Obama mocks skeptics of climate change as ‘flat-Earth society’

[TheGreatGatsby]

Our President and the EPA are stating a lie that Carbon Dioxide is a pollutant.
No it isn't.
Burning coal and oil do not produce more Carbon Dioxide.
Carbon Dioxide comes from living animals and humans breaths.
Plants breath in CO2 (Carbon Dioxide) and breath out oxygen.
All of this bologna about out fossil fuels is just that bologna.
What we need to do is plant more trees and plants that drink up CO2 and stop polluting the oceans that is killing off the algae.
I can't believe how many people are being duped by this false crap.

This is exactly my point. The climate lies detract us from dealing with serious environmental issues. Academia is too in bed with the politicians.

 

[flacaltenn]

Obama mocks skeptics of climate change as ‘flat-Earth society’

And appropriately so.

The issue has nothing to do with the validity of climate change, but the fact that our continued pumping of toxic chemicals and waste into the biosphere has got to stop – and ignoring that fact, as most on the right do, is indeed akin to believing the Earth is flat.

Then why LIE about CO2 being a pollutant to confound the conversation?? Most folks are on board with "toxic chemicals and waste". Why invoke GlobalWarming? Why was that his Global Warming speech? Because he WANTS to promulgate the convienient propaganda of CO2 as a pollutant.

He WANTS to divide us even more with his meanness, arrogance and vindictive method of governing.

 

[Oddball]

Obama mocks skeptics of climate change as ‘flat-Earth society’

And appropriately so.

The issue has nothing to do with the validity of climate change, but the fact that our continued pumping of toxic chemicals and waste into the biosphere has got to stop – and ignoring that fact, as most on the right do, is indeed akin to believing the Earth is flat.

The strawman is strong in this one.

 

[flacaltenn]

<snipped>

What is truly ironic is Obama makes a clarion call to end partisanship on this issue and that he is more than willing to to work with anyone and listen to any new ideas.


<snipped>

Yes, that is ironic, but not in the way you seem to mean.

One of his mouths calls for an end to partisanship while the other bashes those who are not allied with him. This happens again and again.

Sometimes he goes a full day before he shows he doesn't mean what he says about civility and cooperation. Sometimes he doesn't last a full sentence before backsliding.

We have people on this thread claiming that burning coal does not produce CO2. We have them claiming that nothing at all is changing, yet you can look at the Cascades and the Rocky Mountains and see fewer and smaller glaciers every decade. The Arctic Ice has declined to the point that people have circumnavigated the ice cap in a couple of months in small sailing yachts.

Yes, the people denying the obvious are 'Flat Earthers'. They are the people that can watch the ships sail out, and over the curve of the earth, and still claim that it is flat. The President named them right, and they should be mocked.

If you were living in the Cascades or the Rockies in the 1820s you'd have seen "smaller and fewer glaciers" as your life went on... You want to live in a climate where the glaciers are GROWING? You think that is the normal baseline for all of mankind's existance on this planet GoldiRocks?

 

[ScienceRocks]

You mean while Republicans were playing "Barack the Magic Negro" at campaign headquarters?

A. Played at campaign headquarters? That link says a Paul Shanklin parody CD was handed out by one person to some RNC members. It does not say the song was played at campaign headquarters.

B. Barack the Magic Negro was a meme introduced by a black liberal.

C. The parody on the black liberal's comments was written after Obama had already called half of his would-be constituency bitter clingers.

The question stands, do you fall in line and support someone who has slammed you? If you forgive them once, do you keep forgiving them when they do it over and over? If so, get help.

Try being honest for ONCE in your life. There is NOTHING Obama could do or could have done that would gain your support.

There's quite a few things that I support about Obama
-Pulling out of Iraq, Afghanistan
-More funding for science and technology

He doesn't build nearly enough infrastructure and his funding of science is low.

 

[TheGreatGatsby]

These guys are usually on the money. Listening to it now.

John & Ken 6PM (6/25) - KFI AM 640

 

[Old Rocks]

What reality might that be?

The reality of a rapidly warmng and changing climate. The reality of ocean acidification. The reality of sea level rise. The reality of how the GHGs work. The reality of worldwide glacial retreat, the reality of the loss of Arctic Sea Ice, and what that means to our climate.

Ok...
Now, time for you to post data that supports those claims.
Not a story. Not some opinion piece some guy wrote after talking to a so called scientist hired by an environmental advocacy group.
The only reality is the Earth's climate is cyclical.
Not one of you global warming, stop using fossil fuels today enviro nazis has ever addressed the historical records of extremely warm winters.....in the 13th and 14th centuries. Has ever so much as touched the end of the ice age.. or any other historical climate anomaly.
No. with you people it's your hand wringing over SUV's and lawn mowers.
Unless of course someone takes a swipe at you carting your little cupcakes to soccer practice 5 times a week. Or when people get pissed off because the President one day says we are killing the planet with hydrocarbons and the next he's traveling half way around the world in a fucking 747 which will burn several hundred thousand pounds of kerosene....Which is made from .....GASP!!!!! OIL..
Oh, have you looked around you once in a while and pointed out all of the things NOT made with some petroleum derivative?
This approach your side has, all or nothing, will never work.
Obama has this idea in his head that he can ram his energy agenda down our throats. Like we're just going to sit here and take it.
Now, get to work and find the science.

Ocean Acidification

Fundamental changes in seawater chemistry are occurring throughout the world's oceans. Since the beginning of the industrial revolution, the release of carbon dioxide (CO2) from humankind's industrial and agricultural activities has increased the amount of CO2 in the atmosphere. The ocean absorbs about a quarter of the CO2 we release into the atmosphere every year, so as atmospheric CO2 levels increase, so do the levels in the ocean. Initially, many scientists focused on the benefits of the ocean removing this greenhouse gas from the atmosphere. However, decades of ocean observations now show that there is also a downside — the CO2 absorbed by the ocean is changing the chemistry of the seawater, a process called OCEAN ACIDIFICATION.

Sea Level | Climate Change | US EPA

This graph shows cumulative changes in sea level for the world's oceans since 1880, based on a combination of long-term tide gauge measurements and recent satellite measurements. This figure shows average absolute sea level change, which refers to the height of the ocean surface, regardless of whether nearby land is rising or falling. Satellite data are based solely on measured sea level, while the long-term tide gauge data include a small correction factor because the size and shape of the oceans are changing slowly over time. (On average, the ocean floor has been gradually sinking since the last Ice Age peak, 20,000 years ago.) The shaded band shows the likely range of values, based on the number of measurements collected and the precision of the methods used.

SOTC: Glaciers

Because they are so sens itive to temperature fluctuations, glaciers provide clues about the effects of global warming (Oerlemans, J. 2001). The 1991 discovery of the 5,000 year-old "ice man" preserved in a glacier in the European Alps fascinated the world, yet the discovery meant that this glacier had reached a 5,000-year minimum. With few exceptions, glaciers around the world have retreated at unprecedented rates over the last century. Some ice caps, glaciers, and even an ice shelf have disappeared altogether. Many more are retreating so rapidly that they may vanish within decades. Some scientists attribute this retreat to the Industrial Revolution; burning fossil fuels releases greenhouse gases into the atmosphere and affects our environment in ways we did not understand before.

 

[Old Rocks]

For present data and history of Arctic Ice;

Polar Sea Ice Cap and Snow - Cryosphere Today

From 2007, the present estimate is over 100 cubic meters;

ftp://ftp.csr.utexas.edu/pub/ggfc/papers/EPSL_9011.pdf

Abstract
Using recent improved time-variable gravity solutions from the Gravity Recovery and Climate Experiment (GRACE), we estimate rates of Antarctic ice mass change for the period January 2003 through September 2006. Combined improvements in data and filtering techniques allow observation of ice loss in the northern Antarctic Peninsula (AP) and along the coast of the west and central Amundsen Sea Embayment (ASE) in West Antarctica. There is also evidence of ice loss along the coast near the Stancomb&#8211;Wills (STA) and Jutulstraumen (JUT) glaciers in Queen Maud Land. Apparent rates are adjusted for influences of limited spatial resolution, filtering, and estimated postglacial rebound (PGR) to obtain ice loss rates for the northern AP, coastal ASE, and STA/ JUT of &#8722;28.8±7.9, &#8722;81±17, and &#8722;16.7±9.7 km3/yr, respectively. This is the first estimate for the northern AP from satellite
gravity data. The ASE estimate (&#8722;81±17 km3/yr) is consistent with a previous value (&#8722;77±14 km3/yr) using an earlier GRACE data release. These results indicate significant improvement in GRACE data quality, increased spatial resolution, and applicability of GRACE data to a wider class of problems than previously possible.
© 2007 Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.

 

[Old Rocks]

Now if you like, I can supply literally thousands of scientific papers showing the effects of a warming earth.

 

[skookerasbil]

This has been the mantra for 20 years now. I say we let these kooks have their way. We'll stop transporting food, no no. We'll stop agriculture altogether. We'll stop drilling for oil. We'll stop driving. We'll just shut the whole fucking thing down unti the whiners and retards die off from lack of any survioval skills adn then once people realize how fucking asinine their demand was, we'll pick iit back up.

Or not. Just walk around barefoot and graze in fields on grass.

These kooks are not going to let it go until they have to live with their demand. So give it to them.

LMAO.......

It is indeed funny to think of a world without things like fireplaces, smartphones, trains, trucks and cable TV......the utopian world of the OCD climate crusaders, but its not even debatable for a single nanosecond: natural gas, oil and coal will be our primary source of energy for decades and decades to come and renewables 10% or less. In the meantime, this executive order bs via EPA fiat is a jobs bomb lob and or course, our electricity costs are going to soar.......doesn't do shit about global warming, but the k00ks get soothed because, well, they need that.........the New United States. Fuckking cool........

Climate change "policy" is nothing more than mandatory k00k repayment that happens all the time after elections.........jackass climate crusader nutters fall for the ruse every time. Dollar to a 1,000 stale donuts that 20 years from now, you'll still be seeing big bomb freight trains pulling over 100 cars roaming all over the countryside pulling millions of tons of COAL!!! And the k00ks will still be forking over big $$ at election time.......and meanwhile, the green energy swindlers keep getting stupid rich


Whos not winning????

 

[Bfgrn]

I'm not part of that circle-jerk bud. Talk to someone who cares about your current political cartels.. I vote Libertarian and my views don't change election to election.

Now what about that FRAGILE Earth theory that you support? You didn't reply to my last post except to score some phantom political points on some imaginary target..

Sure, provide a link to the theory you claim I support.Just not some polluter funded 'think tank'.

I am skeptical about what you believe. You have already vehemently defended polluters without a PEEP about defending every human's right to breath clean air. So your libertarianism is a defiled or polluted...LOL

Not defending polluters. I'm denying that CO2 is a pollutant. The natural land/ocean exchange of this "pollutant" is over 700GTon/yr.. Man contributes 30GTon/yr. (and of that amount about 30% is misattributed to man because of domestic livestock, but that's another story). Any component naturally cycling to the tune of 25 times MORE than man emits --- is simply not a pollutant.

I watch in awe as the Weather Channel purposely and masterfully conflates "air pollution" with CO2 and AGWarming. You should proud of this landmark deception..

Sorry you rejected your own theory with your past comment about the Earth not being fragile. It IS hard to buy the whole AGW theory when you understand that it DEPENDS on a fragile climate. NOT SORRY that you didn't know that the temp rise from CO2 forcing ALONE is less than 1degC for the next doubling of CO2 (from about 250ppm to 500ppm). And that the NEXT doubling of CO2 will cause EVEN LESS of a temp change..

This is BASIC science of AGW and warmers and skeptics ALIKE ACCEPT THIS BASELINE fact. So I'll leave it to you -- to educate yourself.. But here's a couple hints to get ya started.

From the mouth of the Prophet..

CO2 would directly cause about 1.2ºC of warming if it doubled, without any feedbacks Hansen 1984

The 10 Most-Respected Global Warming Skeptics - Business Insider

Will Happer is another, highly-respected physicist out of Princeton who compares the anti-CO2 crowd to the prohibitionists prior to the passage of the 18th Amendment. While he does acknowledge long-term warming, he thinks the influence of CO2 is vastly overstated, and that the benefits of a modest reduction in it will be negligible.

In testimony to Congress, he used the following analogy what he means:

The earth's climate really is strongly affected by the greenhouse effect, although the physics is not the same as that which makes real, glassed-in greenhouses work. Without greenhouse warming, the earth would be much too cold to sustain its current abundance of life. However, at least 90% of greenhouse warming is due to water vapor and clouds. Carbon dioxide is a bit player. There is little argument in the scientific community that a direct effect of doubling the CO2 concentration will be a small increase of the earth's temperature -- on the order of one degree. Additional increments of CO2 will cause relatively less direct warming because we already have so much CO2 in the atmosphere that it has blocked most of the infrared radiation that it can.

Don't like that basic fact from those sources ?? Go digging in the IPCC 2007 report. It's part of WG-1 AR4.. Basic AGREED upon tenet of GW theory.. I buy it. Hansen buys it. It's just that the propaganda for public consumption which you've feasted on leads you to believe that CO2 ALONE is responsible for those hysterical claims of a 6degC rise over this century.

WOW. First of all I clearly stated previously that the 'Earth' is not fragile at all. It can survive 1000 degrees of warming. The 'Earth' isn't going anywhere. It is human, fish and foul that requires a fairly narrow climate to survive. And you DID vehemently defend polluters without a PEEP about defending every human's right to breath clean air when we discussed tobacco smoke.

It seems you are not listening to anything I say, instead you are deciding what I believe and talking past me.

What I believe? This description of a consensus will suffice:

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
National and international science academies and scientific societies have assessed current scientific opinion on climate change. These assessments are generally consistent with the conclusions of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), summarized below:

• Warming of the climate system is unequivocal, as evidenced by increases in global average air and ocean temperatures, the widespread melting of snow and ice, and rising global average sea level.

• Most of the global warming since the mid-20th century is very likely due to human activities.

• "Benefits and costs of climate change for [human] society will vary widely by location and scale. Some of the effects in temperate and polar regions will be positive and others elsewhere will be negative. Overall, net effects are more likely to be strongly negative with larger or more rapid warming."

• "[...] the range of published evidence indicates that the net damage costs of climate change are likely to be significant and to increase over time"

• "The resilience of many ecosystems is likely to be exceeded this century by an unprecedented combination of climate change, associated disturbances (e.g. flooding, drought, wildfire, insects, ocean acidification) and other global change drivers (e.g. land-use change, pollution, fragmentation of natural systems, over-exploitation of resources)"

No scientific body of national or international standing maintains a formal opinion dissenting from any of these main points; the last was the American Association of Petroleum Geologists, which in 2007 updated its 1999 statement rejecting the likelihood of human influence on recent climate with its current non-committal position. Some other organizations, primarily those focusing on geology, also hold non-committal positions.

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

I asked you to "provide a link to the theory you claim I support. Just not some polluter funded 'think tank'."

And what do I get...a LITANY of polluter funded 'think tanks' and 'scientists' who have never published articles in peer-reviewed journals on the subject of climate change.

Let's take a look at a few, OK?

Dr. William Happer - Chairman of the Board of Directors - George C. Marshall Institute

The George C. Marshall Institute (GMI) is a "non-profit" organization funded by the profits from oil and gas interests and right-wing funders (listed later). It has received substantial funding from Exxon's Exxon Education Foundation and is a recipient of funding from the oil industry as well as the Koch brothers.

Funding

In its 2006 annual return, the Institute states that its total revenue for the year was $969,923 with total expenses of $877,156. Of its program areas, it reported that $308,819 was on global warming work, $43,000 on general energy policy discussion, $148,729 on bio-terrorism, and $110,841 on missile defense system.

The Institute received $ 7,178,803 in 105 separate grants from only five foundations between 1985 and 2006:

Earhart Foundation
John M. Olin Foundation, Inc.
Lynde and Harry Bradley Foundation
Scaife Foundations - Sarah Mellon Scaife and Carthage Foundation's

The George C. Marshall Institute no longer shows an overview of recent funders, but in 2000 they listed:

Richard Lounsbery Foundation
Sarah Scaife Foundation
Lynde and Harry Bradley Foundation
American Standard Companies
Exxon Education Foundation
H.B. Earhart Foundation
John M. Olin Foundation
Gelman Education Foundation (Charles Gelman)
Fieldstead Foundation
Historical Research Foundation
Charles and Jean Brunie Foundation

Petro-Dollars

Greenpeace's ExxonSecrets lists the George Marshall Institute as having received $715,000 from ExxonMobil since 1998.

This includes:

$50,000 from ExxonMobil Foundation in 1999 for "support for science and public policy education programs;
$50,000 from ExxonMobil Foundation in 2000 for general support;
$60,000 from ExxonMobil Foundation in 2001 for "climate change work";
$80,000 from ExxonMobil Foundation in 2001 for "'global climate change program" in 2002; plus a further $10,000 for the Awards Dinner;
$95,000 from ExxonMobil Foundation in 2003 for Global Climate Change Program
$145,000 ExxonMobil Foundation in 2004 for "climate change" and a further $25,000 from Exxon Corporation for "Awards Dinner -- Climate Change Activities";
$90,000 from ExxonMobil Foundation for, according to the Institute's IRS return, "climate change" and a further $25,000 from ExxonMobil Corporate Giving for "Awards Dinner and General Operating Support"; and
$85,000 from ExxonMobil Corporate Giving for "General support and annual dinner" in 2006.

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Bjorn Lomborg

Bjorn Lomborg is associate professor of statistics in the Department of Political Science at the University of Aarhus, Denmark; his books have been "hugely influential in providing cover to politicians, climate-change deniers, and corporations that don't want any part of controls on greenhouse emissions".

Lomborg is not a climate scientist or economist and has published little or no peer-reviewed research on environmental or climate policy. His extensive and extensively documented, errors and misrepresentations, which are aimed at a lay audience, "follow a general pattern" of minimizing the need to cut carbon emissions.

Respected Global Warming Skeptic? REALLY??

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Do me a favor. Name ONE power plant, factory, or polluter that emits ONLY CO2?

My belief is we address pollution. Because if we address pollution, it will take care of 99% of the goals of addressing AGW.

 

[Old Rocks]

I'm not part of that circle-jerk bud. Talk to someone who cares about your current political cartels.. I vote Libertarian and my views don't change election to election.

Now what about that FRAGILE Earth theory that you support? You didn't reply to my last post except to score some phantom political points on some imaginary target..

Sure, provide a link to the theory you claim I support.Just not some polluter funded 'think tank'.

I am skeptical about what you believe. You have already vehemently defended polluters without a PEEP about defending every human's right to breath clean air. So your libertarianism is a defiled or polluted...LOL

Not defending polluters. I'm denying that CO2 is a pollutant. The natural land/ocean exchange of this "pollutant" is over 700GTon/yr.. Man contributes 30GTon/yr. (and of that amount about 30% is misattributed to man because of domestic livestock, but that's another story). Any component naturally cycling to the tune of 25 times MORE than man emits --- is simply not a pollutant.

I watch in awe as the Weather Channel purposely and masterfully conflates "air pollution" with CO2 and AGWarming. You should proud of this landmark deception..

Sorry you rejected your own theory with your past comment about the Earth not being fragile. It IS hard to buy the whole AGW theory when you understand that it DEPENDS on a fragile climate. NOT SORRY that you didn't know that the temp rise from CO2 forcing ALONE is less than 1degC for the next doubling of CO2 (from about 250ppm to 500ppm). And that the NEXT doubling of CO2 will cause EVEN LESS of a temp change..

This is BASIC science of AGW and warmers and skeptics ALIKE ACCEPT THIS BASELINE fact. So I'll leave it to you -- to educate yourself.. But here's a couple hints to get ya started.

From the mouth of the Prophet..

CO2 would directly cause about 1.2ºC of warming if it doubled, without any feedbacks Hansen 1984

The 10 Most-Respected Global Warming Skeptics - Business Insider

Will Happer is another, highly-respected physicist out of Princeton who compares the anti-CO2 crowd to the prohibitionists prior to the passage of the 18th Amendment. While he does acknowledge long-term warming, he thinks the influence of CO2 is vastly overstated, and that the benefits of a modest reduction in it will be negligible.

In testimony to Congress, he used the following analogy what he means:

The earth's climate really is strongly affected by the greenhouse effect, although the physics is not the same as that which makes real, glassed-in greenhouses work. Without greenhouse warming, the earth would be much too cold to sustain its current abundance of life. However, at least 90% of greenhouse warming is due to water vapor and clouds. Carbon dioxide is a bit player. There is little argument in the scientific community that a direct effect of doubling the CO2 concentration will be a small increase of the earth's temperature -- on the order of one degree. Additional increments of CO2 will cause relatively less direct warming because we already have so much CO2 in the atmosphere that it has blocked most of the infrared radiation that it can.

Don't like that basic fact from those sources ?? Go digging in the IPCC 2007 report. It's part of WG-1 AR4.. Basic AGREED upon tenet of GW theory.. I buy it. Hansen buys it. It's just that the propaganda for public consumption which you've feasted on leads you to believe that CO2 ALONE is responsible for those hysterical claims of a 6degC rise over this century.

You are full of shit, as it your source.

Lessons from Past Predictions: Hansen 1981

Climate Sensitivity

Hansen et al. discussed the range of climate sensitivity (the amount of global surface warming that will result in response to doubled atmospheric CO2 concentrations, including feedbacks):


"The most sophisticated models suggest a mean warming of 2° to 3.5°C for doubling of the CO2 concentration from 300 to 600 ppm"

This is quite similar to the likely range of climate sensitivity based on current research, of 2 to 4.5°C for doubled CO2. Hansen et al. took the most basic aspects of the climate model and found that a doubling of CO2 alone would lead to 1.2°C global surface warming (a result which still holds true today).


"Model 1 has fixed absolute humidity, a fixed lapse rate of 6.5°C km-1 in the convective region, fixed cloud altitude, and no snow/ice albedo feedback or vegetation albedo feedback. The increase of equilibrium surface temperature for doubled atmospheric CO2 is &#8710;Ts ~1.2°C. This case is of special interest because it is the purely radiative-convective result, with no feedback effects."

They then added more complexity to the model to determine the feedbacks of various effects in response to that CO2-caused warming.


"Model 2 has fixed relative humidity, but is otherwise the same as model 1. The resulting &#8710;T, for doubled CO2 is ~1.9°C. Thus the increasing water vapor with higher temperature provides a feedback factor of ~1.6."

"Model 3 has a moist adiabatic lapse rate in the convective region rather than a fixed lapse rate. This causes the equilibrium surface temperature to be less sensitive to radiative perturbations, and &#8710;T ~1.4°C for doubled CO2."

"Model 4 has the clouds at fixed temperature levels, and thus they move to a higher altitude as the temperature increases. This yields &#8710;T ~2.8°C for doubled CO2, compared to 1.9°C for fixed cloud altitude. The sensitivity increases because the outgoing thermal radiation from cloudy regions is defined by the fixed cloud temperature, requiring greater adjustment by the ground and lower atmosphere for outgoing radiation to balance absorbed solar radiation."

"Models 5 and 6 illustrate snow/ice and vegetation albedo feedbacks. Both feedbacks increase model sensitivity, since increased temperature decreases ground albedo and increases absorption of solar radiation."

Overall Hansen et al. used a one-dimensional model with a 2.8°C climate sensitivity in this study. In today's climate models, water vapor is generally a stronger feedback than modeled by Hansen et al. (i.e. see Dessler et al. 2008) and clouds generally weaker (i.e. see Dessler 2010), but their overall model sensitivity was very close to today's best estimate of 3°C for doubled CO2.

 

[skookerasbil]

Oh....and the science will never matter by the way because shit comes with a price tag and price tags effect elections.

Nobody seems to get this.......fossil fuels aren't going anywhere and neither are renewables. These people have keeping everybody just happy enough down to a science. Ideology victory isn't happening s0ns......like ever.

 

[Old Rocks]

Another couple of inchs of rain in the northern tier in 2011, and the price tag would have seemed minor.

 

[TakeAStepBack]

Sure, provide a link to the theory you claim I support.Just not some polluter funded 'think tank'.

I am skeptical about what you believe. You have already vehemently defended polluters without a PEEP about defending every human's right to breath clean air. So your libertarianism is a defiled or polluted...LOL

Not defending polluters. I'm denying that CO2 is a pollutant. The natural land/ocean exchange of this "pollutant" is over 700GTon/yr.. Man contributes 30GTon/yr. (and of that amount about 30% is misattributed to man because of domestic livestock, but that's another story). Any component naturally cycling to the tune of 25 times MORE than man emits --- is simply not a pollutant.

I watch in awe as the Weather Channel purposely and masterfully conflates "air pollution" with CO2 and AGWarming. You should proud of this landmark deception..

Sorry you rejected your own theory with your past comment about the Earth not being fragile. It IS hard to buy the whole AGW theory when you understand that it DEPENDS on a fragile climate. NOT SORRY that you didn't know that the temp rise from CO2 forcing ALONE is less than 1degC for the next doubling of CO2 (from about 250ppm to 500ppm). And that the NEXT doubling of CO2 will cause EVEN LESS of a temp change..

This is BASIC science of AGW and warmers and skeptics ALIKE ACCEPT THIS BASELINE fact. So I'll leave it to you -- to educate yourself.. But here's a couple hints to get ya started.

From the mouth of the Prophet..

The 10 Most-Respected Global Warming Skeptics - Business Insider

Will Happer is another, highly-respected physicist out of Princeton who compares the anti-CO2 crowd to the prohibitionists prior to the passage of the 18th Amendment. While he does acknowledge long-term warming, he thinks the influence of CO2 is vastly overstated, and that the benefits of a modest reduction in it will be negligible.

In testimony to Congress, he used the following analogy what he means:

The earth's climate really is strongly affected by the greenhouse effect, although the physics is not the same as that which makes real, glassed-in greenhouses work. Without greenhouse warming, the earth would be much too cold to sustain its current abundance of life. However, at least 90% of greenhouse warming is due to water vapor and clouds. Carbon dioxide is a bit player. There is little argument in the scientific community that a direct effect of doubling the CO2 concentration will be a small increase of the earth's temperature -- on the order of one degree. Additional increments of CO2 will cause relatively less direct warming because we already have so much CO2 in the atmosphere that it has blocked most of the infrared radiation that it can.

Don't like that basic fact from those sources ?? Go digging in the IPCC 2007 report. It's part of WG-1 AR4.. Basic AGREED upon tenet of GW theory.. I buy it. Hansen buys it. It's just that the propaganda for public consumption which you've feasted on leads you to believe that CO2 ALONE is responsible for those hysterical claims of a 6degC rise over this century.

You are full of shit, as it your source.

Lessons from Past Predictions: Hansen 1981

Climate Sensitivity

Hansen et al. discussed the range of climate sensitivity (the amount of global surface warming that will result in response to doubled atmospheric CO2 concentrations, including feedbacks):


"The most sophisticated models suggest a mean warming of 2° to 3.5°C for doubling of the CO2 concentration from 300 to 600 ppm"

This is quite similar to the likely range of climate sensitivity based on current research, of 2 to 4.5°C for doubled CO2. Hansen et al. took the most basic aspects of the climate model and found that a doubling of CO2 alone would lead to 1.2°C global surface warming (a result which still holds true today).


"Model 1 has fixed absolute humidity, a fixed lapse rate of 6.5°C km-1 in the convective region, fixed cloud altitude, and no snow/ice albedo feedback or vegetation albedo feedback. The increase of equilibrium surface temperature for doubled atmospheric CO2 is &#8710;Ts ~1.2°C. This case is of special interest because it is the purely radiative-convective result, with no feedback effects."

They then added more complexity to the model to determine the feedbacks of various effects in response to that CO2-caused warming.


"Model 2 has fixed relative humidity, but is otherwise the same as model 1. The resulting &#8710;T, for doubled CO2 is ~1.9°C. Thus the increasing water vapor with higher temperature provides a feedback factor of ~1.6."

"Model 3 has a moist adiabatic lapse rate in the convective region rather than a fixed lapse rate. This causes the equilibrium surface temperature to be less sensitive to radiative perturbations, and &#8710;T ~1.4°C for doubled CO2."

"Model 4 has the clouds at fixed temperature levels, and thus they move to a higher altitude as the temperature increases. This yields &#8710;T ~2.8°C for doubled CO2, compared to 1.9°C for fixed cloud altitude. The sensitivity increases because the outgoing thermal radiation from cloudy regions is defined by the fixed cloud temperature, requiring greater adjustment by the ground and lower atmosphere for outgoing radiation to balance absorbed solar radiation."

"Models 5 and 6 illustrate snow/ice and vegetation albedo feedbacks. Both feedbacks increase model sensitivity, since increased temperature decreases ground albedo and increases absorption of solar radiation."

Overall Hansen et al. used a one-dimensional model with a 2.8°C climate sensitivity in this study. In today's climate models, water vapor is generally a stronger feedback than modeled by Hansen et al. (i.e. see Dessler et al. 2008) and clouds generally weaker (i.e. see Dessler 2010), but their overall model sensitivity was very close to today's best estimate of 3°C for doubled CO2.

Model based evidence. That's what Box of Rocks believes in. Meanwhile, here on planet earth, observation has deviated from the "most sophisticated of models". So what do modelers do? Well, they turn to the models to explain away why they are fucking dead wrong. If it weren't so sad, it would be absolutely side splittingly funny.

 

[Old Rocks]

All ten of the hottest years on record have occurred since 1997. That is right in line with the warming. The warming does not occur in a nice linear line, but is imposed on the natural variations. One can readily see that here;

UAH Global Temperature Update for May 2013: +0.07 deg. C « Roy Spencer, PhD

 

[skookerasbil]

The models have ZERO value as a predictor. Zero........

The ?ensemble? of models is completely meaningless, statistically | Watts Up With That?


This whole "models" thing is the ultimate ruse from the climate people.....and they know it too because these people are all very intelligent. The models SUCK in terms of reliability.....but they want people to think, "Oh.....shit.....its a computer making this prediction!!". We got a lot of stupid people out there s0ns!!!

 

[TakeAStepBack]

 

[Cuyo]

There you have it...Lolberals are your mommy and anyone who disagrees is a child.

Yes, if the entire world except some American Republicans are "lolberals," then indeed climate deniers are the errant children of the world stage, and (ahem) "Lolberals" are their mommies.

Couldn't have said it better myself, though I would have used different metaphors.

No, the metaphor is just right.

It perfectly encapsulates the haughty hubris of the modern do-gooder lolberal.

You all are the mommies and anyone who disagrees is a little child.

Fuck off.

Oh DO tell me more about hubris, odd-dude!

 

[skookerasbil]

By the way, although, the reality is it is not really relevant to the discussion.........theres been no significant warming for almost 18 years.

But don't take my word for it......... that's what scientists at Duke's physics dept are saying........

No significant warming for 17 years 4 months | Watts Up With That?