Jim Hansen on the standstill

[MichaelJoeWilliamson]

.....2012 as having practically the same temperature as 2011, significantly lower than the maximum reached in 2010. These short-term global fluctuations are associated principally with natural oscillations of tropical Pacific sea surface temperatures summarized in the Nino index in the lower part of the figure. 2012 is nominally the 9th warmest year, but it is indistinguishable in rank with several other years, as shown by the error estimate for comparing nearby years. Note that the 10 warmest years in the record all occurred since 1998.

I am sure everyone knows who Hansen is.

So much for the claim that 2012 being the warmest year on record;

The standstill (http://judithcurry.com/2013/01/16/hansen-on-the-standstill/#more-10934)

[mdgator05]

I am sure everyone knows who Hansen is.

So much for the claim that 2012 being the warmest year on record;

The standstill (http://judithcurry.com/2013/01/16/hansen-on-the-standstill/#more-10934)

It was the warmest year in the United States. He is discussing an early measure of global temperatures, which are the 9th highest ever, ensuring that the top 10 are all in the past 15 years again. He also said:

The continuing planetary imbalance and the rapid increase of CO2 emissions from fossil fuel assure that global warming will continue on decadal time scales. Moreover, our interpretation of the larger role of unforced variability in temperature change of the past decade suggests that global temperature will rise significantly in the next few years as the tropics moves inevitably to the next El Nino phase.

[mdgator05]

A relevant portion of Hansen's paper that explains why we are likely to see events such as the hottest year in the United States during the overall 9th hottest year globally:

The high current global temperature is sufficient to have a noticeable effect on the frequency of occurrence of extreme warm anomalies. The left-most "bell curve" in Fig. 3 is the frequency distribution of summer-average temperature anomalies during the base period 1951-1980, in units of the local standard deviation1 of seasonal-average temperature.

The observational data show that the frequency of unusually warm anomalies has been increasing decade by decade over the past three decades. Perhaps the most important change is the emergence of extremely hot outliers, defined as anomalies exceeding 3 standard deviations. Such extreme summer heat anomalies occurred in 2010 over a large region in Eastern Europe including Moscow, in 2011 in Oklahoma, Texas and Northern Mexico, and in 2012 in the United States in part of the central Rockies and Great Plains.

The location of these extreme anomalies is dependent upon variable meteorological patterns, but the decade-by-decade movement of the bell curve to the right, and the emergence of an increased number of extreme warm anomalies, is an expression of increasing global warming. Some seasons continue to be unusually cool even by the standard of average 1951-1980 climate, but the "climate dice" are now sufficiently loaded that an observant person should notice that unusually warm seasons are occurring much more frequently than they did a few decades earlier.

[MichaelJoeWilliamson]

It was the warmest year in the United States. :

oH. So then we are talking about weather, not climate.

Carry on then.

[mdgator05]

oH. So then we are talking about weather, not climate.

Carry on then.

Again, it is apparent you didn't read Hansen's paper.

[GatorRade]

I think I am failing to understand the point of the thread here. Was the goal simply to point out that 2012 wasn't the warmest year on record?

[wgbgator]

2012 was the warmest year on record in the US, but not globally (that was 2010).

[The_Ultimate_Gator]

I am sure everyone knows who Hansen is.

The Muppets guy? I thought he was dead.

[MichaelJoeWilliamson]

I think I am failing to understand the point of the thread here. Was the goal simply to point out that 2012 wasn't the warmest year on record?

No. Actually it was a continuation of the thread where we talked about the recent evidence that the warming trend is abating and has been for quite some time. At least as long as the warming trend so many people are so hysterical over.

[GatorRade]

No. Actually it was a continuation of the thread where we talked about the recent evidence that the warming trend is abating and has been for quite some time. At least as long as the warming trend so many people are so hysterical over.

I see. You are pushing the hypothesis that the warming has stopped. Does this mean that you disagree that decadal cycles, like ENSO and NAO, can cause shorter term global temperature variations?

[wygator]

Here is the US decadal average temperatures based on the raw, unadjusted GHCN temperature data:

http://stevengoddard.files.wordpress.com/2013/01/screenhunter_157-jan-15-11-26.jpg?w=640&h=463

Here is NOAA's acknowledged adjustments to the temperature record through 2000.

http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/img/climate/research/ushcn/ts.ushcn_anom25_diffs_urb-raw_pg.gif

http://stevengoddard.wordpress.com/2013/01/15/1930s-was-by-far-the-hottest-decade-in-the-us/

http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/oa/climate/research/ushcn/ushcn.html#QUAL

[wargunfan]

Are the temperature recording stations still located in parking lots and on top of buildings?

[Dreamliner]

Or, let's just go ahead and consider, for the sake of argument, that global temperatures are rising of late ? What it a slightly warmer earth is a net-gain ? Do we still get to run around like frightened women ?

[wygator]

Are the temperature recording stations still located in parking lots and on top of buildings?

Some are. The irony in the NOAA graph above is that you would think with growing urbanization of cities and airports around temperature stations, that the overall average adjustment the second half of the 20th century would need to be downward due to increasing urban heat island effect.

But they did the exact opposite, adjusting temperatures upwards. Though this graph doesn't reflect it, they've continued to make these upwards adjustments since 2000.

[MichaelJoeWilliamson]

I see. You are pushing the hypothesis that the warming has stopped. Does this mean that you disagree that decadal cycles, like ENSO and NAO, can cause shorter term global temperature variations?

No hypothesis was offered by me. No theory explaining why the abatement of the warming trend occurred was proffered by me or Dr. Curry. She merely reported the facts, which I passed along. To wit;


The warming trend has abated. Everyone on all sides of the argument agrees with those sets of fact. Different explanations are offered for phenomenon. Dr. Hansen offered his.

One encouraging thing that is happening now, in light of these new facts, is that the Dr. Hansens of the world are now being forced to publicly consider the totality of the causes of changes to global temperatures. The "natural" causes of global climate change weren't much of a consideration 10 years ago among the AGW crowd. They are finally considering the 800 pound gorilla that has been in the room for quite some time.

[MichaelJoeWilliamson]

Or, let's just go ahead and consider, for the sake of argument, that global temperatures are rising of late ? What it a slightly warmer earth is a net-gain ? Do we still get to run around like frightened women ?

History has demonstrated that humans seem do better in warmer climates than colder ones. For the fairly simple reasons that food production is easier and finding/making adequate shelter and clothing is easier.

[fredsanford]

The Muppets guy? I thought he was dead.

No, but lots of puppets are chiming in.

[wygator]

No, but lots of puppets are chiming in.

Is that all you've got, Fred...insults?

Any comment on the graphs posted above?

[MichaelJoeWilliamson]

You don't know fred very well do you wygator?

[wygator]

You don't know fred very well do you wygator?

I've seen plenty of his work. Just have to call them out sometimes.

[GatorRade]

The warming trend has abated. Everyone on all sides of the argument agrees with those sets of fact.

I actually disagree with this. Do you believe that decadal oscillations, like ENSO, can have impacts on the Earth's temperature?

[wygator]

Other Hansens

http://theykid.com/wp-content/thumbnails/hanson.jpg

https://encrypted-tbn2.gstatic.com/images?q=tbn:ANd9GcTdzmgkrCm04EffYJYVNyKcwZVFZIp9_ 0hgtZCwhLWuwyfpOdMD

[fredsanford]

Is that all you've got, Fred...insults?

Any comment on the graphs posted above?

To which fake one do you refer?

[MichaelJoeWilliamson]

I actually disagree with this. Do you believe that decadal oscillations, like ENSO, can have impacts on the Earth's temperature?

I think it is possible, with my limited knowledge of climate change. I know Hansen (and you) are making the point that these oscillations are obscuring a continued underlying upward trend. Perhaps that is right. But in doing so, I think Hansen is also making an attempt to obscure a much larger, much more basic question;

What are the natural causes of climate change?

The impacts of CO2 increases, whether the increases are generated by human activity or not, have to be considered in the context of this original question.

As you and I have discussed before, there is a lot....A LOT...of uncertainty surrounding the original question.

Right now all we have is a roughly 16 year trend of increasing climate. And then SUBSEQUENTLY we have a roughly 16 year trend where climate increases have abated and even declined a bit. Further, recent studies strongly suggests that current climates are not historically unique. Current global climates look to be about the same, if not lower, than was present during medieval times.

Therefore, I continue to have trouble viewing the hand wringing over mankind's supposed impact on global climate change with much concern. Especially when I am told that the "only solution" is to dramatically constrain world economic growth.

The main reason I view all these apocalyptic solutions with such skepticism goes to my core beliefs; I am for the set of conditions that give the most number of humans the best overall benefit. And by in large, a healthy economy benefits humans.

That is not to say there should not be rules and regulations to mute some of the negative impacts of a growing economy. For example rules and laws constraining the release of known pollutants and the such can be a very good thing. We drink better water and breath better air as a result of those rules and laws. Of course the defining phrase is KNOWN POLLUTANTS. CO2 releases have not been demonstrated to be a known pollutant.

[wygator]

To which fake one do you refer?

How about the one directly from NOAA's own website that shows their steadily increasing upward adjustments to the raw temperature record?

[Burke]

Was this standstill predicted by Hansen and his theories?

If not, why not?

And why should anyone put any stock in his predictions for further warming?

[MichaelJoeWilliamson]

Dr. Curry wades in with her predicitions;

Perhaps ‘standstill’ is a euphemism for ‘pause’, but recall all the flack that David Rose received a few months ago for writing about the ‘pause’. It is good to see Hansen paying more attention to unforced variability.

However Hansen’s simplistic reasoning about what can be expected in the next decade is, well, simplistic. GWPF reports on the latest decadal simulation from the UKMO, which predicts basically no warming for the next 5 years. Should we believe the UKMO model prediction? Well, I have more confidence in the UKMO prediction than in Hansen’s back of the envelope reasoning.

JC’s ‘forecast’ for the next 5 years: It looks like the AMO may have peaked, and we remain in the cool phase of the PDO with a predominance of La Nina events expected (unlikely to see a return to do El Nino dominance in the next decade). I predict we will see continuation of the ‘standstill’ in global average temperature for the next decade, with solar playing a role in this as well.

It also looks like black carbon is looming as more important than previously believed, see article at WUWT.

Judith Curry (http://judithcurry.com/2013/01/16/hansen-on-the-standstill/#more-10934)

[mdgator05]

I think it is possible, with my limited knowledge of climate change. I know Hansen (and you) are making the point that these oscillations are obscuring a continued underlying upward trend. Perhaps that is right. But in doing so, I think Hansen is also making an attempt to obscure a much larger, much more basic question;

What are the natural causes of climate change?

The impacts of CO2 increases, whether the increases are generated by human activity or not, have to be considered in the context of this original question.

As you and I have discussed before, there is a lot....A LOT...of uncertainty surrounding the original question.

Right now all we have is a roughly 16 year trend of increasing climate. And then SUBSEQUENTLY we have a roughly 16 year trend where climate increases have abated and even declined a bit. Further, recent studies strongly suggests that current climates are not historically unique. Current global climates look to be about the same, if not lower, than was present during medieval times.

Therefore, I continue to have trouble viewing the hand wringing over mankind's supposed impact on global climate change with much concern. Especially when I am told that the "only solution" is to dramatically constrain world economic growth.

The main reason I view all these apocalyptic solutions with such skepticism goes to my core beliefs; I am for the set of conditions that give the most number of humans the best overall benefit. And by in large, a healthy economy benefits humans.

That is not to say there should not be rules and regulations to mute some of the negative impacts of a growing economy. For example rules and laws constraining the release of known pollutants and the such can be a very good thing. We drink better water and breath better air as a result of those rules and laws. Of course the defining phrase is KNOWN POLLUTANTS. CO2 releases have not been demonstrated to be a known pollutant.

So what are the consequences if you are wrong?

[philnotfil]

Here is NOAA's acknowledged adjustments to the temperature record through 2000.

http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/img/climate/research/ushcn/ts.ushcn_anom25_diffs_urb-raw_pg.gif

This one always causes me difficulty. The adjustments are in the opposite direction of what we would expect, and account for 80-90% of the increase. What are the adjustments being made, and why are they being made?

[MichaelJoeWilliamson]

So what are the consequences if you are wrong?

If I am wrong and you are right and we do nothing about GW, bad things *might* happen. If I am right and you are wrong on we go with your "solutions" millions will suffer and die needlessly.

[Burke]

Arguably, the worst lie the AGW folks tell is that increases in CO2 and warming are assuredly catastrophic.

Warming during the MWP led to prosperity. The Little Ice Age that followed was the catastrophe.

It's about time for another ice age, isn't it?

No one even knows what the ideal CO2 and temps are.

[GatorRade]

I like basically this whole post.

I think it is possible, with my limited knowledge of climate change. I know Hansen (and you) are making the point that these oscillations are obscuring a continued underlying upward trend. Perhaps that is right. But in doing so, I think Hansen is also making an attempt to obscure a much larger, much more basic question;

What are the natural causes of climate change?

The impacts of CO2 increases, whether the increases are generated by human activity or not, have to be considered in the context of this original question.

As you and I have discussed before, there is a lot....A LOT...of uncertainty surrounding the original question.

I agree, but I am not sure that you are being totally fair to climate science here. I mean, they spend basically their whole career trying to answer this exact question. Perhaps NBC and Fox only focus on the science that has to do with anthropogenic CO2, but of course no even amateur scientist would ignore, what you are calling "natural" forcings.

Here's some info on this from IPCC: What Factors Determine Earth's Climate? (http://www.ipcc.ch/publications_and_data/ar4/wg1/en/faq-1-1.html)

Right now all we have is a roughly 16 year trend of increasing climate. And then SUBSEQUENTLY we have a roughly 16 year trend where climate increases have abated and even declined a bit. Further, recent studies strongly suggests that current climates are not historically unique. Current global climates look to be about the same, if not lower, than was present during medieval times.

Therefore, I continue to have trouble viewing the hand wringing over mankind's supposed impact on global climate change with much concern. Especially when I am told that the "only solution" is to dramatically constrain world economic growth.

The main reason I view all these apocalyptic solutions with such skepticism goes to my core beliefs; I am for the set of conditions that give the most number of humans the best overall benefit. And by in large, a healthy economy benefits humans.

That is not to say there should not be rules and regulations to mute some of the negative impacts of a growing economy. For example rules and laws constraining the release of known pollutants and the such can be a very good thing. We drink better water and breath better air as a result of those rules and laws. Of course the defining phrase is KNOWN POLLUTANTS. CO2 releases have not been demonstrated to be a known pollutant.

Well now we are into a totally separate question: what is the solution? Like you, I think many are likely to overestimate the costs. Perhaps we decide not to mitigate any of the changes, but this doesn't mean that the changes didn't exist.

However, I do think what an issue that you are ignoring is long-term vs. short-term interests. Even if you are only interested in human economics (and have no regard for the natural world), but most economists agree that climate change will be quite costly from an economic perspective. Today we can pass these costs onto the future, but the bill will come due, so we are just transferring the wealth (which I know you are against). In addition, we are perhaps already transferring wealth from the carbon consumers, like China and the US, to those countries that will experience the the most negative impacts, such as the Maldives.

[GatorRade]

Arguably, the worst lie the AGW folks tell is that increases in CO2 and warming are assuredly catastrophic.

If you go read the primary literature on potential outcomes, you will see that this is not true. I think you keep confusing environuts with climate scientists. Sure Al Gore or the CEO of Greenpeace probably are focused on the possibility of catastrophe, but the primary analyses indicate a wide distribution of possible impacts, some of which are catastrophic, but others not as much.

No one even knows what the ideal CO2 and temps are.

Now this is a strange line of argument. It is like putting a tax on the rich, saying that no one even knows what the ideal amount of wealth is. There is no such thing as "ideal". This is quite subjective. But with climate change, we have non-voluntary transfers of wealth. Perhaps Canada will enjoy increased wealth as US farms migrate up there and they inherit newly opened northern trade routes. But their wealth perhaps comes at a great cost to Brazil and the Maldives.

[mdgator05]

If I am wrong and you are right and we do nothing about GW, bad things *might* happen. If I am right and you are wrong on we go with your "solutions" millions will suffer and die needlessly.

Interesting. So you are 100% sure that millions are going to suffer and die if we limit CO2 emissions. Can you walk me through the evidence that makes you 100% sure of that?

In addition, would those "bad things" that "*might* happen" be millions of people dying too? Millions more, millions less or the same number of millions?

[bluelang]

There's no uncertainty at all that humans produce a shit-load of CO2 and that CO2 traps heat.

Do with reality what you will. It doesn't care.

[ChartsandGrafs]

There's no uncertainty at all that humans produce a shit-load of CO2 and that CO2 traps heat.

Do with reality what you will. It doesn't care.

Actually there is uncertainty, as the greenhouse theory is still in dispute.

Reality says, "say hi to bluelang for me".

[Gatorrick22]

So what are the consequences if you are wrong?

Taxes go up.

[Burke]

The climate has been changing for millions of years. Predicting it is, in large measure, an investment decision and not "wealth redistribution," as that phrase is commonly used.

[Burke]

The big problem with AGW is that no one knows how much the effect is and that the claims of leftists that they do are little more than pseudo-science being used as justification for power grabs. The apocalypse they are predicting could just as well be
Judgment Day stuff being decried by witch doctors.

Right now Hansen is admitting that our current standstill is a product of natural variation.

A standstill that he did not predict.

With the same theories that he is using to predict much warming later, as far as I can see.

Even Judith Curry seems to think he's an idiot.

[mdgator05]

Taxes go up.

I agree. If he is wrong, taxes would likely go up to deal with the consequences, due to the need to either abandon large amounts of infrastructure, that would need to be reconstructed, or to construct new infrastructure to protect our current infrastructure (such as new levees).

[MichaelJoeWilliamson]

Well now we are into a totally separate question: what is the solution? Like you, I think many are likely to overestimate the costs. Perhaps we decide not to mitigate any of the changes, but this doesn't mean that the changes didn't exist.

However, I do think what an issue that you are ignoring is long-term vs. short-term interests. Even if you are only interested in human economics (and have no regard for the natural world), but most economists agree that climate change will be quite costly from an economic perspective. Today we can pass these costs onto the future, but the bill will come due, so we are just transferring the wealth (which I know you are against). In addition, we are perhaps already transferring wealth from the carbon consumers, like China and the US, to those countries that will experience the the most negative impacts, such as the Maldives.

Maybe I am wrong, but hasn't the dramatic switch from coal fired plants to natural gas plants basically dropped the CO2 output in the US down to what the US agreed to do in Kyoto. If so, it seems we already well down the road to "what is the solution." Even on a long term basis.

[MichaelJoeWilliamson]

Interesting. So you are 100% sure that millions are going to suffer and die if we limit CO2 emissions. Can you walk me through the evidence that makes you 100% sure of that?

No, not absolutely sure. But just as sure as you, (and everyone else) are if AGW actually exists.

BTW, the effort to conflate views on AGW with abortion is not particularly impressive. The two are entirely different issues.

[MichaelJoeWilliamson]

Right now Hansen is admitting that our current standstill is a product of natural variation.

A standstill that he did not predict.

With the same theories that he is using to predict much warming later, as far as I can see.

Even Judith Curry seems to think he's an idiot.

Yep. And Judith Curry was at one time a pretty avid supporter of AGW. Until she started looking at the science behind it. Now she seems to be an open minded skeptic.

[mdgator05]

No, not absolutely sure. But just as sure as you, (and everyone else) are if AGW actually exists.

BTW, the effort to conflate views on AGW with abortion is not particularly impressive. The two are entirely different issues.

That is interesting because you said bad things *might* happen if you were wrong but that millions would die if you weren't. Usually, if you use "might" with one, it is a sign of being unsure while contrasting it with the word "will."

I am simply pointing out that your beliefs are highly incompatible and that they seem to be based more on maintaining conservative orthodoxy rather than any actual consideration of either issue. Because if the potential for negative consequences is such a big deal for you, then you would notice it for both issues. But for you, you are very dismissive of future implications and the possibility of the fact that you are wrong on one issue while being paralyzed by the idea of being wrong and the potential future consequences on the other issue. And the only thing in common is that both thought processes allow you to stick to conservative orthodoxy.

[MichaelJoeWilliamson]

I am simply pointing out that your beliefs are highly incompatible and that they seem to be based more on maintaining conservative orthodoxy rather than any actual consideration of either issue. Because if the potential for negative consequences is such a big deal for you, then you would notice it for both issues. But for you, you are very dismissive of future implications and the possibility of the fact that you are wrong on one issue while being paralyzed by the idea of being wrong and the potential future consequences on the other issue. And the only thing in common is that both thought processes allow you to stick to conservative orthodoxy.

Sorry, but this is a poor attempt in logic.

Global Climate change is a very, very complex scientific issue. It has almost nothing to do with the debate about human rights. Human rights issues are usually clearer and lend themself to binary discussions.

As far as AGW goes, I am not dismissive about what *might* happen one way or the other. I am and remain an open minded skeptic about what impact man made CO2 releases might have on Global Climate.

It is entirely possible that we are having an impact on global climates. But until we understand the natural causes of climate change, it is a bit pointless to demand a remedy for a problem that might not exist.

[Matthanuf06]

Or, let's just go ahead and consider, for the sake of argument, that global temperatures are rising of late ? What it a slightly warmer earth is a net-gain ? Do we still get to run around like frightened women ?

This is the big question

[mdgator05]

Sorry, but this is a poor attempt in logic.

Global Climate change is a very, very complex scientific issue. It has almost nothing to do with the debate about human rights. Human rights issues are usually clearer and lend themself to binary discussions.

As far as AGW goes, I am not dismissive about what *might* happen one way or the other. I am and remain an open minded skeptic about what impact man made CO2 releases might have on Global Climate.

It is entirely possible that we are having an impact on global climates. But until we understand the natural causes of climate change, it is a bit pointless to demand a remedy for a problem that might not exist.

But it isn't pointless to demand a remedy for a problem that might not exist for one issue because of what might be the consequences of that decision.

So a potentially catastrophic mistake can be made on one issue, which means we need to prevent the catastrophic mistake. However, if a catastrophic mistake could be made on another issue, then we should simply wait and see until we understand the issue better.

It is logically inconsistent and the only way to correct for the logical inconsistency is to explain it by pointing out that both reactions perfectly align with conservative orthodoxy.

[MichaelJoeWilliamson]

But it isn't pointless to demand a remedy for a problem that might not exist for one issue because of what might be the consequences of that decision.

So a potentially catastrophic mistake can be made on one issue, which means we need to prevent the catastrophic mistake. However, if a catastrophic mistake could be made on another issue, then we should simply wait and see until we understand the issue better.

It is logically inconsistent and the only way to correct for the logical inconsistency is to explain it by pointing out that both reactions perfectly align with conservative orthodoxy.

There is more stretch in this post than is found in a pair of Rosanne Barr's leotards.

If you want to debate the pros and cons of AGW, by all means, let's do so. But I have said all I am going to say about your attempt to steer the conversation to another direction.

[mdgator05]

There is more stretch in this post than is found in a pair of Rosanne Barr's leotards.

If you want to debate the pros and cons of AGW, by all means, let's do so. But I have said all I am going to say about your attempt to steer the conversation to another direction.

That is a common reaction to wanting to avoid the logical inconsistency. Refuse to acknowledge it, try to be funny, and then run away from it. However, it is certainly a disappointing reaction to being confronted with a logical inconsistency that you are displaying.

[MichaelJoeWilliamson]

Oh dear. mdgator got his feelings hurt.

[mdgator05]

Oh dear. mdgator got his feelings hurt.

Nope. My feelings aren't tied into your issues. Just disappointing to see such a lack of introspection from somebody that should be capable of it.

[MichaelJoeWilliamson]

Nope. My feelings aren't tied into your issues. Just disappointing to see such a lack of introspection from somebody that should be capable of it.

I am sorry you are disappointed in me. I am, however, not too disappointed in you. I find that people tend to behave the way you are behaving fairly common, regardless of ideological persuasion, for a number a reasons.

Usually it means one is entrenched into a particular, (usually failed), point of view and will argue endlessly to try and bolster support for it. Or perhaps the person as just been shown a logical inconsistency in a particular point of view and is trying to make up for that in a different way on a different subject. (The crude way of saying this is that they are butt-hurt. See FSU fans circa 2012.)

In whichever school you reside, our discussion about conflating the abortion question with a discussion of AGW is over. At least by me.

[mdgator05]

I am sorry you are disappointed in me. I am, however, not too disappointed in you. I find that people tend to behave the way you are behaving fairly common, regardless of ideological persuasion, for a number a reasons.

Usually it means one is entrenched into a particular, (usually failed), point of view and will argue endlessly to try and bolster support for it. Or perhaps the person as just been shown a logical inconsistency in a particular point of view and is trying to make up for that in a different way on a different subject. (The crude way of saying this is that they are butt-hurt. See FSU fans circa 2012.)

In whichever school you reside, our discussion about conflating the abortion question with a discussion of AGW is over. At least by me.

Are you in such deep denial that you don't even realize your logical inconsistency?

BTW, you have not shown a single logical inconsistency from me, so stop trying to turn this around. That is what happens when somebody refuses introspection out of fear. Why are you so afraid of examining your own thought process on these issues?

[GatorRade]

Maybe I am wrong, but hasn't the dramatic switch from coal fired plants to natural gas plants basically dropped the CO2 output in the US down to what the US agreed to do in Kyoto. If so, it seems we already well down the road to "what is the solution." Even on a long term basis.

Oh I am not blaming us, but Kyoto levels or not, the US' carbon footprint is enormous. Due to several historical idiosyncrasies, we will always be giant energy consumers.

[MichaelJoeWilliamson]

.... we will always be giant energy consumers.

No question. Humans in general will consume ever larger amount of energy, for the simple reason is that fuels economic growth.

[wygator]

What I would like to tie this to, and what the title of this article references, is that the growth in generation share of natural gas has major implications on US carbon emissions. Natural gas emits approximately 50% of the CO2 of coal for a given unit of energy. That means the historic transition we are seeing in electricity generation is reducing US carbon emissions by a similar amount.
This transition started several years ago, and the US as well as the global climate have already been seeing the benefit. From 2006 through 2011, US emissions fell by 7.7%, the largest of any country. While the recession probably deserves some of the “credit,” natural gas is clearly taking the reins for 2012.
Watts Up with That? created the following chart from EIA carbon emissions data. Based on 2012 to-date, it looks like the US might actually reduce CO2 emissions below 1990 levels this year – the targets widely touted by the Kyoto Protocol.

http://berc.berkeley.edu/is-the-us-about-to-accidentally-meet-kyoto-protocol-targets/

Of course, manmade CO2 continues to increase worldwide. Our efforts are meaningless unless the other industrial powers along with emerging nations level or reduce their emissions and that ain't happening!

According to one study I reported on last year, when you look at total carbon footprint of each nation (including imports and excluding exports), the progress made under Kyoto looks extremely poor, with Europe's savings reduced to just 1% from 1990 to 2008 and the developed world as a whole seeing its emissions rise by 7% in the same period.

Overall, the result is that global emissions have showed no sign of slowing down, as the chart below shows. In that sense, the Kyoto protocol has been a failure. But it was unquestionably an important first step in global climate diplomacy. The question is whether a more ambitious second step will follow in time to avoid unacceptable risks of devastating climate change.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/blog/2012/nov/26/kyoto-protocol-carbon-emissions

[MichaelJoeWilliamson]

Other publications are (finally) also noticing the "standstill."
(http://www.forskningsradet.no/en/Newsarticle/Global_warming_less_extreme_than_feared/1253983344535/p1177315753918)
Professor Berntsen explains the changed predictions:


“The Earth’s mean temperature rose sharply during the 1990s. This may have caused us to overestimate climate sensitivity.

“We are most likely witnessing natural fluctuations in the climate system – changes that can occur over several decades – and which are coming on top of a long-term warming. The natural changes resulted in a rapid global temperature rise in the 1990s, whereas the natural variations between 2000 and 2010 may have resulted in the levelling off we are observing now.”

[mdgator05]

Other publications are (finally) also noticing the "standstill."
(http://www.forskningsradet.no/en/Newsarticle/Global_warming_less_extreme_than_feared/1253983344535/p1177315753918)

From your own link:

Terje Berntsen emphasises that his project’s findings must not be construed as an excuse for complacency in addressing human-induced global warming. The results do indicate, however, that it may be more within our reach to achieve global climate targets than previously thought.

Regardless, the fight cannot be won without implementing substantial climate measures within the next few years.

Isn't that your position that they are emphasizing isn't their position?

[MichaelJoeWilliamson]

From your own link:



Isn't that your position that they are emphasizing isn't their position?

???

That sentence does not make any sense. I was merely pointing out yet another AGW scientist that is being forced to admit the climate increases have abated.

[MichaelJoeWilliamson]

Other quotes; (http://canadafreepress.com/index.php/article/52681)

Global warming is likely to be less extreme than claimed, researchers said yesterday. The most likely temperature rise will be 1.9C (3.4F) compared with the 3.5C predicted by the Intergovern*mental Panel on Climate Change. The Norwegian study says earlier predictions were based on rapid warming in the Nineties. But Oslo University’s department of geosciences included data since 2000 when temperature rises “levelled off nearly completely”.

—John Ingham, Daily Express, 26 January 2013.

The Earth’s mean temperature rose sharply during the *Nineties. This may have caused us to overestimate climate sensitivity. We are most likely witnessing natural fluctuations in the climate system – changes that can occur over several decades – and which are coming on top of a long-term warming.

——Professor Terje Berntsen,University of Oslo, 24 January 2013.

These results are truly sensational. If confirmed by other studies, this could have far-reaching impacts on efforts to achieve the political targets for climate.

—Caroline Leck, Stockholm University, 25 January 2013.

[mdgator05]

???

That sentence does not make any sense. I was merely pointing out yet another AGW scientist that is being forced to admit the climate increases have abated.

Sorry mistyped that. Isn't that your position? You think we should be complacent about this issue, as they caution against, correct?

[MichaelJoeWilliamson]

Sorry mistyped that. Isn't that your position? You think we should be complacent about this issue, as they caution against, correct?

"Complacent about the issue" is an interesting phrase.

Should one be complacent or fearful about any unproven hypothesis?

[mdgator05]

"Complacent about the issue" is an interesting phrase.

Should one be complacent or fearful about any unproven hypothesis?

"Unproven hypothesis" is an interesting phrase. Can one ever truly "prove" a hypothesis?

[wygator]

"Unproven hypothesis" is an interesting phrase. Can one ever truly "prove" a hypothesis?

The point remains. Does it make more sense if we replace hypothesis with conjecture?

[mdgator05]

The point remains. Does it make more sense if we replace hypothesis with conjecture?

No the point is not a particularly strong one. In science, no hypothesis is ever proven. A hypothesis can be rejected, but it can't be either proven or disproven. This is a very important distinction which is often glossed over by those outside of science.

Hypothesis and conjecture are not the same thing, and conjecture does not describe the scientific process, which has repeatedly shown some level of human involvement in global warming and has consistently stated that some level of action is necessary to avert many potential negative outcomes.

[MichaelJoeWilliamson]

"Unproven hypothesis" is an interesting phrase. Can one ever truly "prove" a hypothesis?

When the predictions of a hypothesis prove to be consistently accurate , then it often graduates to a theory.

Given this, would you call AGW a hypothesis or a theory?

[MichaelJoeWilliamson]

Hypothesis and conjecture are not the same thing, and conjecture does not describe the scientific process, which has repeatedly shown some level of human involvement in global warming and has consistently stated that some level of action is necessary to avert many potential negative outcomes.

This is overstated by a fair amount.

[wygator]

Again, I remind everyone of some basics. The current "warming period" began a couple of centuries ago and we have seen steady increase (with some decadal ups and downs) of about .5C per century since. Before the little ice age there was a Medieval Warm Period that lasted a few centuries.

The present warming period and current temperatures are well within historical ranges of the past few thousand years to the best of our ability to evaluate proxy data (before the actual thermometer record).

To make the extraordinary claim that man is now primarily responsible for rising temperatures requires extraordinary evidence. Neither the model projections nor the available data from ground-based temperature records, satellite temperature measurements, satellite measured sea level trends, changes (or lack thereof) in humidity, worldwide cyclone energy or a variety of other statistical data support the claim.

[MichaelJoeWilliamson]

To make the extraordinary claim that man is now primarily responsible for rising temperatures requires extraordinary evidence. Neither the model projections nor the available data from ground-based temperature records, satellite temperature measurements, satellite measured sea level trends, changes (or lack thereof) in humidity, worldwide cyclone energy or a variety of other statistical data support the claim.

This is exactly right.

[Gatorrick22]

Actually there is uncertainty, as the greenhouse theory is still in dispute.

Reality says, "say hi to bluelang for me".

:laugh::laugh:

Every single plant on Earth needs CO2 to live and make breathable oxygen for us humans to breath and exist, yet the leftists still consider it a poison/pollutant?

You just can't fix stupid!!

[mdgator05]

When the predictions of a hypothesis prove to be consistently accurate , then it often graduates to a theory.

Given this, would you call AGW a hypothesis or a theory?

That isn't the difference between hypothesis and theory. A theory is a general statement that outlines a proposed relationship. Often, theories are generally accepted by the scientific community. AGW is a theory, as even in the papers you are linking, they are acknowledging the existence and importance of it.

A hypothesis is a statistically testable statement based on prior theory. So let's think of it within this context:

Theory: The Global Surface Temperature is warming due to the release of certain gases into the atmosphere.

Hypotheses: H1: Controlling for a variety of other factors, global surface temperatures have risen due to an increase in CO2.

Hypotheses and theory are not easily separable except for the fact that hypotheses have to be testable.

[mdgator05]

:laugh::laugh:

Every single plant on Earth needs CO2 to live and make breathable oxygen for us humans to breath and exist, yet the leftists still consider it a poison/pollutant?

You just can't fix stupid!!

By that same logic, we should dump tons of phosphates into lakes, since phosphates are needed to strengthen plant roots and help prevent diseases, and nothing bad could ever occur from such a compound that is required in certain amounts.

[oragator1]

:laugh::laugh:

Every single plant on Earth needs CO2 to live and make breathable oxygen for us humans to breath and exist, yet the leftists still consider it a poison/pollutant?

You just can't fix stupid!!

Wow.
Every single human needs heat too, let's double the temperature and see how we do.
Or only breathe carbon, that can't be bad, it's good for us!
Or double your cholesterol intake, the body needs that too. That has to be healthier for us.
Or maybe salt, body needs that. Double your salt intake, more has to be better.
How about doubling your sun exposure, you get vitamin D from it, more has to help, can't hurt the skin, the sun is life giving.

I could do this all day, it's liberating to know that anything that has any good in it can't be harmful in any way.

[wygator]

Wow.
Every single human needs heat too, let's double the temperature and see how we do.
Or only breathe carbon, that can't be bad, it's good for us!
Or double your cholesterol intake, the body needs that too. That has to be healthier for us.
Or maybe salt, body needs that. Double your salt intake, more has to be better.
How about doubling your sun exposure, you get vitamin D from it, more has to help, can't hurt the skin, the sun is life giving.

I could do this all day, it's liberating to know that anything that has any good in it can't be harmful in any way.

So what levels of CO2 are good or harmful? From a gardening website...gardeners commonly enrich CO2 in their greenhouses to promote growth:

Edit...added this quote:

Rutgers University compared Romaine lettuce grown outdoors and in a climate controlled greenhouse with CO2 enrichment. The results were clearly to the advantage of the indoor greenhouse grown lettuce. Romaine lettuce grown outdoors reached ready-to-market maturity in 62 days. In the greenhouse under a well controlled climate and CO2 enhancement, lettuce heads were ready-to-market in 48 days: a clear gain of 14 days to get to harvest. Also the greenhouse yield weighted 33 % more than field grown lettuce heads. Yield quality was more uniform and greenhouse heads were paid a higher price.

When and how much CO2 ?
Generally, enriching the garden's air to raise the level between 1,000 and 1,500 ppm is recommended. There is apparently no benefit to augment the concentration higher than 1,500 ppm. Higher levels are a human health hazard. Plants do not benefit from higher levels either. That can also be a waste of money. But for exceptional species, most plants breathe CO2 only during photosynthesis which is when there is light.

We're still below 400ppm

http://www.novabiomatique.com/hydroponics-systems/plant-555-gardening-with-co2-explained.cfm

[jimgata]

The warmists have adopted the liberals emotional response to everything.
Instead of looking for a logical solution to a problem, the lefts response is to just throw money at a problem and respond emotionally.
If there is a problem with global warming, that is caused by man, which seems more and more unlikely, it can be solved by common sense and logic and not by using every wild ass scheme to stop it and p**s away trillions of dollars, which by the way will be directed to a few that will make billions off it.

[oragator1]

So what levels of CO2 are good or harmful? From a gardening website...gardeners commonly enrich CO2 in their greenhouses to promote growth:

Edit...added this quote:





We're still below 400ppm

http://www.novabiomatique.com/hydroponics-systems/plant-555-gardening-with-co2-explained.cfm

I agree that exactly how much is the 50 million dollar question. But two points:

1st, comparing things to what's safe in a greenhouse isn't really comparable, because it's the ancillary problems that CO2 causes that are the real issue, ones you don't get in a greenhouse - melting ice and accompanying sea level rise, climate change for fauna and flora affecting their ability to continue, changing weather patterns etc.
Second, the point is still valid - that even if you take CO2 individually, there is a danger point with humans, which was the point of the original post I was quoting. Too much of something is almost always a bad thing, even if it's something we need. To simply say "CO2 is needed so it can't be bad" is a facile argument.

[mdgator05]

The warmists have adopted the liberals emotional response to everything.
Instead of looking for a logical solution to a problem, the lefts response is to just throw money at a problem and respond emotionally.
If there is a problem with global warming, that is caused by man, which seems more and more unlikely, it can be solved by common sense and logic and not by using every wild ass scheme to stop it and p**s away trillions of dollars, which by the way will be directed to a few that will make billions off it.

The left in this case adopted a solution formed by the discussions of brave environmentalist along with true Free-Market advocate capitalists.

Cap-and-Trade is not simply throwing money at the problem. It is designing a system in which polluters internalize the cost of their own emissions and encourage them to cut it by being able to make more money by reducing their emissions as rapidly as possible.

Cap-and-Trade uses the market system, in which people are motivated towards creative and unique solutions by the possibility of making additional money.

A good history on how the Reagan/George H.W. Bush Administrations helped come up with the idea of Cap-and-Trade:

http://www.smithsonianmag.com/science-nature/Presence-of-Mind-Blue-Sky-Thinking.html?c=y&page=1

Almost 20 years since the signing of the Clean Air Act of 1990, the cap-and-trade system continues to let polluters figure out the least expensive way to reduce their acid rain emissions. As a result, the law costs utilities just $3 billion annually, not $25 billion, according to a recent study in the Journal of Environmental Management; by cutting acid rain in half, it also generates an estimated $122 billion a year in benefits from avoided death and illness, healthier lakes and forests, and improved visibility on the Eastern Seaboard. (Better relations with Canada? Priceless.)

$3 Billion annual cost for $122 Billion in benefit. I honestly doubt there are many more productive, efficient, and successful programs in the entire country.

How is that for common sense and logic?

[jimgata]

I will gladly sell you my share of carbon emissions.
Sorta silly if one wishes to stop carbon emissions and a company that has little carbon emissions is allowed to sell it to a company that abuses carbon emissions.
If one wishes to control emissions, allot so much and if you go over it, pay a heavy fine.
Gore would have to buy half of gainesvilles emissions to satisfy his carbon output.

[Gatorrick22]

By that same logic, we should dump tons of phosphates into lakes, since phosphates are needed to strengthen plant roots and help prevent diseases, and nothing bad could ever occur from such a compound that is required in certain amounts.

I'm not advocating dumping, you are.

[Gatorrick22]

By that same logic, we should dump tons of phosphates into lakes, since phosphates are needed to strengthen plant roots and help prevent diseases, and nothing bad could ever occur from such a compound that is required in certain amounts.

Wrong, by that same logic spending money we don't have will create jobs....or taxing the job creators more will create jobs.

[mdgator05]

I will gladly sell you my share of carbon emissions.
Sorta silly if one wishes to stop carbon emissions and a company that has little carbon emissions is allowed to sell it to a company that abuses carbon emissions.
If one wishes to control emissions, allot so much and if you go over it, pay a heavy fine.
Gore would have to buy half of gainesvilles emissions to satisfy his carbon output.

That system is referred to as command-and-control regulation. Many of the free market conservatives rejected this method because it ignored the desire to make money. Essentially, the government would have to pay additional money to enforce the system (more regulators and more intrusive regulators) since the incentives of the firm would still be to pollute heavily in this system, which would lead to many firms lying to the government.

Cap-and-Trade theorists stated that private business would do better if the incentive was changed to lowering pollution with the goal of making more money, allowing more innovative businesses to be more successful, rather than just punishing the least successful businesses.

I doubt that the system would be run at an individual level, as that would be hard to administer. Probably more on the business end, in which businesses could compete for additional profits by lowering emissions as cheaply as possible.

This system is a good example of pulling a good set of ideas from one group of people and applying them to a good set of ideas from another group of people, between whom there was typically not much in the way of common ground.

[Gatorrick22]

Wow.
Every single human needs heat too, let's double the temperature and see how we do.
Or only breathe carbon, that can't be bad, it's good for us!
Or double your cholesterol intake, the body needs that too. That has to be healthier for us.
Or maybe salt, body needs that. Double your salt intake, more has to be better.
How about doubling your sun exposure, you get vitamin D from it, more has to help, can't hurt the skin, the sun is life giving.

I could do this all day, it's liberating to know that anything that has any good in it can't be harmful in any way.

You're guess-work hackerery on this is subject epic. We are not burning up! Earth's climate has changed for eons and it will continue to do so until there is no more Earth.

By the way, are we the only country on Earth? Are we? Where is all the outcry for the other polluters of the world in you tax the U.S. only policy to fixing the Earth's climate?

When your leftists friends start punishing India, China and Russia, by putting tariffs on their goods and services, for polluting the atmosphere then I know you serious about Global Warming - until then, it's just another cause for the leftist to invent a new tax on something that doesn't exist.

[mdgator05]

You're guess-work hackerery on this is subject epic. We are not burning up! Earth's climate has changed for eons and it will continue to do so until there is no more Earth.

By the way, are we the only country on Earth? Are we? Where is all the outcry for the other polluters of the world in you tax the U.S. only policy to fixing the Earth's climate?

When your leftists friends start punishing India, China and Russia, by putting tariffs on their goods and services, for polluting the atmosphere then I know you serious about Global Warming - until then, it's just another cause for the leftist to invent a new tax on something that doesn't exist.

Last I saw, Russia has already cut back their emissions considerably, although much of it not due to better efficiency but lower economic output.

Much of the attention here is because we are in the US. The easiest place to make a change in policy is in your country. Many countries are already engaging in some form of a Cap-and-Trade system, including much of Europe.

I would certainly be okay with a US led enforcement of either a Cap-and-Trade/Command-and-Control system (allowing the country to decide the system), which could involve tariffs. The tariffs would serve to lower production in those countries, which would serve as a direct disincentive, while encouraging the countries to make businesses internalize their externalities.

[jimgata]

Scientists in Norway just released a study, stating that glabal warming has been at a virtual standstill since 2000. They also reported that the 90's showed an increase, but they, scientists, overestimate the inluence that co2 emissions would have on warming, based on recent studies. It was reported that even if co2 emissions doubled by 2050, the effect on global warming would be a lot less than previously reported.

[oragator1]

You're guess-work hackerery on this is subject epic. We are not burning up! Earth's climate has changed for eons and it will continue to do so until there is no more Earth.

By the way, are we the only country on Earth? Are we? Where is all the outcry for the other polluters of the world in you tax the U.S. only policy to fixing the Earth's climate?

When your leftists friends start punishing India, China and Russia, by putting tariffs on their goods and services, for polluting the atmosphere then I know you serious about Global Warming - until then, it's just another cause for the leftist to invent a new tax on something that doesn't exist.

The number of issues you are conflating is getting fairly hard to keep up with, but let's make a list from this post alone.

Carbon can't be bad because plants need it -categorically false, which was what I was demonstrating. Almost any substance in the extreme can be bad, including carbon, and a simplistic view otherwise defies science and common sense.

The world's climate changing naturally somehow meaning man can't change it - categorically false. Basic science says there is a threshold based on the nature of what carbon does as a greenhouse gas, the question is whether we are there. Not to mention as I have said previously, that line of logic doesn't work with floods or forest fires either, just because nature can do something doesn't mean we can't too.

Implying I am pushing for any form of tax - false, I have never done any such thing, innovation is the surest way to fix the problem. I am against carbon offsets and have been consistent in that regard.

Not calling on tariffs for other countries - I don't believe in tariffs, I am a free market person and know they are inefficient. But I do believe we can influence behavior around the world by leading the race to find cheaper alternative energies. That would give us the patents, the headstart, the royalties and the jobs -all while allowing us to get off of a dwindling resource in oil, even if you don't believe in MMGW. It's foolish not to take this path even if MMGW turns out to be nothing.

The basic argument you have to win is "The vast majority of scientists are wrong". And starting off by defying basic science to make your point isn't a good way to begin. I have said repeatedly that science isn't the perfect answer to our problems, but it's the best arbiter of questions involving observable phenomena because of the scientific method. So if believing in science as the best course for understanding the world around us makes me a leftist, then put me right up there with Chairman Mao. :wave:

[jimgata]

Just because so many are wrong, it doesn't make it right.

[baygator1]

Wonder why we haven't banned smoking? 50 known carcinogens released into the atmosphere, and particulate matter levels 10 times higher than diesel engine exhaust. That aside, consider the environmental impact of tobacco cultivation (could be growing food instead), and the processing of wood pulp to produce the bleached paper.

Carbon monoxide, nitrogen oxide, cyanide, benzene, formaldehyde, methanol, acetylene and ammonia...just to name a few by-product goodies.

Known carcinogens, known pollutants, production impacts on the environment and very high particulate matter levels....almost seems like a no-brainer!

Of course, this may seem rather trivial as our sun expands during its natural life cycle and eventually consumes the earth. Now that's what I call global warming! But hey...that's a few bends down the river.

[oragator1]

Wonder why we haven't banned smoking? 50 known carcinogens released into the atmosphere, and particulate matter levels 10 times higher than diesel engine exhaust. That aside, consider the environmental impact of tobacco cultivation (could be growing food instead), and the processing of wood pulp to produce the bleached paper.

Carbon monoxide, nitrogen oxide, cyanide, benzene, formaldehyde, methanol, acetylene and ammonia...just to name a few by-product goodies.

Known carcinogens, known pollutants, production impacts on the environment and very high particulate matter levels....almost seems like a no-brainer!

Of course, this may seem rather trivial as our sun expands during its natural life cycle and eventually consumes the earth. Now that's what I call global warming! But hey...that's a few bends down the river.

Off topic but on that subject, people always talk about how the sun has billions of years left, but it gets warmer over time, we only have about 500 million years left before it is too hot to live here. So for humans we fell in the right 500 million year window, which was helped by the dinosaurs going extinct at the right time, at the right time between glacial cycles so we can grow crops to live, at the right time as it relates to overall weather since by earth standards things have been extremely tame for thousands of years, and at the right time in the larger cosmic cycles (asteroid impacts etc), and at the right time between supervolcanic eruptions and similar earth changing events.
Pretty lucky.

[baygator1]

Off topic but on that subject, people always talk about how the sun has billions of years left, but it gets warmer over time, we only have about 500 million years left before it is too hot to live here. So for humans we fell in the right 500 million year window, which was helped by the dinosaurs going extinct at the right time, at the right time between glacial cycles so we can grow crops to live, at the right time as it relates to overall weather since by earth standards things have been extremely tame for thousands of years, and at the right time in the larger cosmic cycles (asteroid impacts etc), and at the right time between supervolcanic eruptions and similar earth changing events.
Pretty lucky.

An interesting, if not impossible confluence of events.

[mdgator05]

Wonder why we haven't banned smoking? 50 known carcinogens released into the atmosphere, and particulate matter levels 10 times higher than diesel engine exhaust. That aside, consider the environmental impact of tobacco cultivation (could be growing food instead), and the processing of wood pulp to produce the bleached paper.

Carbon monoxide, nitrogen oxide, cyanide, benzene, formaldehyde, methanol, acetylene and ammonia...just to name a few by-product goodies.

Known carcinogens, known pollutants, production impacts on the environment and very high particulate matter levels....almost seems like a no-brainer!

Of course, this may seem rather trivial as our sun expands during its natural life cycle and eventually consumes the earth. Now that's what I call global warming! But hey...that's a few bends down the river.

We haven't banned smoking and we shouldn't ban polluting. However, we have disincentivized smoking, forcing those who smoke to internalize their externality by taxing the behavior.

[baygator1]

We haven't banned smoking and we shouldn't ban polluting. However, we have disincentivized smoking, forcing those who smoke to internalize their externality by taxing the behavior.

I suspect that's the main reason why something we know is so toxic to our bodies and environment would never be banned...revenues!

http://www.cdc.gov/chronicdisease/resources/publications/aag/osh.htm

Tobacco use is the single most preventable cause of disease, disability, and death in the United States. Each year, an estimated 443,000 people die prematurely from smoking or exposure to secondhand smoke, and another 8.6 million live with a serious illness caused by smoking.

Coupled with this enormous health toll is the significant economic burden of tobacco use—more than $96 billion a year in medical costs and another $97 billion a year from lost productivity.

http://healthliteracy.worlded.org/docs/tobacco/Unit4/3other_health.html

According to the Surgeon General Report of 1985, "Smoking has killed more people in the U.S. alone than the number of Americans killed in battle or who died of war related diseases in all wars ever fought by this nation." The total number of U.S. deaths in the Vietnam War was 58,151....

Smoking kills more Americans each year than alcohol, car accidents, AIDS, suicides, homicides, fires and drugs combined.


Oddly enough, President Obama just commissioned the CDC to study gun violence. What a friggin joke.

[mdgator05]

I suspect that's the main reason why something we know is so toxic to our bodies and environment would never be banned...revenues!

http://www.cdc.gov/chronicdisease/resources/publications/aag/osh.htm



http://healthliteracy.worlded.org/docs/tobacco/Unit4/3other_health.html




Oddly enough, President Obama just commissioned the CDC to study gun violence. What a friggin joke.

It is amazing we now have Republicans backing more government intervention calling for banning things rather than using consumer incentives to limit negative behaviors. It was one of the good ideas of the Republican Party, which interestingly seems to mean that when it is recognized as such and used by others, it must be abandoned by the Republicans.

It lends substantial evidence to the idea that current conservative ideology is less defined by principles and more defined by opposition to others. It is more a form of personal identification than an advocacy for a consistent set of solutions.

[baygator1]

It is amazing we now have Republicans backing more government intervention calling for banning things rather than using consumer incentives to limit negative behaviors. It was one of the good ideas of the Republican Party, which interestingly seems to mean that when it is recognized as such and used by others, it must be abandoned by the Republicans.

It lends substantial evidence to the idea that current conservative ideology is less defined by principles and more defined by opposition to others. It is more a form of personal identification than an advocacy for a consistent set of solutions.

What are republicans wanting to ban? I am admittedly not current on their platform.

What's really amazing is politicians mounting an attack on constitutional rights while leaving all the really low hanging fruit alone when it comes to preventing the unnecessary deaths of US citizens. It lends substantial evidence to the idea that gun control really isn't about preventing deaths.

[mdgator05]

What are republicans wanting to ban? I am admittedly not current on their platform.

What's really amazing is politicians mounting an attack on constitutional rights while leaving all the really low hanging fruit alone when it comes to preventing the unnecessary deaths of US citizens. It lends substantial evidence to the idea that gun control really isn't about preventing deaths.

I am not saying Republican politicians are attempting to ban anything in particular. However, on this thread, we have had two conservatives basically argue that the only way the government can prevent unnecessary deaths is by banning something (engaging in a Command-and-Control form of regulation). In reality, it was Republicans of the late 1980s and early 1990s that proved that an effective way to diminish any issue is by using the free market to disincentivize a socially negative behavior.

So for the original example of Cap-and-Trade, rather than tell industrial firms that they couldn't pollute, tell them that everybody got to pollute a set and declining amount, and allow firms to compete for that pollution through a free market system, in which firms that could more easily cut pollution could profit from that, while firms that could not cut pollution easily could still pollute, but only if it was worth it with the internalized cost of the externality. So, for example, if I ran a steel mill that couldn't reduce pollution, I had to pay others to reduce pollution for me at their firms, which forces me to account for the damage I do to everybody not involved in my manufacturing business caused by my pollution.

Similarly with smoking, we could ban smoking. But then, a new black market would setup, similar to what we have with drugs and formerly with alcohol, would develop, which would likely be too expensive to regulate away fully in order to gain the benefit. A much better way of dealing with this issue is to disincentivize the behavior enough that it becomes far less convenient, while restricting the potential benefit to those that want to setup the market.

Somewhat off topic, and I would be happy to have this discussion with you on another thread, I would argue for similar disincentives for guns rather than outlawing. I think the government should make gun ownership inconvenient rather than outlawing it in most cases to control the constant resupply of new guns into the market, which certainly has negative social consequences.

[GatorRade]

The warmists have adopted the liberals emotional response to everything.
Instead of looking for a logical solution to a problem, the lefts response is to just throw money at a problem and respond emotionally.

Are these the same "warmists" that have never included solar radiation in their climate models?

[GatorRade]

I'm not advocating dumping, you are.

md's response was an accurate extension of your logic. You are arguing that plants "need" CO2, and therefore CO2 cannot be a pollutant. md correctly points out that plants need other elements to live as well, such as nitrogen and phosphorus. As a result, these are the major ingredients of fertilizer. Do you stand by the claim that you cannot add too much fertilizer to an ecosystem?

[GatorRade]

So what levels of CO2 are good or harmful?

I think this is a great question to consider, wy.

From a gardening website...gardeners commonly enrich CO2 in their greenhouses to promote growth:

And I think this is a horrible way of considering it. My kid grows the fastest if I feed him 20 twinkies per day, but does that mean that this is how I should feed him?

How do we, as a society determine what is the "optimal" condition of the environment? I don't think there is a right answer to this question. But this is a question of moral philosophy. Are humans causing global warming? That is a scientific question, and the two types of questions should not interact.

[wygator]

I think this is a great question to consider, wy.



And I think this is a horrible way of considering it. My kid grows the fastest if I feed him 20 twinkies per day, but does that mean that this is how I should feed him?

How do we, as a society determine what is the "optimal" condition of the environment? I don't think there is a right answer to this question. But this is a question of moral philosophy. Are humans causing global warming? That is a scientific question, and the two types of questions should not interact.

You're sort of taking my response out of context. I was answering a statement that (correctly) pointed out that too much CO2 is bad for plants. I was trying to determine what those ranges actually are and putting them into the context of present atmospheric levels of CO2. I included what some studies and experience of gardeners have shown about "optimum" levels. Rational and science based response to a rather emotional post.

There's a difference between feeding a plant its ideal diet and pounding Twinkies down your kid.

I think, however, that you are wrong that the optimal climate is only a moral question. It is easy to look at statistical data on crop production, temperature related deaths, moisture levels, and other measures to find the best range for each ideal outcome. Certainly most of these questions could be answered scientifically.

Still, preferences will vary. If we find 85 F to be ideal for crop production and human survivability, there will be others who prefer snow and cold weather for sport and personal reasons.

[MichaelJoeWilliamson]

That isn't the difference between hypothesis and theory.

Wrong. What is the differecne between a hypothesis and a theory?

In a word, evidence.

A hypothesis is a proposed explanation for something.

We call it a theory when that hypothesis has been tested with considerable evidence. As a result, a theory is usually a much larger set of statements than a hypothesis ... because a theory can grow with every new piece of evidence it explains. In other words, a theory can explain far more than the phenomenon it originally was proposed to explain.

AGW is a theory, as even in the papers you are linking, they are acknowledging the existence and importance of it.

Wrong. It is still a hypothesis

[MichaelJoeWilliamson]

Many countries are already engaging in some form of a Cap-and-Trade system, including much of Europe.

Are you aware of the lack of success in the European carbon cap and trade market? Are you also aware that the carbon output of the USA had declined dramatically? I read one source that said the output is now down to the Kyoto levels.

One reason is, as you say, due to the economy. But another huge reason is the switch from coal powered plants to natural gas plants.

[GatorRade]

You're sort of taking my response out of context. I was answering a statement that (correctly) pointed out that too much CO2 is bad for plants. I was trying to determine what those ranges actually are and putting them into the context of present atmospheric levels of CO2. I included what some studies and experience of gardeners have shown about "optimum" levels. Rational and science based response to a rather emotional post.

There's a difference between feeding a plant its ideal diet and pounding Twinkies down your kid.

I apologize if I took your out of context there, wy.

I think, however, that you are wrong that the optimal climate is only a moral question. It is easy to look at statistical data on crop production, temperature related deaths, moisture levels, and other measures to find the best range for each ideal outcome. Certainly most of these questions could be answered scientifically.

Still, preferences will vary. If we find 85 F to be ideal for crop production and human survivability, there will be others who prefer snow and cold weather for sport and personal reasons.

You sort of gave my answer to this already. Preferences vary, so this is not the realm of science. Let's just focus on direct human temperature preferences: temperature related deaths, temperature comfort, money spent on clothes/climate control, preferences on clothes, and what locations are we interested in? The most populated? The ones that already use heat/cool? The richest? And of course we have crops, sea levels, biomes, variability vs averages, etc.

I agree that quantitative analysis should be a part of answering these questions, but that doesn't make these questions scientific.

[wygator]

A chart to consider seriously as countries attempt to meet Kyoto targets:

http://www.theblaze.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/01/image1.jpg
Source: U.S. Energy Information Administration, International Energy Statistics.


Note that the rapid increase in coal emissions by China dwarfs whatever reductions might be achieved by the signatories of the Kyoto treaty.

[Gatorrick22]

Wow.
Every single human needs heat too, let's double the temperature and see how we do.
Or only breathe carbon, that can't be bad, it's good for us!
Or double your cholesterol intake, the body needs that too. That has to be healthier for us.
Or maybe salt, body needs that. Double your salt intake, more has to be better.
How about doubling your sun exposure, you get vitamin D from it, more has to help, can't hurt the skin, the sun is life giving.

I could do this all day, it's liberating to know that anything that has any good in it can't be harmful in any way.

Hyperbole is a way of life for you leftists.

[GatorRade]

Hyperbole is a way of life for you leftists.

As are derogatory labels for you "rightists". :)

[GatorRade]

A chart to consider seriously as countries attempt to meet Kyoto targets:

Note that the rapid increase in coal emissions by China dwarfs whatever reductions might be achieved by the signatories of the Kyoto treaty.

This kind of information underscores the complexity of potential mitigation. However, it is rather misleading when thinking about emissions, which is better represented by the graphic below.

http://www.epa.gov/climatechange/images/ghgemissions/GlobalGHGEmissionsByCountry.png

Still, this is a problem that clearly crosses borders.

[wygator]

This kind of information underscores the complexity of potential mitigation. However, it is rather misleading when thinking about emissions, which is better represented by the graphic below.

http://www.epa.gov/climatechange/images/ghgemissions/GlobalGHGEmissionsByCountry.png

Still, this is a problem that clearly crosses borders.

My point remains about the growth of their emissions, especially considering that "per ton" coal releases more emissions than other fossil fuels. Add to that the fact that vehicle ownership is growing rapidly in China and you have rapidly increasing fuel use as well.

China has been experiencing sales growth rates of 20 – 30% year-on-year since the beginning of the decade and assumptions of the continuation of these growth rates raise concerns of enormous annual vehicle sales by 2020. Even conservative estimates point to 2020 sales rate of 50 million units per year, which is comparable to total global vehicle sales in 2009.

source (http://www.unep.org/transport/gfei/autotool/case_studies/apacific/china/CHINA%20CASE%20STUDY.pdf)

[GatorRade]

My point remains about the growth of their emissions, especially considering that "per ton" coal releases more emissions than other fossil fuels. Add to that the fact that vehicle ownership is growing rapidly in China and you have rapidly increasing fuel use as well.

source (http://www.unep.org/transport/gfei/autotool/case_studies/apacific/china/CHINA%20CASE%20STUDY.pdf)

For sure China's emissions growth is going to be off the charts. India as well. And eventually, we might see countries in Africa make the jump as well (I hope). If everyone starts emitting like the US, we are in for some serious CO2 release. I don't begrudge them this though, because this is a part of becoming wealthy. (I don't begrudge the US either). However, there is the potential for a tragedy of the commons situation, and then some tough decisions would need to be made. But for now, grow away China and India (though maybe think a bit about pollution when you get a few dollars).

[oragator1]

Hyperbole is a way of life for you leftists.

It was a "reduction to the absurd" argument, so it was purposeful.

But given the fact that you are now resorting to name calling instead of substantive posting, can I infer that you are finally done trying to defend your initial statement, which was based on a easily disproven premise?

[wygator]

Japan's meterologicical agency diverges significantly from NASA/GISS and HADCRUT after 2000. Maybe they haven't been adjusting all the temperature measurements upward for the past decade:)

http://24.media.tumblr.com/9cfc99249e5786b8f42ae77e8d8bcf7a/tumblr_mh30ezj3tE1rvs3p1o1_r1_1280.png

Down .25C since 2000.

link (http://sunshinehours.wordpress.com/2013/01/30/japan-meterological-agency-show-global-temperature-25c-colder-than-nasametnoaa/)

[MichaelJoeWilliamson]

The DAGW hypothesis that I want to test here is precisely and only “that dangerous global warming is being caused, or will be, by human-related carbon dioxide emissions”. To be “dangerous”, at a minimum the change must exceed the magnitude or rate of warmings that are known to be associated with normal weather and climatic variability.


Consider the following tests:

(i) Over the last 16 years, global average temperature, as measured by both thermometers and satellite sensors, has displayed no statistically significant warming; over the same period, atmospheric carbon dioxide has increased by 10%.

Large increases in carbon dioxide have therefore not only failed to produce dangerous warming, but failed to produce any warming at all. Hypothesis fails.

(ii) During the 20th century, a global warming of between 0.4O C and 0.7O C occurred, at a maximum rate, in the early decades of the century, of about 1.7O C/century. In comparison, our best regional climate records show that over the last 10,000 years natural climate cycling has resulted in temperature highs up to at least 1O C warmer than today, at rates of warming up to 2.5O C/century.

In other words, both the rate and magnitude of 20th century warming falls well within the envelope of natural climate change. Hypothesis fails, twice.

(iii) If global temperature is controlled primarily by atmospheric carbon dioxide levels, then changes in carbon dioxide should precede parallel changes in temperature.

In fact, the opposite relationship applies at all time scales. Temperature change precedes carbon dioxide change by about 5 months during the annual seasonal cycle, and by about 700-1000 years during ice age climatic cycling. Hypothesis fails.

(iv) The IPCC’s computer general circulation models, which factor in the effect of increasing carbon dioxide, project that global warming should be occurring at a rate of +2.0O C/century.

In fact, no warming at all has occurred in either the atmosphere or the ocean for more than the last decade. The models are clearly faulty, and allocate too great a warming effect for the extra carbon dioxide (technically, they are said to overestimate the climate sensitivity). Hypothesis fails.

(v) The same computer models predict that a fingerprint of greenhouse-gas-induced warming will be the creation of an atmospheric hot spot at heights of 8-10 km in equatorial regions, and enhanced warming also near both poles.

Given that we already know that the models are faulty, it shouldn’t surprise us to discover that direct measurements by both weather balloon radiosondes and satellite sensors show the absence of surface warming in Antarctica, and a complete absence of the predicted low latitude atmospheric hot spot. Hypothesis fails.


http://www.aitse.org/global-warming-anthropogenic-or-not/

[MichaelJoeWilliamson]

One of the 20th century’s greatest physicists, Richard Feynman, observed about science that:

“In general we look for a new law by the following process. First we guess it. Then we compute the consequences of the guess to see what would be implied if this law that we guessed is right. Then we compare the result of the computation to nature, with experiment or experience; compare it directly with observation, to see if it works.

It’s that simple statement that is the key to science. It does not make any difference how beautiful your guess is. It does not make any difference how smart you are, who made the guess, or what his name is. If it disagrees with experiment it is wrong.”

None of the five tests above supports or agrees with the predictions implicit in the greenhouse hypothesis as stated above. Richard Feynman is correct to advise us that therefore the hypothesis is invalid, and that many times over.

Summary

The current scientific reality is that the IPCC’s hypothesis of dangerous global warming has been repeatedly tested, and fails. Despite the expenditure of large sums of money over the last 25 years (more than $100 billion), and great research effort by IPCC-related and other (independent) scientists, to date no scientific study has established a certain link between changes in any significant environmental parameter and human-caused carbon dioxide emissions.

In contrast, the null hypothesis that the global climatic changes that we have observed over the last 150 years (and continue to observe today) are natural in origin has yet to be disproven. As summarised in the reports of the Nongovernmental International Panel on Climate Change (NIPCC), literally thousands of papers published in refereed journals contain facts or writings consistent with the null hypothesis, and plausible natural explanations exist for all the post-1850 global climatic changes that have been described so far.

[MichaelJoeWilliamson]

Now the BBC is getting into the act

Scientists say the recent downturn in the rate of global warming will lead to lower temperature rises in the short-term.

Since 1998, there has been an unexplained "standstill" in the heating of the Earth's atmosphere.

Writing in Nature Geoscience, the researchers say this will reduce predicted warming in the coming decades.

But long-term, the expected temperature rises will not alter significantly.
Continue reading the main story
“Start Quote

The most extreme projections are looking less likely than before”

Dr Alexander Otto University of Oxford

The slowdown in the expected rate of global warming has been studied for several years now. Earlier this year, the UK Met Office lowered their five-year temperature forecast.

But in this new analysis, by only including the temperatures from the last decade, the projected range would be 0.9-2.0C.



Sort term, meaning roughly 30 years. So, we have "achieved" what the IPCC originally recommended. That is, to confine the temperature increase to 2.0C or less. Sounds like that will occur

Now, as far as the ocean storage theory goes, who knows? If it is true then there should be a period of rapid surface warming that resumes at some point, since the climate system must eventually try to achieve radiative energy equilibrium. Of course, exactly when that might be is unknown.

Given the track record, does any one really believe the long term forecast?

[squigator]

Now the BBC is getting into the act





Sort term, meaning roughly 30 years. So, we have "achieved" what the IPCC originally recommended. That is, to confine the temperature increase to 2.0C or less. Sounds like that will occur

Now, as far as the ocean storage theory goes, who knows? If it is true then there should be a period of rapid surface warming that resumes at some point, since the climate system must eventually try to achieve radiative energy equilibrium. Of course, exactly when that might be is unknown.

Given the track record, does any one really believe the long term forecast?

It does require a leap of faith, kind of like believing in GOD, or access to the tax payer's collection plate.

[Gatorrick22]

I think I am failing to understand the point of the thread here. Was the goal simply to point out that 2012 wasn't the warmest year on record?

If it was only in the U.S. then it's just weather and not climate.