Climate Science Is Not Settled

[norseamd]

No, China continues to build new coal plants at an astonishing rate.

http://www.reuters.com/article/2014/01/07/china-coal-idUSL3N0K90H720140107

This article is from just 3 days ago.

http://webcache.googleusercontent.c...ai+&cd=7&hl=en&ct=clnk&gl=us&client=firefox-a

 

[Paul98]

Over what time period

The last 18ish years where those who deny global warming talk about global warming not happening.

 

[dphantom]

This article is from just 3 days ago.

http://webcache.googleusercontent.c...ai+&cd=7&hl=en&ct=clnk&gl=us&client=firefox-a

it will take years for that to come on line. China is also developing its shale and deepwater gas capabilities with the first deep water expected this year. But large production will also take many years yet.

Coal will remain the predominant energy source for many years yet. Projections are that China will add on average 1 600MW coal power plant every 10 days or so through 2020. That is about the size of our entire coal fired production.

 

[dphantom]

The last 18ish years where those who deny global warming talk about global warming not happening.

Ok so what has been the warming trend from 1997 to present?

And you need to understand I do not deny climate is changing and that we are in a warming trend.

 

[fskimospy]

What is the way forward? I haven't seen or heard of any plan.

Edit: I read the entire article, and I honestly don't see what the issue is. It seems to be a reasonably well thought out evaluation of the current state of climate modeling and data gathering. Knowing how much you don't know is a necessary part of any decision making process. Why would anyone object to what the author has to say?

As I already said, the cited zone of uncertainty all falls within an area that demands action.

 

[Paul98]

Ok so what has been the warming trend from 1997 to present?

And you need to understand I do not deny climate is changing and that we are in a warming trend.

Look back at my previous post and you will see what I am talking about. We have multiple things that would lower the global air temperature readings, yet even with that we still show warming.

 

[dphantom]

Look back at my previous post and you will see what I am talking about. We have multiple things that would lower the global air temperature readings, yet even with that we still show warming.

I am not sure who you are trying to convince. Both I and the article cited in the op agree warming is occurring.

 

[Moonbeam]

No action is required because any deviation from the traditional course of self destruction we are on, hallowed, hoary, and honored, will lead to certain doom and cost a lot of money. If we can keep the liberals from destroying energy production we can turn on air conditioning.

 

[Paul98]

I am not sure who you are trying to convince. Both I and the article cited in the op agree warming is occurring.

I am replying to what you posted earlier

I am of the opinion based on all current research that man's influence is small but not insignificant compared to natural variation.

Showing that it is not small and that even with multiple atmosphere cooling factors which in the past caused strong cooling that we are still warming. Not only that more than what is usually reported from satellite, due to bad coverage in certain areas.

So we are mostly in agreement, I just think that saying the influence is small is understating our influence.

 

[Paratus]

Yes coal is dirty, but you don't have to push the transition and risk the grid.

Nor should you crash into anything with your lightweight crumple car. Calling them safe is ridiculous.

You should see what a safe steel beast like a 59 Bel-Aire does to a 2009 mid size plastic Chevy Malibu (22/33mpg). You want to talk about unsafe!.......

For the Bel-Aire.........



Well I'm glad I'm driving a Malibu instead of a "safe" big car.

(However our other car is a Suburban, and we feel pretty safe in it too. )

 

[master_shake_]

You should see what a safe steel beast like a 59 Bel-Aire does to a 2009 mid size plastic Chevy Malibu (22/33mpg). You want to talk about unsafe!.......

For the Bel-Aire.........



Well I'm glad I'm driving a Malibu instead of a "safe" big car.

(However our other car is a Suburban, and we feel pretty safe in it too. )

you're missing the point...

the guy in the 59 is now more compact therefore fits in to smaller areas

 

[Paratus]

I am not sure who you are trying to convince. Both I and the article cited in the op agree warming is occurring.

I posted this in another climate change thread but are you aware of just how much energy is being absorbed by the ocean?

That's where most if the energy is going and why the air temperature increase has slowed, (along with the long solar minimum during the 00's.)

20x10^22 J of energy....

Equal to:

40% of the impact energy of the meteor that killed the dinosaurs 65 million years ago.

Or

4.78×10^13 tons of TNT

You don't think that's going to cause much of a change or it doesn't have anything to do with the 25% increase in CO2 we've put into the air?

 

[sandorski]

Climate Change Denialism in 50 years

Of course, no one denies that millions have been affected, thousands killed, and Billions of dollars in costs incurred, but the idea that it will get worse is ludicrous!!!

 

[himkhan]

well if your a eco-KOOK it is settled and it's human induced. the eco-KOOK agenda is blind and blinkered to anything else.


http://www.climatehustle.org/

I went to http://www.fucktarddenier.org to find you sitting in the dark instead.

 

[Greenman]

sigh ...

Lower emissions?

Really? That's what you've got? How much lower? How much can we dump into the atmosphere without adverse effects? How do we get the rest of the planet on board?

 

[Greenman]

As I already said, the cited zone of uncertainty all falls within an area that demands action.

And as I already asked, what action? All the same questions I asked Norse apply. I'm all for taking action, but no one has ever said what that action is. Reducing CO2 emissions isn't a plan, it's a response. It's like your doctor telling you have a terminal illness and you ask what to do, and he responds with "try to live longer".

So what's the plan? What specifically are the steps to reversing climate change? Do we need to build ten thousand nuclear power plants and build a damn on every river on earth? Is solar energy the answer, and can we produce enough of it to matter?

I don't know what "action" means in this circumstance. Running in circles with our hands in the air may be emotionally rewarding, but it's not going to help.

 

[Paratus]

And as I already asked, what action? All the same questions I asked Norse apply. I'm all for taking action, but no one has ever said what that action is. Reducing CO2 emissions isn't a plan, it's a response. It's like your doctor telling you have a terminal illness and you ask what to do, and he responds with "try to live longer".

So what's the plan? What specifically are the steps to reversing climate change? Do we need to build ten thousand nuclear power plants and build a damn on every river on earth? Is solar energy the answer, and can we produce enough of it to matter?

I don't know what "action" means in this circumstance. Running in circles with our hands in the air may be emotionally rewarding, but it's not going to help.

How about we reduce CO2 in the air by reducing long term demand for fossil fuels by reducing the global population. The ethical way to reduce global population is to increase the third worlds standard of living. First world standards of living cause negative population growth.

So we take a shorter term environmental hit to increase the power available to third world. We try and use solar, wind and nuclear instead of coal and oil to offset CO2. Even natural gas would be better than coal.

If we were smart we could sell the third world US solar panels, GE wind turbines, Westinghouse advanced nuclear reactors and US natural gas, (yay business).

Further research can give a us narrower band of changes we'll have to adapt to while we try and get the population to peak.

How's that for a start?

 

[bradly1101]

The earth always has and always will go through cycles caused by the instability of the orbit around the sun. Adding to a warming cycle with man-made warming is really asking for trouble.

 

[PokerGuy]

Knowing how much you don't know is a necessary part of any decision making process. Why would anyone object to what the author has to say?

Actually, no. Knowing what you don't know and making it a part of your decision making process is only important if you actually care about the science and the results of the actions. It's not important if you're just pushing a political agenda pretending it is supported by science. The latter is what is actually going on, so acknowledging and understanding the shortcomings of modeling are not important. What is important is making sure everyone fears the future and is willing to hand over their money and power to those pushing the political agenda to "fix" the problem.

 

[boomerang]

Climate Cultists

 

[Brainonska511]

 

[Paratus]

Actually, no. Knowing what you don't know and making it a part of your decision making process is only important if you actually care about the science and the results of the actions. It's not important if you're just pushing a political agenda pretending it is supported by science. The latter is what is actually going on, so acknowledging and understanding the shortcomings of modeling are not important. What is important is making sure everyone fears the future and is willing to hand over their money and power to those pushing the political agenda to "fix" the problem.

So TL:dr - conspiracy theory.

There's a reason I lump deniers in with moon hoaxers, truthers, anti-vaxxers, and homeopaths.

 

[bshole]

It has already been explained both why there is a slowdown in air temperature, and that the models don't really fail to capture the slowing. 3 Main factors for slowdown being change in ocean cycle which causes cooling of air temperatures, lower solar activity, and lack of good temperature records for certain areas which other data shows large warming trend.

Supposedly it went into the ocean. That makes no utterly no sense at all. Anybody with basic science knowledge can see that. IF IT WENT INTO THE OCEAN WHY DIDN'T THE RATE OF OCEAN RISE ACCELERATE? Jesus Christ are you really unaware that water EXPANDS when warmed?!?!! Now that is a trick.... the heat went into the ocean and the water did not expand. Dumb as box of fucking rocks.

These climate scientists are real fucking good at explaining why their predictions miss so badly. What they aren't so good at is actually predicting anything close to reality.

 

[dphantom]

I posted this in another climate change thread but are you aware of just how much energy is being absorbed by the ocean?

I follow the science very closely. We know way too little about the oceans to even be able to begin to draw any conclusions over the effect you are describing. Until we get consistent records over at least one if not 2 ocean cycles PDO/AMO we are only guessing at best.

 

[dphantom]

Supposedly it went into the ocean. That makes no utterly no sense at all. Anybody with basic science knowledge can see that. IF IT WENT INTO THE OCEAN WHY DIDN'T THE RATE OF OCEAN RISE ACCELERATE? Jesus Christ are you really unaware that water EXPANDS when warmed?!?!! Now that is a trick.... the heat went into the ocean and the water did not expand. Dumb as box of fucking rocks

that is one of the problems with that explanation for the current pause in warming. The rate of sea level rise has not changed in the last century and there are even some indications it may be slowing.

I think it is another example of how little we understand climate and how much more work there is yet to do.