Anthropogenic Global Warming 101

Yeah. Well I think that I've got a pretty good sense of humor.  You obviously think that global warming is a big joke.  But I gotta tell ya, I really don't think there's anything funny about the prospect of many millions dying as a result of global warming.

However, I do find it somewhat amusing that you don't see the irony in jesting about "mass suicide" as a solution to a problem that will kill millions of people.

happy jack wrote:

If allegedly saving the earth is a higher priority than blah blah blah blah...

Already resorting to making things up?

I already wrote:

Clearly the issue isn't some useless hippy dippy “save the earth” bullshit, but rather the very real question of how we, as a country, civilization, or species, survive it (or at the very least how we prevent it from ruining the economy).

Do try and pay attention.  Perhaps you should ask one of your children to assist you with your reading comprehension, 'cause it's terrible.  

happy jack wrote:

Hopefully, that will get you back to square one, as far as this whole warming thing is concerned, and you can start fresh with new generations...

Christ, that one too?  Did you even read my post?  Did you stop taking your meds again?  That would be a better explanation about why you suddenly can't put together a coherent (albeit wrong) argument like you usually do.

I also already wrote:

[M]y immediate death would not in any measurable way impede AGW.  But more to your point, nor would the immediate death of everyone concerned about AGW.  If all that was left was individuals like you, so callously unconcerned about such a very real threat, what's left of human society would continue to grow and consume, and emissions would continue to increase.  Sure, there would be an immediate shortfall, but if such a loss of life doesn't collapse the system, it would quickly grow back to current levels and eventually surpass them.  Such is the very simple arithmetic of exponential growth.

There's no significant reduction in CO2 levels in your stupid plan; the atmosphere won't magically reset to preindustrial levels once we're gone.  The carbon in the air came from burning the biological matter from the ground.  The only thing that will drop levels is planting massive amounts of trees and waiting several decades, at least, for them to soak some of it up, which is something that I doubt will be a priority with all the "hippies" gone. Seriously, where do you come up with this useless drivel?  Did you scribble this together on a tear and bourbon soaked bar napkin at 0200 last night during your weekly attempt to drown the sorrows of your failed fatherhood?  The only thing that stops in your scenario is emissions, which means that levels will only stop increasing for a short time, if at all, as I've already explained above.

So your point is still demonstrably false and laughably inane.  Again, ask your kids to explain it to you, if they're not too ashamed to talk to you yet.  

Scorpion wrote:

But I gotta tell ya, I really don't think there's anything funny about the prospect of many millions dying as a result of global warming.

I can only imagine how giddy he must have been upon reading the news from Arizona, though I can see why such a fiscally-minded, pro-life conservative like him wouldn't care much. They're not fetuses.

Heretic wrote:

happy jack wrote:

If allegedly saving the earth is a higher priority than blah blah blah blah...

Already resorting to making things up?

I already wrote:

Clearly the issue isn't some useless hippy dippy “save the earth” bullshit, but rather the very real question of how we, as a country, civilization, or species, survive it (or at the very least how we prevent it from ruining the economy).

Do try and pay attention.  Perhaps you should ask one of your children to assist you with your reading comprehension, 'cause it's terrible.  

happy jack wrote:

Hopefully, that will get you back to square one, as far as this whole warming thing is concerned, and you can start fresh with new generations...

Christ, that one too?  Did you even read my post?  Did you stop taking your meds again?  That would be a better explanation about why you suddenly can't put together a coherent (albeit wrong) argument like you usually do.

I also already wrote:

[M]y immediate death would not in any measurable way impede AGW.  But more to your point, nor would the immediate death of everyone concerned about AGW.  If all that was left was individuals like you, so callously unconcerned about such a very real threat, what's left of human society would continue to grow and consume, and emissions would continue to increase.  Sure, there would be an immediate shortfall, but if such a loss of life doesn't collapse the system, it would quickly grow back to current levels and eventually surpass them.  Such is the very simple arithmetic of exponential growth.

There's no significant reduction in CO2 levels in your stupid plan; the atmosphere won't magically reset to preindustrial levels once we're gone.  The carbon in the air came from burning the biological matter from the ground.  The only thing that will drop levels is planting massive amounts of trees and waiting several decades, at least, for them to soak some of it up, which is something that I doubt will be a priority with all the "hippies" gone. Seriously, where do you come up with this useless drivel?  Did you scribble this together on a tear and bourbon soaked bar napkin at 0200 last night during your weekly attempt to drown the sorrows of your failed fatherhood?  The only thing that stops in your scenario is emissions, which means that levels will only stop increasing for a short time, if at all, as I've already explained above.

So your point is still demonstrably false and laughably inane.  Again, ask your kids to explain it to you, if they're not too ashamed to talk to you yet.  

Scorpion wrote:

But I gotta tell ya, I really don't think there's anything funny about the prospect of many millions dying as a result of global warming.

I can only imagine how giddy he must have been upon reading the news from Arizona, though I can see why such a fiscally-minded, pro-life conservative like him wouldn't care much. They're not fetuses.

One of your best posts ever!!

happy jack wrote:

And all this time I thought you had no sense of humor.

Looks like you're wrong about everything these days.

I wrote:

There's no significant reduction in CO2 levels in your stupid plan; the atmosphere won't magically reset to preindustrial levels once we're gone.  The carbon in the air came from burning the biological matter from the ground.  The only thing that will drop levels is planting massive amounts of trees and waiting several decades, at least, for them to soak some of it up, which is something that I doubt will be a priority with all the "hippies" gone.

Apparently I was way off. It's measured in centuries, not decades:

Quote :

What really governs the warming potential is how long the extra CO2 remains in the atmosphere. CO2 is essentially chemically inert in the atmosphere and is only removed by biological uptake and by dissolving into the ocean. Biological uptake (with the exception of fossil fuel formation) is carbon neutral: Every tree that grows will eventually die and decompose, thereby releasing CO2. (Yes, there are maybe some gains to be made from reforestation but they are probably minor compared to fossil fuel releases).

Dissolution of CO2 into the oceans is fast but the problem is that the top of the ocean is “getting full” and the bottleneck is thus the transfer of carbon from surface waters to the deep ocean. This transfer largely occurs by the slow ocean basin circulation and turn over (*3). This turnover takes 500-1000ish years. Therefore a time scale for CO2 warming potential out as far as 500 years is entirely reasonable.

So even if the entire human race was immediately Raptured to Heaven (no bodies, no decomp gases), CO2 levels would still be where they're at for several centuries, which means several more centuries of warming. Eliminating only those that are environmentally conscious would in no way shorten that timespan. So... yeah. No solution at all.

happy jack wrote:

As I said earlier, the earth's gonna do what the earth's gonna do.

Like killin' firefighters and school children.  But they ain't fetuses, so who gives a shit, right?

Anyway,

I already wrote:

And let's be clear, we're not talking mitigation of AGW itself, but its damage. That ship has loooong since passed, due in no small part to the corporate influence on the GOP. Now we're left dealing with the very real physical and economic effects of AGW, and I don't think that our elected officials can adequately and effective deal with a situation they don't believe exists. It's the same reasons flat earthers don't work at NASA and why a creationist shouldn't be working in the White House during the next viral outbreak or a biological terror attack.

How effective will a Commander in Chief be if they dismiss all the Pentagon reports declaring AGW the biggest threat to America? How do effectively allocate military resources in preparation for conflicts and destabilization in the areas of the world threatened by the predicted food and water shortages? How will Congress continue to fund life saving early warning systems for the increase in natural disasters if they don't believe it's happening? How many lives will that save? How will they allocate the necessary disaster relief funds at all? How can they implement an effective economic policy that ignores the increase in food and energy prices as a result of AGW? How effective will it be if it ignores the economic cost of AGW on an already strained infrastructure? How will we prepare and manage the expected water shortages? Loss of revenue and food in farming and fishing? Shifting hardiness zones?

This is the very real shit this country is going to have to deal with, is dealing with in a lot of places, despite the statements of the liars in the list above. I can't tell if you're not sure it's happening or if you're just convinced your ivory tower is built tall enough it won't matter.

Just like creationism, global warming "skepticism" still has profound implications beyond the physical changes to whether and climate. It still has everything to do with how we manage and adapt to them, how we keep the economy going in the process, and how we salvage what little future our (your) children have left.

happy jack wrote:

As I said earlier, the earth's gonna do what the earth's gonna do, no matter what I think about it, and no matter what I post on the topic.
So why so cranky?

Because...

I already wrote:

Just like creationism, global warming "skepticism" still has profound implications beyond the physical changes to weather and climate. It still has everything to do with how we manage and adapt to them, how we keep the economy going in the process, and how we salvage what little future our (your) children have left.

There's far more to the AGW issue than "things are gonna get shitty; try and hang on."  I'm not sure how I can dumb it down even further for you to understand.  Either ask one of your kids to translate it for you or offer a specific question about what you're so confused about and I'll try to explain.

And just how awful of a father are you that I am more cranky about their future than you are?

happy jack wrote:

You act as if what I post is somehow causing this alleged imminent disaster or interfering with its mitigation...

Then you're still not reading my posts.  Look back to the one on page 14 that starts with:

I wrote:

And let's be clear, we're not talking mitigation of AGW itself, but its damage. . . . Now we're left dealing with the very real physical and economic effects of AGW, and I don't think that our elected officials can adequately and effective deal with a situation they don't believe exists.

It continues, explained as clearly as I can without the use of crayons.

And you predictably never answered this:

I wrote:

So we should not hold our elected representatives accountable for the demonstrably false things they say?

Your comments thus far suggest that we shouldn't, especially on the topic of global warming.  Is that an accurate assessment or no?  As I said, their are very clear policy implications as a result of our elected officials continued skepticism that will be measured not only in dollars, but lives as well.  Yet despite being so adamantly pro-life, you seem more than willing to give them a pass.  Is that accurate? And if so, why is that?

Climate Scientist Prevails in First Round of Defamation Suit Against Conservative Bloggers

Quote :

A judge in the Superior Court of the District of Columbia is allowing a defamation suit that climate scientist Michael Mann filed against conservative commentators to move forward.

Last year, Mann sued the National Review and the Competitive Enterprise Institute over blog posts accusing him of lying about climate science. The NRO post called his research "fraudulent," and the CEI post accused him of "scientific misconduct." NRO also twice quoted another blogger who referred to Mann as "the Jerry Sandusky of climate science," comparing him to the Pennsylvania State University football coach convicted of child molestation last year.

Blue Marble readers have certainly heard Mann's story before. The Penn State climate scientist has been the subject of a relentless assault from climate skeptics over the years, largely tracing back to a chart of global temperature records that he coauthored that showed a sharp uptick in the industrial era.

The judge issued two decisions on July 19 allowing Mann's suits to go forward. The plaintiffs had each filed a motion to dismiss, arguing that the First Amendment protects their right to say that sort of stuff online. But the judge didn't agree. Here's a key part of the decision on the CEI suit (via Climate Science Watch) in which the judge asserts that the blogger was not just stating opinions, but that he was making factual claims about Mann's work that could be proven false:

   Defendants argue that the accusation that Plaintiff’s work is fraudulent may not necessarily be taken as based in fact because the writers for the publication are tasked with and posed to view work critically and interpose (brutally) honest commentary. In this case, however, the evidence before the Court, at this stage, demonstrates something more and different than honest or even brutally honest commentary.

The judge continued:

   Plaintiff has been investigated several times and his work has been found to be accurate. In fact, some of these investigations have been due to the accusations made by the CEI Defendants. It follows that if anyone should be aware of the accuracy (or findings that the work of Plaintiff is sound), it would be the CEI Defendants. Thus, it is fair to say that the CEI Defendants continue to criticize Plaintiff due to a reckless disregard for truth. Criticism of Plaintiff's work may be fair and he and his work may be put to the test. Where, however the CEI Defendants consistently claim that Plaintiff's work is inaccurate (despite being proven as accurate) then there is a strong probability that the CEI Defendants disregarded the falsity of their statements and did so with reckless disregard.

The full National Review ruling is here and the CEI ruling here. The parties are scheduled to be back in court on September 27

.

happy jack wrote:

By all means, hold them accountable. I am doing nothing to prevent you from doing that.

But you're not willing to help, though, either. 'Cause, like I said, you seem more than willing to give 'em a pass on this issue despite its far reaching implications, especially when compared to your usual posts about Democrats.

Artie60438 wrote:

Climate Scientist Prevails in First Round of Defamation Suit Against Conservative Bloggers

The CEI's completely boned.  It was demonstrable lies all the way through.  Mann needs to take 'em to the fucking cleaners. It was hard reading their arguments with a straight face. Glad the court isn't falling for it.

Oh, and that's the CEI...  the "They call it pollution; We call it life" morons from a few years back.  

I read a few other interesting articles on the suit.  I'll have to try and find 'em.  Not quite as easy as it used to be.  Some idiot at Google, one that should have been hit in the head with a shovel when he suggested it, decided to shut down Google Reader.  I haven't found an adequate replacement for Reader and my 200+ RSS feed list, and definitely one with a fucking search function.  

Heretic wrote:

I read a few other interesting articles on the suit.  I'll have to try and find 'em.  Not quite as easy as it used to be.  Some idiot at Google, one that should have been hit in the head with a shovel when he suggested it, decided to shut down Google Reader.  I haven't found an adequate replacement for Reader and my 200+ RSS feed list, and definitely one with a fucking search function.  

I feel your pain Heretic. Right now I'm using Feedly and am in the process of checking out  http://www.feedspot.com/ which seems promising and has a search function.

Others I've tried to no real avail although some were assembled on pretty short notice. It's possible over time that some might be upgraded and fine tuned into as better replacement to Google.
http://reader.aol.com/#home
http://digg.com/reader?i=1
https://reader.curata.com/#articles/all
http://www.redtreereader.com/
http://theoldreader.com/
https://newsvi.be/articles/unread
https://www.inoreader.com/
http://www.bloglovin.com/

What are you using for the time being?

Feedly, for now. They are working on a search function, at least, so hopefully there will be one soon.

Thanks for the list. I'll play around with some of the alternatives and see what I think.

The Drugster throws out some red meat for the useful idiots that tune into his insanity...
Limbaugh: "If You Believe In God, Then Intellectually You Cannot Believe In Manmade Global Warming"


Hints that might be a moron:
1) You believe an imaginary deity trumps science.

I'll never quite understand that argument.  Cancer, genetic diseases, birth defects...  There's a whole host of shit that goes horribly, horribly wrong thanks solely to the god of Abraham's "intelligent design", so there's absolutely no reason to believe he "designed" a planet that magically we couldn't fuck up, especially given the biblical/organized religion's emphasis on free will.

Yeah, it's a pure bullshit argument, physically and biblically, but I think it's meant to be.  The only idiots that fall for it are the ones who scrambled to the voting booth in 2004 to prevent the gays from getting married.

And since Fox News has gone into AGW denial overdrive due to the polar vortex:

Climate Change 'Very Evident,' So Let's Deal With It, World Panel Says

Quote :

The next report from the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, an international group of scientists and government policymakers, will focus on managing the risks of a warming planet, according to the report's co-chair.

"The impacts of climate change that have already occurred are very evident, they're widespread, they have consequences," Chris Field, a professor in the Department of Global Ecology at Stanford University and the co-chair of the IPCC working group drafting the report, said in a meeting with reporters Monday.

. . .

"I think if you look around the world at the damages that have been sustained in a wide range of climate related events, it's very clear we're not prepared for the kinds of event we're already seeing," said Field, referring to recent floods, droughts and other extreme weather. . . . Those changes pose a threat to ecosystems, human systems, infrastructure, the financial system, and security, Field said. But "in every case we could make smart decisions that put us in position to more successfully cope with risks that are present now, and put us in a better position to deal with them in the future," he said.

That is, we could make smart decisions in order to save lives, if the "pro-life" GOP would stop getting in the way.

Yeah. Well don't hold your breath.  

Cruz to CNN: Global warming not supported by data

Quote :

Climate change, as they have defined it, can never be disproved, because whether it gets hotter or whether it gets colder, whatever happens, they'll say, well, it's changing, so it proves our theory, Cruz said.

Quote :

I am always troubled by a theory that fits every perfect situation. You know, back in the '70s - I remember the '70s, we were told there was global cooling. And everyone was told global cooling was a really big problem. And then that faded. And then we were told by Al Gore and others there was global warming and that was going to be a big problem. And then it morphed. It wasn't global warming anymore, it became climate change. And the problem with climate change is there's never been a day in the history of the world in which the climate is not changing," said Cruz.

Cruz sounds like a fucking parody of a climate change denier...Colbert could have said this stuff.