Is there a reasonable, lucid and civil warmer out there who wants to discuss AGW?

[IanC]

I consider myself a fairly well informed observer of the Climate Wars. I look skeptically on the claims of both sides but I have found my equilibrium point lies well within the 'denier's camp'.

what I am looking for from the warmist side is a coherent and unexaggerated line of reasoning that identifies and quantifies the impact of mankind's impact on the climate and why you think it is detrimental +/or dangerous.

I will quickly sketch out my side-

I think there will be a little more warming than just the recovery from the LIA and 60 year cycle, from the 1C calculated increase from CO2 minus negative feedbacks, ~0.5C per doubling. I am unsure as to how long the recovery from the LIA will last, hopefully a while longer as warmer is better, within reason.

the biggest difference between the two sides is whether feedbacks are positive or negative and that is where I would really appreciate the warmists to focus. talking about the weather is just mental masturbation, stating that glaciers are melting is redundant if we agree that the temps are up slightly. if you think that we are 'the warmest ever' make sure that you are at least conversant in what has been going on in the climate wars and what is scientifically significant.

gtg

 

[Old Rocks]

Well now, Traker would be nice and point out the falacies in your post, Ian. Personally, you have been shown what real scientists are saying, and you have chosen to listen to people with no data and no evidence.

 

[IanC]

Well now, Traker would be nice and point out the falacies in your post, Ian. Personally, you have been shown what real scientists are saying, and you have chosen to listen to people with no data and no evidence.

Pascal's Wager used up a lot of mental effort a few hundred years ago because europeans only recognized one god, one set of similar religions. once you move on to many types of religion the premise falls apart. I think the same type of tunnel vision has affected climate change. CO2 surely plays a part but there is a much larger picture where the contortions made to blame manmade emissions falls apart, especially when you look at specific concrete data rather than massaged and adjusted climate models that only cover averaged large scale conditions.

the problem is that the two sides talk past each other. actually I think it is the concensus side which is most to blame because they refuse to acknowledge and debate the issues. presumably because they lost the first few forays and decided that there was no upside to having to defend their positions from critics. there are simply too many gaping holes in AGW and CAGW to hand wave away.

 

[onecut39]

Well now, Traker would be nice and point out the falacies in your post, Ian. Personally, you have been shown what real scientists are saying, and you have chosen to listen to people with no data and no evidence.

Pascal's Wager used up a lot of mental effort a few hundred years ago because europeans only recognized one god, one set of similar religions. once you move on to many types of religion the premise falls apart. I think the same type of tunnel vision has affected climate change. CO2 surely plays a part but there is a much larger picture where the contortions made to blame manmade emissions falls apart, especially when you look at specific concrete data rather than massaged and adjusted climate models that only cover averaged large scale conditions.

the problem is that the two sides talk past each other. actually I think it is the concensus side which is most to blame because they refuse to acknowledge and debate the issues. presumably because they lost the first few forays and decided that there was no upside to having to defend their positions from critics. there are simply too many gaping holes in AGW and CAGW to hand wave away.

It would seem there are more in one than the other. At the risk of sounding simplistic I offer the following:

Suppose the global warming thing is entirely a hoax and man has no influence whatever?

Result: A lot of money will have been spent but we will have a cleaner, less polluted, healthier environment.

Suppose man is the cause and we do nothing?

Result: Where are you going to live?

 

[flacaltenn]

Well now, Traker would be nice and point out the falacies in your post, Ian. Personally, you have been shown what real scientists are saying, and you have chosen to listen to people with no data and no evidence.

Pascal's Wager used up a lot of mental effort a few hundred years ago because europeans only recognized one god, one set of similar religions. once you move on to many types of religion the premise falls apart. I think the same type of tunnel vision has affected climate change. CO2 surely plays a part but there is a much larger picture where the contortions made to blame manmade emissions falls apart, especially when you look at specific concrete data rather than massaged and adjusted climate models that only cover averaged large scale conditions.

the problem is that the two sides talk past each other. actually I think it is the concensus side which is most to blame because they refuse to acknowledge and debate the issues. presumably because they lost the first few forays and decided that there was no upside to having to defend their positions from critics. there are simply too many gaping holes in AGW and CAGW to hand wave away.

It would seem there are more in one than the other. At the risk of sounding simplistic I offer the following:

Suppose the global warming thing is entirely a hoax and man has no influence whatever?

Result: A lot of money will have been spent but we will have a cleaner, less polluted, healthier environment.

Suppose man is the cause and we do nothing?

Result: Where are you going to live?

Couple problems there pardner.. Wasting $TRILLs on CO2 emissions will NOT make the planet cleaner.. Spending that money on REAL pollutants probably would.

We don't send the advanced world's economy into the crapper based on dogma and a wager..

 

[onecut39]

Pascal's Wager used up a lot of mental effort a few hundred years ago because europeans only recognized one god, one set of similar religions. once you move on to many types of religion the premise falls apart. I think the same type of tunnel vision has affected climate change. CO2 surely plays a part but there is a much larger picture where the contortions made to blame manmade emissions falls apart, especially when you look at specific concrete data rather than massaged and adjusted climate models that only cover averaged large scale conditions.

the problem is that the two sides talk past each other. actually I think it is the concensus side which is most to blame because they refuse to acknowledge and debate the issues. presumably because they lost the first few forays and decided that there was no upside to having to defend their positions from critics. there are simply too many gaping holes in AGW and CAGW to hand wave away.

It would seem there are more in one than the other. At the risk of sounding simplistic I offer the following:

Suppose the global warming thing is entirely a hoax and man has no influence whatever?

Result: A lot of money will have been spent but we will have a cleaner, less polluted, healthier environment.

Suppose man is the cause and we do nothing?

Result: Where are you going to live?

Couple problems there pardner.. Wasting $TRILLs on CO2 emissions will NOT make the planet cleaner.. Spending that money on REAL pollutants probably would.

We don't send the advanced world's economy into the crapper based on dogma and a wager..

It was just a question.

I have been following this for long time. This is not a situation that one day will simply go POP. It is a long slow buildup. The buildup being so slow that one will not notice year to year changes. Neither are the consequences linear or equally distributed over the globe.
They are cumulative and at any level, difficult, expensive and time consuming to correct.

It is not as if the physics of warming are new or exotic. Any high school physics kid can conduct experiments exhibiting the principles. It is just that they are complicated by the enormous complexity of the atmosphere.

Just as a frog can be peacefully, and without objection boiled to death, if the temperature of the water is raised slowly so too can we go to our makers before we realize just what the hell we have done.

A few decades ago the magic number was 350ppm. That was to be the "tipping point" the point where it would become extremely difficult to halt the process. That number has now reached 395 with 400 being recorded in the arctic.

Again, nothing really dramatic has happened. So we have record setting temperatures everywhere, drought where they never used to occur, super storms of straight line winds never before encountered, more and fiercer hurricanes. So what? It can all be explained away so long as we do not think in global terms.

But don't let that bother you. (of course you don't) In all probability you will escape consequences, the only variable being how much of a mess you leave behind. That mess is considerable, growing and becoming exponentially harder to correct.

What it all seems to boil down to is the buck and how many which people can accumulate and retain. I guess that is practical. Not very noble but practical.

All the excuses in the world cannot obliterate that simple number which is now 395 and rising rapidly. It has never occurred before, not ever, and it is almost soley attributable to man. You can laugh, smirk and man your little denials but that number remains, as do the consequences.

Climate change: Arctic passes 400 parts per million milestone - CSMonitor.com

 

[flacaltenn]

It would seem there are more in one than the other. At the risk of sounding simplistic I offer the following:

Suppose the global warming thing is entirely a hoax and man has no influence whatever?

Result: A lot of money will have been spent but we will have a cleaner, less polluted, healthier environment.

Suppose man is the cause and we do nothing?

Result: Where are you going to live?

Couple problems there pardner.. Wasting $TRILLs on CO2 emissions will NOT make the planet cleaner.. Spending that money on REAL pollutants probably would.

We don't send the advanced world's economy into the crapper based on dogma and a wager..

It was just a question.

I have been following this for long time. This is not a situation that one day will simply go POP. It is a long slow buildup. The buildup being so slow that one will not notice year to year changes. Neither are the consequences linear or equally distributed over the globe.
They are cumulative and at any level, difficult, expensive and time consuming to correct.

It is not as if the physics of warming are new or exotic. Any high school physics kid can conduct experiments exhibiting the principles. It is just that they are complicated by the enormous complexity of the atmosphere.

Just as a frog can be peacefully, and without objection boiled to death, if the temperature of the water is raised slowly so too can we go to our makers before we realize just what the hell we have done.

A few decades ago the magic number was 350ppm. That was to be the "tipping point" the point where it would become extremely difficult to halt the process. That number has now reached 395 with 400 being recorded in the arctic.

Again, nothing really dramatic has happened. So we have record setting temperatures everywhere, drought where they never used to occur, super storms of straight line winds never before encountered, more and fiercer hurricanes. So what? It can all be explained away so long as we do not think in global terms.

But don't let that bother you. (of course you don't) In all probability you will escape consequences, the only variable being how much of a mess you leave behind. That mess is considerable, growing and becoming exponentially harder to correct.

What it all seems to boil down to is the buck and how many which people can accumulate and retain. I guess that is practical. Not very noble but practical.

All the excuses in the world cannot obliterate that simple number which is now 395 and rising rapidly. It has never occurred before, not ever, and it is almost soley attributable to man. You can laugh, smirk and man your little denials but that number remains, as do the consequences.

Climate change: Arctic passes 400 parts per million milestone - CSMonitor.com

You are aware of course that CO2 warming due to atmos concentrations are NOT LINEAR but nat log. And there is actually a point where the absorption of MORE CO2 gets curtailed or truncated to almost nothing.

Unless you can explain screwy patterns in Jet Stream or how tornadoes found the exact centers of several cities at once because of 100 ppm of increased CO2 -- I'll take a raincheck on the current panic.. Like you said, we really shouldn't be seeing symptoms of the appocalyse for while yet.. People who are -- are gonna get marginalized by probability and weather systems.

It's Ian's thread -- perhaps you should use the opportunity to debate with him.. He's been on this case for a lot longer and stronger than I am... I think it would be neat for you to "check his premises"...

 

[IanC]

It would seem there are more in one than the other. At the risk of sounding simplistic I offer the following:

Suppose the global warming thing is entirely a hoax and man has no influence whatever?

Result: A lot of money will have been spent but we will have a cleaner, less polluted, healthier environment.

Suppose man is the cause and we do nothing?

Result: Where are you going to live?

Couple problems there pardner.. Wasting $TRILLs on CO2 emissions will NOT make the planet cleaner.. Spending that money on REAL pollutants probably would.

We don't send the advanced world's economy into the crapper based on dogma and a wager..

It was just a question.

I have been following this for long time. This is not a situation that one day will simply go POP. It is a long slow buildup. The buildup being so slow that one will not notice year to year changes. Neither are the consequences linear or equally distributed over the globe.
They are cumulative and at any level, difficult, expensive and time consuming to correct.

It is not as if the physics of warming are new or exotic. Any high school physics kid can conduct experiments exhibiting the principles. It is just that they are complicated by the enormous complexity of the atmosphere.

Just as a frog can be peacefully, and without objection boiled to death, if the temperature of the water is raised slowly so too can we go to our makers before we realize just what the hell we have done.

A few decades ago the magic number was 350ppm. That was to be the "tipping point" the point where it would become extremely difficult to halt the process. That number has now reached 395 with 400 being recorded in the arctic.

Again, nothing really dramatic has happened. So we have record setting temperatures everywhere, drought where they never used to occur, super storms of straight line winds never before encountered, more and fiercer hurricanes. So what? It can all be explained away so long as we do not think in global terms.

But don't let that bother you. (of course you don't) In all probability you will escape consequences, the only variable being how much of a mess you leave behind. That mess is considerable, growing and becoming exponentially harder to correct.

What it all seems to boil down to is the buck and how many which people can accumulate and retain. I guess that is practical. Not very noble but practical.

All the excuses in the world cannot obliterate that simple number which is now 395 and rising rapidly. It has never occurred before, not ever, and it is almost soley attributable to man. You can laugh, smirk and man your little denials but that number remains, as do the consequences.

Climate change: Arctic passes 400 parts per million milestone - CSMonitor.com

welcome to our sandbox onecut39. its best to wear eyegear because a lot of the kiddies here like to throw sand.

in the lifespan of the earth the temperature and CO2 levels have both averaged higher than today. since we came out of the last ice age the temps have been falling while the CO2 levels have been rising. so I can only assume you are comparing temp and CO2 levels of the last few hundred years or less.

water, in its various forms, controls the climate. two billion years ago the sun was 20% dimmer yet there was still liquid water. more to the point, there seems to be an upper limit to how hot the oceans can get (29C with occassional spikes to 31C), with any extra energy getting pumped out by thunderclouds. climate is driven by the temperature differentials between the equator and the poles, with land masses affecting the ocean currents.

as much as Old Rocks wants to believe that storms and weather are worse today it is pretty much undeniable that weather in the cold Little Ice Age was much more severe and unpredictable than today, as is only reasonable because there was a greater temperature differential which caused more heat movement by wind,etc.

I have no problem with accepting that CO2 will cause some additional heating as its concentration increases. theoretically it should cause ~1C per doubling. I think feedbacks will turn out to be negative so the actual rise will be less than that. and certainly not the out-of-control upward death spiral predicted by so many of the warmers.

 

[skookerasbil]

Pascal's Wager used up a lot of mental effort a few hundred years ago because europeans only recognized one god, one set of similar religions. once you move on to many types of religion the premise falls apart. I think the same type of tunnel vision has affected climate change. CO2 surely plays a part but there is a much larger picture where the contortions made to blame manmade emissions falls apart, especially when you look at specific concrete data rather than massaged and adjusted climate models that only cover averaged large scale conditions.

the problem is that the two sides talk past each other. actually I think it is the concensus side which is most to blame because they refuse to acknowledge and debate the issues. presumably because they lost the first few forays and decided that there was no upside to having to defend their positions from critics. there are simply too many gaping holes in AGW and CAGW to hand wave away.

It would seem there are more in one than the other. At the risk of sounding simplistic I offer the following:

Suppose the global warming thing is entirely a hoax and man has no influence whatever?

Result: A lot of money will have been spent but we will have a cleaner, less polluted, healthier environment.

Suppose man is the cause and we do nothing?

Result: Where are you going to live?

Couple problems there pardner.. Wasting $TRILLs on CO2 emissions will NOT make the planet cleaner.. Spending that money on REAL pollutants probably would.

We don't send the advanced world's economy into the crapper based on dogma and a wager..

EXACTLY my sentiment............and may I add, a winning one!!!


But the radical environmentalists in this forum are well schooled in one particular area: bomb throwing. Its a basic tool used by all of them, thus, having a civil debate is next to impossible. They all model off of the highly coordinated AGW machine that holds a summit every year and promptly kicks out any scientist that brings data contrary to their preconceived notions ( which superceeds the science). The debate is civil, if it is only thier side presenting their case. It is the MO of any far left guy.

 

[bobgnote]

Come on, Crapforbrains. Take a look at your OP. Take a look at who posted. O.R., idiots, and now I am going to give you a post, since you seem to be lacking a healthy balance of science vs. complete crap, from ranters.

You really want sucksassandballs to post his Leatherface picture, since it has LF holding his chainsaw.

End of story. Humans got chainsaws, CO2 went up, temperature is going up, and when the local solar maximum heads back up, temperatures will really jump.

 

[skookerasbil]

So heres the new bomb throwing mantra from the k00ks................

These guys formed a band.....................

CO2 levels went up and global warming followed.

 

[onecut39]

Couple problems there pardner.. Wasting $TRILLs on CO2 emissions will NOT make the planet cleaner.. Spending that money on REAL pollutants probably would.

We don't send the advanced world's economy into the crapper based on dogma and a wager..

It was just a question.

I have been following this for long time. This is not a situation that one day will simply go POP. It is a long slow buildup. The buildup being so slow that one will not notice year to year changes. Neither are the consequences linear or equally distributed over the globe.
They are cumulative and at any level, difficult, expensive and time consuming to correct.

It is not as if the physics of warming are new or exotic. Any high school physics kid can conduct experiments exhibiting the principles. It is just that they are complicated by the enormous complexity of the atmosphere.

Just as a frog can be peacefully, and without objection boiled to death, if the temperature of the water is raised slowly so too can we go to our makers before we realize just what the hell we have done.

A few decades ago the magic number was 350ppm. That was to be the "tipping point" the point where it would become extremely difficult to halt the process. That number has now reached 395 with 400 being recorded in the arctic.

Again, nothing really dramatic has happened. So we have record setting temperatures everywhere, drought where they never used to occur, super storms of straight line winds never before encountered, more and fiercer hurricanes. So what? It can all be explained away so long as we do not think in global terms.

But don't let that bother you. (of course you don't) In all probability you will escape consequences, the only variable being how much of a mess you leave behind. That mess is considerable, growing and becoming exponentially harder to correct.

What it all seems to boil down to is the buck and how many which people can accumulate and retain. I guess that is practical. Not very noble but practical.

All the excuses in the world cannot obliterate that simple number which is now 395 and rising rapidly. It has never occurred before, not ever, and it is almost soley attributable to man. You can laugh, smirk and man your little denials but that number remains, as do the consequences.

Climate change: Arctic passes 400 parts per million milestone - CSMonitor.com

You are aware of course that CO2 warming due to atmos concentrations are NOT LINEAR but nat log. And there is actually a point where the absorption of MORE CO2 gets curtailed or truncated to almost nothing.

Unless you can explain screwy patterns in Jet Stream or how tornadoes found the exact centers of several cities at once because of 100 ppm of increased CO2 -- I'll take a raincheck on the current panic.. Like you said, we really shouldn't be seeing symptoms of the appocalyse for while yet.. People who are -- are gonna get marginalized by probability and weather systems.

It's Ian's thread -- perhaps you should use the opportunity to debate with him.. He's been on this case for a lot longer and stronger than I am... I think it would be neat for you to "check his premises"...

Fine. Keep harping one the "one thing" that at the moment you that feel is is not significant. CO2 is simply one thing but it is a significant one thing.

It is obvious you have taken the rain check simply because you cannot see the raging flood coming down on you. Someone else? That's OK.

From your comment about raging storms over cities with high CO2 concentrations the most charitable thing to be said is that that comment displays incredible ignorance.
There comes a point where a comment is just so lacking in substance at it's very basic level that it is impossible to argue. I simply don't have the time, or the need.

It is kind of like the first time your kid asks you about sex. You cannot have much of a discussion because he hasn't the base knowledge, tools, or even the vocabulary to understand. So you give it to him a little at a time. Gradually the base grows, curiosity becomes a quest and that quest brings knowledge.

I wish you well on your quest.

Too bad climate change is nowhere near a interesting as sex.

As for Ian. I don't go chasing after people to debate. Sometimes it is interesting. More likely it is a is an exercise in ignored fact cherry picked links, applied sarcasm and political hyperbole.

This is supposed to be amusement. I use it to keep my blood pressure down not up.

For my last comment on this thread I was thinking that too often things get named before they are really understood and that name often becomes a detriment. Global warming? Sounds gentle, harmless and maybe even a bit attractive if you live where I do.

A much better name would have been Catastrophic Climate Change.

 

[bobgnote]

Once again, global warming is causing climate change. Warming is part of climate change. The temperatures are increasing, via the GREENHOUSE EFFECT. Humans are both emitting GHGs and trashing CO2 respirators, but AGW skeptics deny, and deny, and deny.

GHG proliferation is exaggerating the GREENHOUSE EFFECT.

Flat-earth-type theorists have somehow emerged, to deny how AGW is dangerous. The skeptics are like the 17-year cicadas or locusts. They will fail, in their attempt to suppress media, about global warming AND resulting climate change, since the both are so evident, no matter how mild the current solar flare cycle is.

Warming and climate change are both accelerating, despite how solar cycle 24 is expected to be the mildest, since 1928:

 

[flacaltenn]

From your comment about raging storms over cities with high CO2 concentrations the most charitable thing to be said is that that comment displays incredible ignorance.
There comes a point where a comment is just so lacking in substance at it's very basic level that it is impossible to argue. I simply don't have the time, or the need.

Before ya go OneCut -- PLEASE tell me where I mentions "raging storms over cities with high CO2 concentrations" or anything you consider "so lacking in substance at it's very basic level that it is impossible to argue."

I AM concerned about my cred. And I wish to avoid the very things you accuse me of.. So I beg the favor from you..

Were you talking about this?

Unless you can explain screwy patterns in Jet Stream or how tornadoes found the exact centers of several cities at once because of 100 ppm of increased CO2 -- I'll take a raincheck on the current panic.. Like you said, we really shouldn't be seeing symptoms of the appocalyse for while yet.. People who are -- are gonna get marginalized by probability and weather systems.

Because THERE i was sarcastically MOCKING the warmers on this board that used the Spring tornados that tore up city centers in 3 states as PROOF that costs of Global Warming were escalating. They truly believed that DOLLARS from those storms were totally due to CO2 and not the random chance that the storms found CITY CENTERS instead of rural farmland.

 

[onecut39]

Couple problems there pardner.. Wasting $TRILLs on CO2 emissions will NOT make the planet cleaner.. Spending that money on REAL pollutants probably would.

We don't send the advanced world's economy into the crapper based on dogma and a wager..

It was just a question.

I have been following this for long time. This is not a situation that one day will simply go POP. It is a long slow buildup. The buildup being so slow that one will not notice year to year changes. Neither are the consequences linear or equally distributed over the globe.
They are cumulative and at any level, difficult, expensive and time consuming to correct.

It is not as if the physics of warming are new or exotic. Any high school physics kid can conduct experiments exhibiting the principles. It is just that they are complicated by the enormous complexity of the atmosphere.

Just as a frog can be peacefully, and without objection boiled to death, if the temperature of the water is raised slowly so too can we go to our makers before we realize just what the hell we have done.

A few decades ago the magic number was 350ppm. That was to be the "tipping point" the point where it would become extremely difficult to halt the process. That number has now reached 395 with 400 being recorded in the arctic.

Again, nothing really dramatic has happened. So we have record setting temperatures everywhere, drought where they never used to occur, super storms of straight line winds never before encountered, more and fiercer hurricanes. So what? It can all be explained away so long as we do not think in global terms.

But don't let that bother you. (of course you don't) In all probability you will escape consequences, the only variable being how much of a mess you leave behind. That mess is considerable, growing and becoming exponentially harder to correct.

What it all seems to boil down to is the buck and how many which people can accumulate and retain. I guess that is practical. Not very noble but practical.

All the excuses in the world cannot obliterate that simple number which is now 395 and rising rapidly. It has never occurred before, not ever, and it is almost soley attributable to man. You can laugh, smirk and man your little denials but that number remains, as do the consequences.

Climate change: Arctic passes 400 parts per million milestone - CSMonitor.com

welcome to our sandbox onecut39. its best to wear eyegear because a lot of the kiddies here like to throw sand.

in the lifespan of the earth the temperature and CO2 levels have both averaged higher than today. since we came out of the last ice age the temps have been falling while the CO2 levels have been rising. so I can only assume you are comparing temp . and CO2 levels of the last few hundred years or less.

I think the last 10,000 years will be sufficient. I believe there is little need to go back to the time before the axial tilt.


The most direct method for measuring atmospheric carbon dioxide concentrations for periods before direct sampling is to measure bubbles of air (fluid or gas inclusions) trapped in the Antarctic or Greenland ice caps. The most widely accepted of such studies come from a variety of Antarctic cores and indicate that atmospheric CO2 levels were about 260–280 ppmv immediately before industrial emissions began and did not vary much from this level during the preceding 10,000 years (10 ka). In 1832 Antarctic ice core levels were 284 ppmv.[24]

water, in its various forms, controls the climate. two billion years ago the sun was 20% dimmer yet there was still liquid water. more to the point, there seems to be an upper limit to how hot the oceans can get (29C with occassional spikes to 31C), with any extra energy getting pumped out by thunderclouds. climate is driven by the temperature differentials between the equator and the poles, with land masses affecting the ocean currents.

This is an incredibly simplistic statement and you have attempted to place no meaning into it. Temperature differential between air masses an/or water masses are what make weather, true enough but that is where the discussion begins, not ends.

So you can drive the temperature of the ocean to 31c? (88F) Is this surface temperature? You do not enlighten us. But even if you did it would still be meaningless ans the the temperatures today run about 17c (62F) surface average and the average temp is about 3.9c. (39F) So you have taken a bunch of numbers that mean nothing except catastrophe if they were ever to be achieved and tried to spin it as something reassuring. Worst case scenario? I guess but that worst case is oblivion.



as much as Old Rocks wants to believe that storms and weather are worse today it is pretty much undeniable that weather in the cold Little Ice Age was much more severe and unpredictable than today, as is only reasonable because there was a greater temperature differential which caused more heat movement by wind,etc.

You know that global warming can easily cause another ice age. All you have to do is to stop the great ocean conveyor and PRESTO! Europe loses a lot of appeal. That will only take a couple of degrees of ocean warming.

Global warming can cause blizzards as the water saturated warm currents collide with the cooler northern currents. So that winter howler may well be the result to warming


I have no problem with accepting that CO2 will cause some additional heating as its concentration increases. theoretically it should cause ~1C per doubling. I think feedbacks will turn out to be negative so the actual rise will be less than that. and certainly not the out-of-control upward death spiral predicted by so many of the warmers.

Ya think? Good enough! This stuff is so complex that arguing in depth is impossible.

I notice you don't use a lot of links and that's fine. It's your opinion. It's my opinion. Without agreeing on a creditable source links mean nothing. I have the feeling w could not come to much of an agreement..

Are you really looking for common ground or is it tit for tat, my link or y ours?

 

[CrusaderFrank]

"Lucid" and "Civil" are words incompatible with AGW religious fanaticism.

Best of luck

 

[onecut39]

From your comment about raging storms over cities with high CO2 concentrations the most charitable thing to be said is that that comment displays incredible ignorance.
There comes a point where a comment is just so lacking in substance at it's very basic level that it is impossible to argue. I simply don't have the time, or the need.

Before ya go OneCut -- PLEASE tell me where I mentions "raging storms over cities with high CO2 concentrations" or anything you consider "so lacking in substance at it's very basic level that it is impossible to argue."

I AM concerned about my cred. And I wish to avoid the very things you accuse me of.. So I beg the favor from you..

Were you talking about this?

Unless you can explain screwy patterns in Jet Stream or how tornadoes found the exact centers of several cities at once because of 100 ppm of increased CO2 -- I'll take a raincheck on the current panic.. Like you said, we really shouldn't be seeing symptoms of the appocalyse for while yet.. People who are -- are gonna get marginalized by probability and weather systems.

Because THERE i was sarcastically MOCKING the warmers on this board that used the Spring tornados that tore up city centers in 3 states as PROOF that costs of Global Warming were escalating. They truly believed that DOLLARS from those storms were totally due to CO2 and not the random chance that the storms found CITY CENTERS instead of rural farmland.

That is exactly what I was referring to. Post #7 under your handle. I saw nothing about sarcasm or attributing that statement to someone else. You should be clearer about those things. Sarcasm mistaken for sincerity can make you look like shit.

To me it was simply a stupid statement. In looking back I cannot see how I could have attributed that statement to anyone else. I do not read all the posts. So if I am to know who says what you better quote using the authors handle. I am not omniscient.

That being said I am sorry to have misinterpreted your remark even though I do not see how I could have done otherwise.

 

[flacaltenn]

From your comment about raging storms over cities with high CO2 concentrations the most charitable thing to be said is that that comment displays incredible ignorance.
There comes a point where a comment is just so lacking in substance at it's very basic level that it is impossible to argue. I simply don't have the time, or the need.

Before ya go OneCut -- PLEASE tell me where I mentions "raging storms over cities with high CO2 concentrations" or anything you consider "so lacking in substance at it's very basic level that it is impossible to argue."

I AM concerned about my cred. And I wish to avoid the very things you accuse me of.. So I beg the favor from you..

Were you talking about this?

Unless you can explain screwy patterns in Jet Stream or how tornadoes found the exact centers of several cities at once because of 100 ppm of increased CO2 -- I'll take a raincheck on the current panic.. Like you said, we really shouldn't be seeing symptoms of the appocalyse for while yet.. People who are -- are gonna get marginalized by probability and weather systems.

Because THERE i was sarcastically MOCKING the warmers on this board that used the Spring tornados that tore up city centers in 3 states as PROOF that costs of Global Warming were escalating. They truly believed that DOLLARS from those storms were totally due to CO2 and not the random chance that the storms found CITY CENTERS instead of rural farmland.

That is exactly what I was referring to. Post #7 under your handle. I saw nothing about sarcasm or attributing that statement to someone else. You should be clearer about those things. Sarcasm mistaken for sincerity can make you look like shit.

To me it was simply a stupid statement. In looking back I cannot see how I could have attributed that statement to anyone else. I do not read all the posts. So if I am to know who says what you better quote using the authors handle. I am not omniscient.

That being said I am sorry to have misinterpreted your remark even though I do not see how I could have done otherwise.

Thanks for that. Yeah -- I should have put the sarcasm tag up. Those concepts came from several posters running off hysterical about financial losses "due to Global Warming".. So it would have been confusing to quote them out of thread.

I appreciate the tip.. And I will be more careful.. But I'm PLEASED you called B.S. on those statements. So did I.

 

[IanC]

It was just a question.

I have been following this for long time. This is not a situation that one day will simply go POP. It is a long slow buildup. The buildup being so slow that one will not notice year to year changes. Neither are the consequences linear or equally distributed over the globe.
They are cumulative and at any level, difficult, expensive and time consuming to correct.

It is not as if the physics of warming are new or exotic. Any high school physics kid can conduct experiments exhibiting the principles. It is just that they are complicated by the enormous complexity of the atmosphere.

Just as a frog can be peacefully, and without objection boiled to death, if the temperature of the water is raised slowly so too can we go to our makers before we realize just what the hell we have done.

A few decades ago the magic number was 350ppm. That was to be the "tipping point" the point where it would become extremely difficult to halt the process. That number has now reached 395 with 400 being recorded in the arctic.

Again, nothing really dramatic has happened. So we have record setting temperatures everywhere, drought where they never used to occur, super storms of straight line winds never before encountered, more and fiercer hurricanes. So what? It can all be explained away so long as we do not think in global terms.

But don't let that bother you. (of course you don't) In all probability you will escape consequences, the only variable being how much of a mess you leave behind. That mess is considerable, growing and becoming exponentially harder to correct.

What it all seems to boil down to is the buck and how many which people can accumulate and retain. I guess that is practical. Not very noble but practical.

All the excuses in the world cannot obliterate that simple number which is now 395 and rising rapidly. It has never occurred before, not ever, and it is almost soley attributable to man. You can laugh, smirk and man your little denials but that number remains, as do the consequences.

Climate change: Arctic passes 400 parts per million milestone - CSMonitor.com

welcome to our sandbox onecut39. its best to wear eyegear because a lot of the kiddies here like to throw sand.

in the lifespan of the earth the temperature and CO2 levels have both averaged higher than today. since we came out of the last ice age the temps have been falling while the CO2 levels have been rising. so I can only assume you are comparing temp . and CO2 levels of the last few hundred years or less.

I think the last 10,000 years will be sufficient. I believe there is little need to go back to the time before the axial tilt.


The most direct method for measuring atmospheric carbon dioxide concentrations for periods before direct sampling is to measure bubbles of air (fluid or gas inclusions) trapped in the Antarctic or Greenland ice caps. The most widely accepted of such studies come from a variety of Antarctic cores and indicate that atmospheric CO2 levels were about 260–280 ppmv immediately before industrial emissions began and did not vary much from this level during the preceding 10,000 years (10 ka). In 1832 Antarctic ice core levels were 284 ppmv.[24]

water, in its various forms, controls the climate. two billion years ago the sun was 20% dimmer yet there was still liquid water. more to the point, there seems to be an upper limit to how hot the oceans can get (29C with occassional spikes to 31C), with any extra energy getting pumped out by thunderclouds. climate is driven by the temperature differentials between the equator and the poles, with land masses affecting the ocean currents.

This is an incredibly simplistic statement and you have attempted to place no meaning into it. Temperature differential between air masses an/or water masses are what make weather, true enough but that is where the discussion begins, not ends.

So you can drive the temperature of the ocean to 31c? (88F) Is this surface temperature? You do not enlighten us. But even if you did it would still be meaningless ans the the temperatures today run about 17c (62F) surface average and the average temp is about 3.9c. (39F) So you have taken a bunch of numbers that mean nothing except catastrophe if they were ever to be achieved and tried to spin it as something reassuring. Worst case scenario? I guess but that worst case is oblivion.



as much as Old Rocks wants to believe that storms and weather are worse today it is pretty much undeniable that weather in the cold Little Ice Age was much more severe and unpredictable than today, as is only reasonable because there was a greater temperature differential which caused more heat movement by wind,etc.

You know that global warming can easily cause another ice age. All you have to do is to stop the great ocean conveyor and PRESTO! Europe loses a lot of appeal. That will only take a couple of degrees of ocean warming.

Global warming can cause blizzards as the water saturated warm currents collide with the cooler northern currents. So that winter howler may well be the result to warming


I have no problem with accepting that CO2 will cause some additional heating as its concentration increases. theoretically it should cause ~1C per doubling. I think feedbacks will turn out to be negative so the actual rise will be less than that. and certainly not the out-of-control upward death spiral predicted by so many of the warmers.

Ya think? Good enough! This stuff is so complex that arguing in depth is impossible.

I notice you don't use a lot of links and that's fine. It's your opinion. It's my opinion. Without agreeing on a creditable source links mean nothing. I have the feeling w could not come to much of an agreement..

Are you really looking for common ground or is it tit for tat, my link or y ours?

no, I dont put up many links anymore. as you say, people simply discredit anything that they disagree with.

my quest is really just to find a warmer to explain why they believe in AGW first, and then perhaps why they think catastrophic AGW is possible or even likely. or a different tack could be the usefulness of curtailing fossil fuel use immediately even though the present state of technology precludes having reliable alternatives (since nuclear seems to be off the table). or even why warmers think deniers (which seems to include lukewarmers like myself) are not worthy of having reasonable and responsible opinions on this subject while ignoring the glaring faults and misdirections of many of the leading climate scientists.

I am a concepts type of guy. I like to think about the basics and how the slew of details that we are bombarded with dovetail into the general organization of how things work. for instance, I think that the tropics are where most of the energy from the Sun comes in therefore we should be putting most of our studying into that region and how it disappates the heat. the tropics are first order, the temperate regions are second order because they dependent on how the tropics pump away heat and not just the (reduced) amount of energy they get from the Sun. the polar regions are that much more dependent on energy pumped out of the tropics and through the temperates. some people make a big deal out of reduced albedo from less ice in polar regions. but that is in the end-of-season low angle incidence sunlight and is substantially offset by extra loss of heat by open ocean until the ice again insulates it.

anyways, I am interested in hearing ideas about GW, the science and politics, not just being told that I am ignorant for questioning it.

 

[onecut39]

Before ya go OneCut -- PLEASE tell me where I mentions "raging storms over cities with high CO2 concentrations" or anything you consider "so lacking in substance at it's very basic level that it is impossible to argue."

I AM concerned about my cred. And I wish to avoid the very things you accuse me of.. So I beg the favor from you..

Were you talking about this?



Because THERE i was sarcastically MOCKING the warmers on this board that used the Spring tornados that tore up city centers in 3 states as PROOF that costs of Global Warming were escalating. They truly believed that DOLLARS from those storms were totally due to CO2 and not the random chance that the storms found CITY CENTERS instead of rural farmland.

That is exactly what I was referring to. Post #7 under your handle. I saw nothing about sarcasm or attributing that statement to someone else. You should be clearer about those things. Sarcasm mistaken for sincerity can make you look like shit.

To me it was simply a stupid statement. In looking back I cannot see how I could have attributed that statement to anyone else. I do not read all the posts. So if I am to know who says what you better quote using the authors handle. I am not omniscient.

That being said I am sorry to have misinterpreted your remark even though I do not see how I could have done otherwise.

Thanks for that. Yeah -- I should have put the sarcasm tag up. Those concepts came from several posters running off hysterical about financial losses "due to Global Warming".. So it would have been confusing to quote them out of thread.

I appreciate the tip.. And I will be more careful.. But I'm PLEASED you called B.S. on those statements. So did I.

I don't use, or pay much attention to, the "imoticons". (little stickies) Maybe I should.

I am fairly new here. I am familiar with he styles of only a few posters. I think you will grant that there are a lot of nut cases who put out, in all sincerity, absolute BS.

I too tend to be a sarcastic poster. When it works it's great but there is a substantial chance of being taken seriously. Up till now I have just taken it as one of the breaks of the game. My creds are not terribly important to me. I try but every now and then I blow it.

So since I do not know a "sarcastic stickie" from a "great post" stickie. I will make some effort learn about that and pay more attention. A quick look here and I honestly don't know which of these stickers I would assign to denote sarcasm.

Live long and prosper.