Anthropogenic Global Warming 101

Correct me if Im wrong but I believe it was YOU that brought up the subject of hypocrisy:

"To paraphrase the Clintons: It's the hypocrisy, stupid."

happy jack wrote:

I may want to comment on that subject, BUT I'D REALLY, REALLY HATE TO GO OFF-TOPIC BY TALKING ABOUT IT IN THIS THREAD.

Oh please... It didn't take long for this thread to devolve into the usual Gore/Obama bashing. You're not fooling us into believing you feel obligated to remain on topic now...

Unwilling to play with the big boys, the "skeptics" had their second annual "It's a Conspiracy" pow-wow. The Heartland Institute hosted the 2009 International Conference on Climate Change, though don't let the name fool you. What was billed as a conference regarding "new research that contradicts claims that Earth’s moderate warming during the 20th Century primarily was man-made and has reached crisis proportions" was nothing more than the usual regurgitated nonsense from a who's who list of deniers and fake experts. You know you're off to a bad start if you give away more seats than there were paying attendees (and of the 800 registered, only 600 showed, compared to the CC's 2,500).

You only have to look at their scattershot approach at debunking prevailing scientific theory... It's the sun. it's not the sun. It's natural. It's the cosmic rays. It's the oceans. It's the PDO. It's volcanoes. There is warming. There isn't warming. We get the whole litany of recycled/debunked nonsense we all have seen in each and every Skeptic Op-ed Of The Week in an incoherent mess where half the presenters contradict the evidence of the other. What's really surprising (well, not to anyone who's been paying attention) is that this orgy of mental deficiency hasn't changed at all from the previous year. With such an obvious level of confusion on the current state of things, you'd think that over time and with further research you'd see at least some form of a cohesive argument forming instead of simply throwing everything at the wall to see what sticks. Instead you get exactly the opposite... The core "skeptic" argument hasn't moved beyond "Al Gore is a doodie head". They're simply united in their hatred for Gore, Mann, Hansen, and all things liberal.

You'll also notice that they aren't really contradicting global warming at all... No one is disputing the radiative properties of CO2. No one is disputing the fact that the planet is emitting less radiation than its absorbing from the sun. They either A) deny there's warming, wishing the excess energy out of existence, or B) they believe some sort mechanism will magically kick in preventing further warming, exactly as it didn't do so during similar climate shifts of the past.

'Course, legitimate science isn't their point or purpose anymore now than it was when they were trying to sell us "smoking isn't bad for you."

A sure sign that it's all nonsense is the fact that Al Gore hilariously remains the head of their manufactured conspiracy and not someone far more impressive or equipped. Al Gore. Not Hansen, or Mann, or any of the JASON's responsible for the report from the 70's, none of the actual scientists whose work Gore cites in his speeches... Al Gore. Bjorn Lomborg just recently attempted to slay this windmill... er... "giant" in a public "debate":

Quote :

The next question came from Bjorn Lomborg, a Danish statistician who has assembled a group of Nobel Prize winners who say many other global problems such as clean drinking water merit attention before futile efforts to deal with an exaggerated fear of global warming. "I don't mean to corner you, or maybe I do mean to corner you, but would you be willing to have a debate with me on that point?" asked Mr. Lomborg.

To which Gore rightfully replied:

Quote :

“I want to be polite to you,” Mr. Gore replied. He then proceeded to say Mr. Lomborg’s work had been discredited. "The scientific community has gone through this chapter and verse. We have long since passed the time when we should pretend this is a 'on the one hand, on the other hand' issue," he said. "It's not a matter of theory or conjecture, for goodness sake."

That was definitely the polite way of addressing Lomborg's existence as a complete hack. As Greenfyre notes:

Quote :

Can there be a more telling confession that you have nothing of substance to offer than challenging a public figure to debate matters of fact and science?

People who have facts, evidence and reasoned analysis simply lay it out for the world to see. Did Einstein offer to debate? Hell no! He just published his work for the scientific community to assess. Newton? No debates, just published.

There were debates about evolution, but these were at the insistence of the Deniers like Bishop Wilberforce. Darwin himself would have nothing to do with them.

His work spoke for truth. His attitude was that if they could fairly dispute it with actual evidence then they should do so.

In matters normally determined by fact and evidence, those who have nothing to offer but performance want to “debate.”

Since they’re not bound by logic, fact, or reason, cheap theatrics is all they have to win such a debate. Against an ill-informed and scientifically illiterate public, most of whom who don’t know how long it takes the Earth to revolve around the sun, cheap theatrics is all they need:

Quote :

It is very hard to win a staged debate with people who make stuff up. It is next to impossible to do so if they are skilled debaters. And you are guaranteed to lose if it isn’t a one-on-one debate. Why? The only way to out-debate somebody who makes stuff up is to call them out on it. And if they keep doing it, you have to keep calling them out. Even the most skilled debater has difficulty publicly questioning the honesty and integrity of opponent again and again (which is why you rarely see anyone attempt it). But you’ll never convince an audience that multiple ‘experts’ are making stuff up.

As David Mamet put it:

Quote :

In these fibbing competitions, the party actually wronged, the party with an actual practicable program, or possessing an actually beneficial product, is at a severe disadvantage; he is stuck with a position he cannot abandon, and, thus, cannot engage his talents for elaboration, distraction, drama and subterfuge.

The fact that the scientific community still agrees with Gore (or to put it correctly, he agrees with them. Gore remains nothing more than a messenger.) sadly remains irrelevant to Lomborg.

Great post,Heretic. I bet some of the skeptics of global warming also belong to this organization.
http://theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?PHPSESSID=560c55538e242dd918443528120e99c6&topic=11211.0:
"NASA and other world space agencies have pictures of the Earth from space, and in those pictures the Earth is clearly a globe; in this day and age, hasn't it been proven beyond any doubt that the Earth is round?"

A: NASA and the rest of the world's space agencies who claim to have been to space are involved in a Conspiracy to keep the shape of the Earth hidden. The pictures are faked using simple imaging software.

sparks wrote:

I bet some of the skeptics of global warming also belong to this organization.

Well, unsurprisingly some of the "skeptics" cited in such op-eds are creationists, which sums up their scientific prowess accurately. Roy Spencer, for example...

As I've stated before, each and every one of these retarded denialist arguments eventually breaks down into the mythical Conspiracy. So if you believe in one conspiracy, like "evilution" or the flat earth, what difference does another make, right?

I'll have a bit more in the next day or so. There's been a little bit of news on the global warming front, none of it good...

A little humor never hurts!

A risk analysis of AGW, the first of an entire series of vids. Check the rest out here.

Heretic wrote:

A risk analysis of AGW, the first of an entire series of vids. Check the rest out here.

This video should be shown in every high school science classroom in the US. I like the way he breaks down risk assessment. It's a shame we have so many politicians who can't grasp this idea. Several weeks ago, I saw Governor Daniels in Griffith. In response to an audience question about Nipsco increasing their rates, he went off into a tirade about how we will see utlity rates jump 100% if "cap and trade" is passed. Governor Daniels doesn't even grasp how expensive not doing anything about global warming will be. That's why Indiana doesn't even have an energy policy yet. It might interfere with the coal companies making a profit.

sparks wrote:

I like the way he breaks down risk assessment.

Me too. I really haven't seen anyone break it down like that before, let alone so easily understandable. Check out the other ones, too. There's a lot of good information in these.

BigWhiteGuy wrote:

And Daniels is right, utilities that depend on burning coal (like Indiana) will increase their rates by a huge amount.

Any suggestions for where I can find info on that? I haven't look into the cap and trade system yet, and am wondering how it holds up.

Here is an excellent article that discusses why Cap and Trade will be an effective way to cut carbon dioxide emissions. According to this article,Cap and Trade has already worked to lower acid-rain emissions.

wrote:

In 1989, environmental and market-oriented players from both sides of the aisle set up a cap and trade market for the emission of sulphur dioxide (SO2), a cause of acid rain. Remember acid rain? Greens groused that tradable permits were a license to pollute. Industry wailed about the cost. But within five years, SO2 was under control, down 45 percent. And the cost to utilities was only 0.6 percent of operating expense.

Cap and trade beats the taxing tradition of Washington's "make it so" command-and-control. It strips power from bureaucrats, because all of us tend to be smarter than any of us. It sets the right aggregate goals and incentives, makes a market in outcomes, regulates carefully, monitors diligently, and gets out of the way. And it's simpler than a carbon tax because it enlists private sector creativity in finding efficiencies rather than funding lawyers to make flamboyant end runs around the tax code.

sparks wrote:

Here is an excellent article that discusses why Cap and Trade will be an effective way to cut carbon dioxide emissions.

Thanks, though I was looking for info more on BigWhiteGuy's disaster scenario. I know the conclusions of an MIT study showed it to be relatively inexpensive as well, so I'm interested to see what, if any, counters there are to it. There's this article from NewScientist, though it warns that cap and trade simply won't be enough (as I'd feared), not that energy costs will spiral out of control as a result like Big suggests.

Heretic wrote:

sparks wrote:

Here is an excellent article that discusses why Cap and Trade will be an effective way to cut carbon dioxide emissions.

Thanks, though I was looking for info more on BigWhiteGuy's disaster scenario. I know the conclusions of an MIT study showed it to be relatively inexpensive as well, so I'm interested to see what, if any, counters there are to it. There's this article from NewScientist, though it warns that cap and trade simply won't be enough (as I'd feared), not that energy costs will spiral out of control as a result like Big suggests.

Cap and Trade is a politically expedient solution to solve global warming. IMO, the best way to avoid the problems of the carbon trading market is to not start one. Tax every ton of coal that is burned and use the revenue to invest into renewable energy. A tax like that will raise the fuinds needed to generate all of our power from renewable sources. I don't think generating 25% of our power with renewable energy by 2025 is going to be enough to stop catastrophic global warming.

Yale Environment 360 has an interesting write up on Cap and Trade vs. Carbon Tax, via Michael Tobis at Only In It For The Gold.

His assessment of the whole argument makes a lot of sense:

Quote :

If this is the best they can do, I find the cap-and-trade arguments very unconvincing both in themselves and by comparison with those advanced by carbon tax proponents.

This (from Fred Krupp of the EDF) seems to be the crux of their argument:

Quote :

From an environmental point of view, the advantage of an emissions cap over a carbon tax is clear: A cap puts a legal limit on pollution. A tax does not. Guessing what level of tax might drive the pollution cuts we need to avert runaway climate change is a risk we simply can’t afford to take. Only a cap with strong emissions reduction targets — and clear rules for meeting them — can guarantee that we achieve the environmental goal.

That is the sort of argument you get from people who are not telling you their real motivations. The time constant of the problem is thirty years; the time constant of a tax rate is what? The Fed adjusts the prime several times a year. It's an argument without foundation in reality, and yet all the proponents quoted here are flogging it very hard. As usual when people advance ideas that seem obviously wrong to me, I wonder how they are motivated to convince themselves of this.

Compare to, say, Jeffrey Sachs's argument:

Quote :

Cap-and-trade emissions trading seems to politicians to be the ideal solution. It is “market-based,” does not require the T-word (taxes), and can be worked out with special-interest groups in back-room negotiations. For the rest of us, however, cap-and-trade seems a funny way to do business.

A straightforward carbon tax has vast advantages. It can be levied upstream at a few dozen places — at the wellhead, the mine face, and the liquid natural gas depot — rather than at thousands or tens of thousands of businesses. A carbon tax covers the entire economy, including automobiles, household use, and other units impossible to reach in cap-and-trade. A carbon tax puts a clear price on carbon emissions for many years ahead, while a cap-and-trade system gives a highly fluctuating spot price. A carbon tax raises a clear amount of revenue, which can be used for targeted purposes (R&D for sustainable energy) or rebated to the public in one way or another, while the revenues from a cap-and-trade system are likely to be bargained away well before the first trade ever takes place.

As usual, Sachs makes sense to me. You?

Though sparks' article makes a lot of good points to, especially since such a system has worked already. A confusing yet interesting discussion...

I posted Elizabeth Kolbert's award winning Climate of Man in the opening post. She has a second article out, but this time about the current mass extinction our planet is undergoing, aptly called The Sixth Extinction.

Heretic wrote:

I posted Elizabeth Kolbert's award winning Climate of Man in the opening post. She has a second article out, but this time about the current mass extinction our planet is undergoing, aptly called The Sixth Extinction.

Sobering... but thanks for the link.

Thought that this might interest you... some news from our old friends at CEI. Apparently, they have found a couple of friendly faces at EPA’s National Center for Environmental Economics (NCEE) who want to throw out the IPCC studies and start all over again. They produced a report that looks like it was prepared by Imhoffes's staff. Predictably, the EPA proper threw the "study" back into the "researchers" faces. So now CEI is yelling conspiracy.

Here is a blog entry from Powerline on the "controversy"

http://www.powerlineblog.com/archives/2009/06/023915.php

And here are a couple of links, the first of which is CEI's response. The second is a link to the "study"

http://cei.org/cei_files/fm/active/0/Endangerment%20Comments%206-23-09.pdf

http://cei.org/cei_files/fm/active/0/DOC062509-004.pdf

Ha! Hadn't seen that yet. The CEI is always good for a laugh. RealClimate picked up the story, with the usual scathing analysis:

Quote :

They don’t even notice the contradictions in their own cites. For instance, they show a figure that demonstrates that galactic cosmic ray and solar trends are non-existent from 1957 on, and yet cheerfully quote Scafetta and West who claim that almost all of the recent trend is solar driven! They claim that climate sensitivity is very small while failing to realise that this implies that solar variability can’t have any effect either. They claim that GCM simulations produced trends over the twentieth century of 1.6 to 3.74ºC - which is simply (and bizarrely) wrong (though with all due respect, that one seems to come directly from Mr. Gregory). Even more curious, Carlin appears to be a big fan of geo-engineering, but how this squares with his apparent belief that we know nothing about what drives climate, is puzzling. A sine qua non of geo-engineering is that we need models to be able to predict what is likely to happen, and if you think they are all wrong, how could you have any faith that you could effectively manage a geo-engineering approach?

Finally, they end up with the oddest claim in the submission: That because human welfare has increased over the twentieth century at a time when CO2 was increasing, this somehow implies that no amount of CO2 increases can ever cause a danger to human society. This is just boneheadly stupid.

So in summary, what we have is a ragbag collection of un-peer reviewed web pages, an unhealthy dose of sunstroke, a dash of astrology and more cherries than you can poke a cocktail stick at. . .

If I were the authors, I’d suppress this myself, and then go for a long hike on the Appalachian Trail. . .

They're not even trying anymore (not like they were trying very hard in the first place). I don't know if they're simply taking advantage of the fact that conspiracies are all the rage with conservatives right now or they're simply so desperate to thwart any AGW legislation that they're throwing validity completely out the window. I'll have to check out the report and pull out some of the funnier bits. Thanks!

Oops... Left out the link to the RealClimate writeup: Bubkes

A "Tea Bagger" explains anthropogenic climate change. :rolfcry:

Dammit. I was without the intarweb for a few days while moving and they yanked the video... And I was looking forward to a good laugh.

Pictures are at the link..

Revealed: The Secret Evidence of Global Warming Bush Tried to Hide
Photos from US spy satellites declassified by the Obama White House provide the first graphic images of how the polar ice sheets are retreating in the summer. The effects on the world's weather, environments and wildlife could be devastating.

Graphic images that reveal the devastating impact of global warming in the Arctic have been released by the US military. The photographs, taken by spy satellites over the past decade, confirm that in recent years vast areas in high latitudes have lost their ice cover in summer months.

The pictures, kept secret by Washington during the presidency of George W Bush, were declassified by the White House last week. President Barack Obama is currently trying to galvanise Congress and the American public to take action to halt catastrophic climate change caused by rising levels of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere.

One particularly striking set of images - selected from the 1,000 photographs released - includes views of the Alaskan port of Barrow. One, taken in July 2006, shows sea ice still nestling close to the shore. A second image shows that by the following July the coastal waters were entirely ice-free.

Mirage wrote:

Still wondering here why the last few years have been colder when we are supposed to be in global warming.

The earth has been generally warming ever since the ice age. As it should. So in reality why is this a bad thing??

And isn't there a theory that goes something along the lines of when there are more sun spots we have warmer winters/ summers and when there are few sun spots we have colder winters/ summers?

My message earlier today may have not gone thru...my bro had to actually turn his furnace on this past June July...a couple of times/ Texted me yesterday, said he sent the bills to Al GORE. LOL, really!

UrRight wrote:

Mirage wrote:

Still wondering here why the last few years have been colder when we are supposed to be in global warming.

The earth has been generally warming ever since the ice age. As it should. So in reality why is this a bad thing??

And isn't there a theory that goes something along the lines of when there are more sun spots we have warmer winters/ summers and when there are few sun spots we have colder winters/ summers?

My message earlier today may have not gone thru...my bro had to actually turn his furnace on this past June July...a couple of times/ Texted me yesterday, said he sent the bills to Al GORE. LOL, really!

Wow! With scientific evidence like that debunking global waming,he should be up for the Nobel prize in no time