WSJ: Whatever Happened to Global Warming?

  • Thread starter Thread starter Theo520
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
weller2 said:
So what is your mechanism for transfering heat out of the planet, through the Karman line, outside the thermal IR band?

To use a financial example, all I’m looking at is cash flow in/out of the company, and I’m seeing that the cash flow means that the company has net profit, although the balance sheet shows zero. From this I conclude that the company is hiding this extra money somewhere. What exactly they are doing with this money at the moment is secondary.

You’re claiming that I must be wrong, because by looking just at the in/out cash flow, I’m ignoring depreciation and other fine accounting details. If the balance sheet is zero then it obviously means that there was no extra cash influx.

Which one of us is more likely to be defrauded here? 🙂
Click to expand...
Or more likely the financials were wrong.
 
When people talk about global warming, they are usually talking about three things. 1. The temperature of the planet has been increasing for the last 150 years. 2. This change is partially due to human activity. 3. The results will be catastrophic. Thus deniers come in three categories, which can be called types 1, 2, 3. I am a denier of type 3. But the subject is a very large one, and I would like to focus on type 1. Most of the remarks on this thread are of this type.
These days type 1 denial notes that the temperature vs. time graph for the last 15 years or so has a lesser slope than that for the 15 years preceding. The data can even be made to show that the temperature has been constant for the last 15 years. It depends on what year is taken as the baseline. But there is no disagreement that the last 15 years are different from those preceding.
About this, there are two things to say. The behavior is to be expected if there are multiple factors determining the earth’s temperature. It is often stated that the IPCC has left out natural factors like volcanic activity; not so. The second point to be taken into account is that the source of the data is the much-reviled IPCC. Deniers believe that the IPCC is conducting a gigantic hoax in order to…do what? The motive is obscure. But if there is a vast conspiracy of this type, why has the IPCC not fabricated data that are much more alarming than what they have presented?
 
coriolanus said:
When people talk about global warming, they are usually talking about three things. 1. The temperature of the planet has been increasing for the last 150 years. 2. This change is partially due to human activity. 3. The results will be catastrophic. Thus deniers come in three categories, which can be called types 1, 2, 3. I am a denier of type 3. But the subject is a very large one, and I would like to focus on type 1. Most of the remarks on this thread are of this type.
These days type 1 denial notes that the temperature vs. time graph for the last 15 years or so has a lesser slope than that for the 15 years preceding. The data can even be made to show that the temperature has been constant for the last 15 years. It depends on what year is taken as the baseline. But there is no disagreement that the last 15 years are different from those preceding.
About this, there are two things to say. The behavior is to be expected if there are multiple factors determining the earth’s temperature. It is often stated that the IPCC has left out natural factors like volcanic activity; not so. The second point to be taken into account is that the source of the data is the much-reviled IPCC. Deniers believe that the IPCC is conducting a gigantic hoax in order to…do what? The motive is obscure. But if there is a vast conspiracy of this type, why has the IPCC not fabricated data that are much more alarming than what they have presented?
Click to expand...
Actually the motive is quite clear. To impose massive new regulation and taxes . The AGW hoaxes just another in a long line of “crisises” being used to justify imposing the far left agenda on the populace .

We were told 20 years ago that there was a 95% certainty that increase in CO2 would lead to a significant increase in temperature . This turned out not to be true . I have no problem with people wanting to believe in this even though it has been falsified by their own models - I do have a problem with them using this nonexistent problem to impose new taxes and regulations.
 
Well, bob, I have looked at your link to the Daily Caller, and noted how it has presented the global warming issue, not to mention the “Jennifer Lopez loses all her clothes” issue, and I am not too impressed by the Daily Caller when the subject is science. You mention that a climate prediction made 20 years ago has turned out to be wrong. This is no surprise. Like most science, climate studies were inexact and tentative at the start, and they became more certain as time passed.
You think that a vast conspiracy is in operation to promote left-wing causes. I mentioned that I am a type 3 denier myself- I do not think that we are headed for doom. I am in favor of a proposal by Freeman Dyson: CO2 can be controlled by planting trees. A rough calculation indicates that an area of forest equal to six Ohios (I live in Ohio) would fix the CO2 at its present concentration. If there were a free market way of running such a project, I would be in favor of it. But I cannot see how it would be done except by the government.
 
coriolanus said:
Well, bob, I have looked at your link to the Daily Caller, and noted how it has presented the global warming issue, not to mention the “Jennifer Lopez loses all her clothes” issue, and I am not too impressed by the Daily Caller when the subject is science. You mention that a climate prediction made 20 years ago has turned out to be wrong. This is no surprise. Like most science, climate studies were inexact and tentative at the start, and they became more certain as time passed.
You think that a vast conspiracy is in operation to promote left-wing causes. I mentioned that I am a type 3 denier myself- I do not think that we are headed for doom. I am in favor of a proposal by Freeman Dyson: CO2 can be controlled by planting trees. A rough calculation indicates that an area of forest equal to six Ohios (I live in Ohio) would fix the CO2 at its present concentration. If there were a free market way of running such a project, I would be in favor of it. But I cannot see how it would be done except by the government.
Click to expand...
So which of the 52 excuses did you find were not well-documented?

you find we’re not backed up with extensive documentation?
 
bob and gilliam, Of the 52 reasons for global warming listed by the Daily Caller, I believe in the one involving the Kardashians. This is the area of expertise for the Daily Caller.
But seriously: one link provided shows changes in the area of the Antarctic ice. This is a two-dimensional look at a three-dimensional problem, which should be addressed by considering the mass or volume of the ice; and in particular the land ice. Another link shows some record lows for ten days this month for some towns in the Midwest. This illustrates the most prevalent mistake in 400 years of science: too small a sample. The behavior of a few places for a few days tells us nothing about the long-term behavior of the entire planet.
 
coriolanus said:
bob and gilliam, Of the 52 reasons for global warming listed by the Daily Caller, I believe in the one involving the Kardashians. This is the area of expertise for the Daily Caller.
But seriously: one link provided shows changes in the area of the Antarctic ice. This is a two-dimensional look at a three-dimensional problem, which should be addressed by considering the mass or volume of the ice; and in particular the land ice. Another link shows some record lows for ten days this month for some towns in the Midwest. This illustrates the most prevalent mistake in 400 years of science: too small a sample. The behavior of a few places for a few days tells us nothing about the long-term behavior of the entire planet.
Click to expand...
Of course in another thread we were being told that the “oceans were taking up more heat” because of the shrinking ice caps at the Arctic and Antarctic allowed for more IR radiation to heat the oceans, completely ignoring that fact that now both areas have had record setting ice growth (area) winters the last few years. 🤷
 
jilly4ski said:
Of course in another thread we were being told that the “oceans were taking up more heat” because of the shrinking ice caps at the Arctic and Antarctic allowed for more IR radiation to heat the oceans, completely ignoring that fact that now both areas have had record setting ice growth (area) winters the last few years. 🤷
Click to expand...
Of course the most logical reason for why the earth is not warming is that no warming is taking place
 
jilly4ski said:
Of course in another thread we were being told that the “oceans were taking up more heat” because of the shrinking ice caps at the Arctic and Antarctic allowed for more IR radiation to heat the oceans, completely ignoring that fact that now both areas have had record setting ice growth (area) winters the last few years. 🤷
Click to expand...
Could I have a citation for that fact please?
 
Coriolanus,

I don’t deny that the earth is warming and has been warming since the last ice age. And will probably off and on continue to warm until it cools again and we have another ice age.

Personally, I would rather live with the warmth than live in another ice age.
 
estesbob said:
Actually the motive is quite clear. To impose massive new regulation and taxes . …
Click to expand...
I think it’s the other way around fear of new regulations and taxes (and totalitarian takeover) is what causes people to reject that AGW is real and happening.

However, when AGW really kicks in (maybe we’ll all be dead by then and it’s not a concern of anyone living today, except maybe the very smallest and newest members of our human family) there may be such severe problems and disruption of food production and life in general that GUESS WHAT the dystopic society will have to impose really severe regulations and taxes and clamp down on warlords and anarchy just to keep people alive.

If anyone here thinks Typhoon Haiyan, Superstorm Sandy, Katrina, present storms, wildfires, droughts, deluges, disease spread, crop failures (mostly in poor countries at this point, so we don’t really hear about that) are bad, just wait until AGW kicks in and these go off the charts.

But we are scared to death of the inoculation against this – a few new regs and some modest taxes meant to inspire a shift to a better and brighter future. (I know all these “sacrifices” could more than be off-set just by taking away the subsidies and tax breaks to fossil fuels, but fat chance that will happen with those industries having bought and paid for the gov, including the Dems.)

This brings to mind the story about “The Man Who Met Death and Fled”:

A man met Death in Damascus. Death looked surprised, but then recovered his ghastly composure and said, “I am coming for you tomorrow.” The terrified man that night bought a camel and rode to Aleppo. The next day, Death knocked on the door of the room where he was hiding, and said I have come for you."

“But I thought you would be looking for me in Damascus,” said the man.

“Not at all,” said Death, “that is why I was surprised to see you yesterday. I knew that today I was to find you in Aleppo.”
That man (were he alive today) would be a climate change skeptic, or maybe he reincarnated as the ostrich who buried his head in the sand when he saw a fox coming to eat him.
 
lynnvinc said:
I think it’s the other way around fear of new regulations and taxes (and totalitarian takeover) is what causes people to reject that AGW is real and happening.

However, when AGW really kicks in (maybe we’ll all be dead by then and it’s not a concern of anyone living today, except maybe the very smallest and newest members of our human family) there may be such severe problems and disruption of food production and life in general that GUESS WHAT the dystopic society will have to impose really severe regulations and taxes and clamp down on warlords and anarchy just to keep people alive.

If anyone here thinks Typhoon Haiyan, Superstorm Sandy, Katrina, present storms, wildfires, droughts, deluges, disease spread, crop failures (mostly in poor countries at this point, so we don’t really hear about that) are bad, just wait until AGW kicks in and these go off the charts.

But we are scared to death of the inoculation against this – a few new regs and some modest taxes meant to inspire a shift to a better and brighter future. (I know all these “sacrifices” could more than be off-set just by taking away the subsidies and tax breaks to fossil fuels, but fat chance that will happen with those industries having bought and paid for the gov, including the Dems.)

This brings to mind the story about “The Man Who Met Death and Fled”:

A man met Death in Damascus. Death looked surprised, but then recovered his ghastly composure and said, “I am coming for you tomorrow.” The terrified man that night bought a camel and rode to Aleppo. The next day, Death knocked on the door of the room where he was hiding, and said I have come for you."

“But I thought you would be looking for me in Damascus,” said the man.

“Not at all,” said Death, “that is why I was surprised to see you yesterday. I knew that today I was to find you in Aleppo.”
That man (were he alive today) would be a climate change skeptic, or maybe he reincarnated as the ostrich who buried his head in the sand when he saw a fox coming to eat him.
Click to expand...
People are welcome to believe whatever they want. Just don’t ask me to fund their fantasies .
 
jilly4ski said:
Of course in another thread we were being told that the “oceans were taking up more heat” because of the shrinking ice caps at the Arctic and Antarctic allowed for more IR radiation to heat the oceans, completely ignoring that fact that now both areas have had record setting ice growth (area) winters the last few years. 🤷
Click to expand...
No one is talking about Antarctic ice caps shrinking being a causal factor at this point. It’s the Arctic ice shrinking that is one of several positive feedbacks (and I think the methane shotgun is a much more serious feedback), and Arctic ice is shrinking. While 2012 was an extreme case, 2014 is still below average. See nsidc.org/arcticseaicenews/

(Please Note: This uploaded content is no longer available.)

The other issue is that deeper oceans are taking the warming away from the surface, and since climate scientists more commonly use the surface and atmospheric temps as a proxy to indicate climate change, this process is “masking” climate change based on that proxy, while the earth system taken as a whole continues to warm.

However, considering that the methane hydrates or clathrates (ice encasings) are in the deeper oceans, the fact that these oceans are warming may be cause for concern. I need to ask some climate scientist about that…is the warming warm enough and deep enough to melt those clathrates or some of them… :eek:
 
Lynn, you are truly talented in spreading FUD/propaganda!
Answer my question - are you compensated for posting here?
lynnvinc said:
No one is talking about **Antarctic **ice caps shrinking being a causal factor at this point. It’s the Arctic ice shrinking that is one of several positive feedbacks (and I think the methane shotgun is a much more serious feedback), and Arctic ice is shrinking. While 2012 was an extreme case, 2014 is still below average.
Click to expand...
Perhaps, no one is talking about shrinking because the Antarctic ice is expanding… Why did you post a chart for the Arctic showing the normal summer contraction? Considering we are warming from a mini ice age, the caps are expected to get smaller on a decadal basis.
lynnvinc said:
The other issue is that deeper oceans are taking the warming away from the surface, and since climate scientists more commonly use the surface and atmospheric temps as a proxy to indicate climate change, this process is “masking” climate change based on that proxy, while the earth system taken as a whole continues to warm.

However, considering that the methane hydrates or clathrates (ice encasings) are in the deeper oceans, the fact that these oceans are warming may be cause for concern. I need to ask some climate scientist about that…is the warming warm enough and deep enough to melt those clathrates or some of them… :eek:
Click to expand...
When did the ocean’s get DEEPER, if that’s your excuse for the recent pause? If they haven’t suddenly got DEEPER, you are flailing.

I’m tired of your conjecture of what addition things we may need to fear. Please post supporting in links in future EEK!.
 
Theo520 said:
When did the ocean’s get DEEPER, if that’s your excuse for the recent pause? If they haven’t suddenly got DEEPER, you are flailing…
Click to expand...
In Lynn’s post it is obvious that the term deeper oceans is used to compare the shallower portions with the deeper ones. Did you really think Lynn was claiming the oceans were getting deeper?
 
LeafByNiggle said:
In Lynn’s post it is obvious that the term deeper oceans is used to compare the shallower portions with the deeper ones. Did you really think Lynn was claiming the oceans were getting deeper?
Click to expand...
I have heard stranger from the green movement side of the argument.
 

Lynn dear,
**The Antarctic Sea Ice may have just set a new all time record **​

(at least for the satellite era, when we have data)

1,121,000 sq km above the 1981-2010 mean, breaking the record set in 2013 by 48,000 sq km.
Data here.



Remember to answer my question - are you compensated for posting here?
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top