged out across the world – is not the problem defence agencies around the world fear could destabilise entire regions (http://www.abc.net.au/environment/articles/2013/09/11/3845626.htm).

So what really caused the pause in global warming? I think there might be four possibilities.

1. Was it headline writers and journalists who, out of necessity, sometimes need to strip nuance and context from their stories?

2. Was it climate science deniers who repeated the “no global warming” mantra so often it started to infect even the rational people?

3. Was it the internet?

4. Was it a crack squad of fairies who secretly changed the laws of physics so the earth doesn’t warm after you have pumped 1,407 billion tonnes of carbon dioxide into the atmosphere since the start of the industrial revolution?

Nah! While some thought climate change was on “pause” the reality is that the world’s big fat fingers have been stuck on the fast-forward (http://www.theguardian.com/environment/planet-oz/2013/dec/12/climate-change-awesome-australia-fossil-fuel-great-barrier-reef-abbot-point-coal) button.

guardian.co.uk © Guardian News and Media 2014

http://www.rawstory.com/rs/2014/02/12/the-pause-in-global-warming-is-not-even-a-thing/

[AntiChrist]

yep, it's accelerating :rolleyes