Bloomberg: What's really warming the world?

  • Thread starter Thread starter fnr
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
Theo520 said:
Hans, why do you constantly misrepresent the facts?!?!

Goddard, Watts and Curry are not DENIERS, they all believe in AGW but are SKEPTICS of the more catastrophic projections.
Click to expand...
I actually replied to a post from Zoltan.
He seems to stand firmly in the denier camp. In post #36 he wrote:
Because it is up to the pro-AGW theory folks to do the footwork. I remain skeptical and accept the natural course that our planet takes.
Click to expand...
I would not put Goddard, Watts and Curry in one and the same boat. Only Curry is a qualified climate scientist - and no, she is not a denier.

I mentioned that Goddard was criticized by Curry and even Watts.

Goddard wrote in 2012 (Real Science, April 15, 2012) “Global temperatures in 2012 are cooler than they were 22 years ago …” (I assume he must have referred to previous years, unless he had prophetic abilities).
When he misrepresents facts so badly, then I assume that we can label this fellow a denier.

There seems to be a general acceptance of AGW from the previously sceptic crowd. The argument now has shifted to “but it is not as bad as the alarmists want us to believe”.
Agreed, if you take a short-term outlook, say next 20 years. If you make 100 or 200-year projections, then it does look bleak. Unless you count on novel carbon capture technologies being developed.
 
Theo520 said:
What’s really odd is that we have a track record of successfully reducing ‘pollutants’ without resorting to such a tax scheme. Lead and other legitimate pollutants were reduced significantly through education and appropriate regulation. Cap & Trade is a tax scam.
Click to expand...
The essential difference between “Cap & Trade” and “appropriate regulation” is that Cap & Trade allows for more of what is supposedly being prevented to happen. That is, it is an effort (although a misguided one) to use market forces to achieve the desired goal instead of forcing every company to comply with the same limitation, independent of what other companies are doing. This supposedly rewards companies that go “above and beyond” what is required in suppressing CO2, while also allowing companies to decide to pay a fee instead of mitigating CO2, if they decide it is in their best interests to do so. It is sort of like an intentional foul in basketball. At certain times in the game, paying the penalty for fouling is the smart thing to do.

But as I said, Cap & Trade is a misguided effort because the reductions in CO2 will not be as great. It is too easy for companies to manufacture a “carbon credit” by overstating what they would have used had they not undertaken their mitigation efforts. Then companies with a large CO2 footprint can buy these credits, all without much reduction in CO2.

It is meant to look like a Christmas present to free-market libertarians that want to see the market involved in everything. But in this case that Christmas present turns out to be a lump of coal, literally.
 
Erich said:
Well, that would explain why the UN and their ilk are pushing a meat and dairy free diet.
Click to expand...
If ever I was tempted to doubt that the UN is a ridiculous and anti-human organization, this article would have persuaded me not to doubt it anymore.

From the article:
…
“Biomass and crops for animals are as damaging as [burning] fossil fuels.”

The recommendation follows advice last year that a vegetarian diet was better for the planet

Rising affluence is triggering a shift in diets towards meat and dairy products - livestock now consumes much of the world’s crops and by inference a great deal of freshwater, fertilisers and pesticides."

Achim Steiner, the UN under-secretary general and executive director of the UNEP, said: “Decoupling growth from environmental degradation is the number one challenge facing governments in a world of rising numbers of people, rising incomes, rising consumption demands and the persistent challenge of poverty alleviation.”
…end of quote…

Now, fully 1/3 of the useable land on earth is grassland that won’t grow anything else. That’s where most of the livestock are. Humans can’t digest grass, so these people are wanting to put 1/3 of the earth out of production. Animals that can digest grass are God’s gift to humanity, as they turn worthless grass into high-quality protein.

Before Columbus, there were about the same number of buffalo in the U.S. as there are now cattle, and that’s without counting the additional elk and antelope back then. Where was “as bad as fossil fuels” then?

Vegetables and grains consume massively more fossil fuels than do cattle, sheep and goats in their production. Almost no fuel or fertilizer is used in the production of those animals, and not much in terms of agricultural products like corn. In fact, grain is entirely unnecessary in production of cattle, sheep or goats. Aussies don’t feed them grain, and nobody has to.

Range livestock do consume water, but it’s not water than anybody can use for anything else, and they return almost all of it to the ground in the form of urine and manure. Who is going to use pond water in western Oklahoma that’s 100 miles from any town other than cattle or sheep?

But their ignorance aside, these UN experts are really showing their true colors. They’re espousing poverty. They’re actually saying it. There is rising affluence in the world, and they don’t like it. Amazing. As these clowns eat their wagyu steaks and fly their jets around the world on the hard-earned money of someone else, I guess they just can’t stand the thought that some ordinary person might actually get to have an adequate diet.
 
Let me add to my post, if you will indulge me.

Grassland is little fertilized if at all. Most of the time it isn’t ever fertilized, and grassland ranchers don’t use pesticides. No need for them. The fertilizer is provided by the animals themselves, which return 80% of the nutrients to the soil. Vegetables and grain sure don’t.

Cattle on feed don’t eat much actual “grain”, but grain byproducts like distiller’s grain; the leftovers from distillation or brewing. Every try distiller’s grain for breakfast? Go to a feed mill and get some of it and give it a try. You’ll never try it again, I guarantee. Smells good, though, in a weird way. Kind of like burnt toast multiplied by a thousand. The grain they do eat (I prefer grass fed myself) is not the stuff people eat.
 
Hans_W said:
Probability statements in science are a bit more complicated than that:

mashable.com/2015/01/20/climate-skeptics-warmest-year/

Look at the graphs (also the one at the end) and read how they get to the probabilities listed in the table.
Don’t overlook the chances given that 1998 was the warmest year: 4-5%
Click to expand...
To a simple country lad like me, it’s remarkable that government people can look at 38% and see a virtual certainty.

Not that being dependent on the favor of the administration for career advancement would affect what they say, or anything. Only bureaucrats like those in the IRS or the State Department would ever do anything like use their offices to advance a political agenda. Well, maybe the EPA a little. :rolleyes:
 
Ridgerunner said:
To a simple country lad like me, it’s remarkable that government people can look at 38% and see a virtual certainty.

Not that being dependent on the favor of the administration for career advancement would affect what they say, or anything. Only bureaucrats like those in the IRS or the State Department would ever do anything like use their offices to advance a political agenda. Well, maybe the EPA a little. :rolleyes:
Click to expand...
Gavin Schmidt and Co. wish to get extra credit for reporting the uncertainty, and then follow up with, “we’re really smart, so our “38%” is important.” The only time I see this kind of “south end of the bull” rationalization is when an organization wants something that is contrary to what the data are reporting. In other words, it’s political.

There are a few obvious problems with this claim of “hottest year ever.” One is that it is only considered for the surface temperature record, which is a tiny fraction of the Holocene record, the rest of which is inaccessible due to the unreliability of proxy records compared to instrument records. The other problem is that surface and satellite records have not been reconciled, so it is not an absolute statement even during the instrument record era. Considering the uncertainties with the instrument record, and the period prior to the instrument record, this claim is outlandish, and shows the politicization of the science community.
 
Ridgerunner said:
To a simple country lad like me, it’s remarkable that government people can look at 38% and see a virtual certainty.
Click to expand...
There is no need to be very certain about 2014 being the hottest year on record, considering that the first and second runners up are 2010 and 2005. If you add up the probabilities for these three years you get 78% (for NASA estimate) or 79% (for NOAA estimate). The whole purpose for this calculation is to refute the claim that there has not been any warming since 1998. With at least 78% probability, there has.
 
sps49 said:
There are a few obvious problems with this claim of “hottest year ever.” One is that it is only considered for the surface temperature record, which is a tiny fraction of the Holocene record…
Click to expand...
This is not a problem with the actual claim, which is “hottest year on record”. This specifically limits the competition to times since records have been kept.
The other problem is that surface and satellite records have not been reconciled…
Click to expand...
Is that a problem for those who use the surface temperatures? Or is it rather a problem for those that wish to establish the supremacy of the satellite record?
 
Ridgerunner said:
To a simple country lad like me, it’s remarkable that government people can look at 38% and see a virtual certainty.

Not that being dependent on the favor of the administration for career advancement would affect what they say, or anything. Only bureaucrats like those in the IRS or the State Department would ever do anything like use their offices to advance a political agenda. Well, maybe the EPA a little. :rolleyes:
Click to expand...
The correct answer would have been to say 2014 was TIED as the warmest year. That none took this more correct and informative route speaks volumes of the underlying political agenda.
 
LeafByNiggle said:
This is not a problem with the actual claim, which is “hottest year on record”. This specifically limits the competition to times since records have been kept.
Click to expand...
Ahh, a “competition” is it? What is the prize, and do you have a copy of the competition rule and regulations? No? Hmm.
LeafByNiggle said:
Is that a problem for those who use the surface temperatures? Or is it rather a problem for those that wish to establish the supremacy of the satellite record?
Click to expand...
The Annual Global Analysis For 2014 (Schmidt and Karl NASA/NOAA) show that data were considered, and that they showed a possible 3rd highest lower troposphere since 1977, but not “highest.” It’s not about supremacy, but integrity; they should have explained the reason why the two methods do not agree.

There is a distinct credibility gap that the climate community must contend with, and their “doubling down” strategy has not worked that well for the past decade. The claim is primarily a political claim, something they should reconsider doing in the future if they wish to restore credibility and confidence.
 
Theo520 said:
Hans, why do you constantly misrepresent the facts?!?!

Goddard, Watts and Curry are not DENIERS, they all believe in AGW but are SKEPTICS of the more catastrophic projections.
Click to expand...
He is an alarmist…that’s what they do!
 
fnr said:
Interactive web site: bloomberg.com/graphics/2015-whats-warming-the-world/
Click to expand...
Great post. And now they are saying that bar a Krakatoa-size volcano in the next month or so (which would have a tremendous cooling effect), 2015 is going to be by far way above the warmest years since instrumental temps began, much above the so-called “pause” line.

As I’ve been saying sometime the temps go below the computer-generated projection line, and sometime above, which in no way invalidates those models, but only shows there are several other factors involved in global average temps. The models do indeed have “skill.”
 
Considering we are experiencing an El Nino (natural warm cycle), I’m not surprised it’s not colder this year than the last 5+
 
Theo520 said:
Considering we are experiencing an El Nino (natural warm cycle), I’m not surprised it’s not colder this year than the last 5+
Click to expand...
Funny that you mentioned that, bec 1998 was also an el nino year and abnormally high AND used by every CC denialist in the world to claim AGW has stopped, as they cherry-picked 1998 as a starting point.

So, let’s control for el nino and la nina years and mention volcanoes (cooling effect) years:

http://www.skepticalscience.com/graphics/ENSO_Temps_500.gif

It just gives much stronger evidence that AGW is real and there was no “pause.”
 
lynnvinc said:
Funny that you mentioned that, bec 1998 was also an el nino year and abnormally high AND used by every CC denialist in the world to claim AGW has stopped, as they cherry-picked 1998 as a starting point.

So, let’s control for el nino and la nina years and mention volcanoes (cooling effect) years:

(snipped diagram with no citation/reference)

It just gives much stronger evidence that AGW is real and there was no “pause.”
Click to expand...
Assuming that the models have enough fidelity to replicate the physical system, and that the system may be treated as a linear equation in one (or more) unknown(s), you might have a point. Neither is true, so the claim falls flat. If you must clutter up the thread with diagrams, please be good enough to provide the source and context of the chart.
 
Hans_W said:
I assume this is directed towards me.

Well, some people cannot think 100 or 200 years into the future - who cares it’s not going to be a huge problem in my lifetime.
Click to expand...
I think you’ve hit on the crucial difference here. Most people concerned about AGW are not really concerned so much for themselves, but what they are doing to others – the poor around the world, who are most vulnerable, and future generations. Even science usually only speaks of up to 2100 and not beyond, because it becomes much more difficult and iffy to project what might happen in the future beyond 100 years. (Although paleoclimatology tells us about possibilities like the end-Permian extinction when 95% of life died out due to a great warming over some 200,000 years, and some other great die outs due to warmings.)

Those concerned about AGW do not have any time limit. They are just as concerned about the people who will be here 1,000 and 100,000 years from now, as for the people who are here now or will be in 100 years.

The naysayers, OTOH, who should be looking at that difficulty in predicting far into the future and thinking it could get very bad, instead say with 100% certainty that it surely won’t be bad and not to worry, and for sure not to do anything about the problem, like hypermile, turn off engine in drive-thrus, get energy efficient appliances, take reusable bags when shopping, do with less junk & throwaways in their lives, etc, maybe even move closer to work, maybe go for solar panels on their roofs.

They just don’t care to lift a little finger to help “just in case” it may get really bad in the far future because they’re not going to be around 100 or 1000 years from now. And they assume everyone else is like them, self-oriented, so they totally fail to understand why some may be “alarmed” when nothing much is happening now as expected or predicted from AGW, except a slight increase in hurricane intensity, wildfires, sea rise, heat waves, floods, droughts, crop loss – not really enough to be alarmed about in today’s world, esp when compared other problems.

This has just gotten me to think. When we visited Germany some about 20 years ago, I was struck by how well they made everything – to really last. I remember getting some knee-high stockings (for an outrageous price), brought them back, and they far outlasted my American ones by a factor of 20 or 40 times longer.

Now look at the difference between America (which is into AGW denial to a much larger extent and just living it up for today with no thought of tomorrow, a throw-away, shoddy product country) and Germany with quality products that last and into wind and solar and other renewable energy as if there is a tomorrow and will be tomorrows for 100s & 1000s of years.

Maybe this AGW denial is a cultural thing, because I don’t think Americans in general, even if they give lip-service to heaven and hell, really think about the future, either here on earth or in the hereafter. Plus for rugged individualist Americans other people lack salience. So it makes perfect sense for them not to be concerned about AGW and to make fun of or chastise those who are with labels like “alarmist.”

Frankly there is nothing at all wrong in my books with being “alarmed” about AGW and its knock-on impacts and there is everything wrong with not being alarmed. The naysayers think they are trying to insult us (though the snarly way they say or write it is nasty), but they are actually complimenting us.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top