Comment on State of the climate debate in the U.S. by Rob Starkey (@Robbuffy)

June 15, 2015, 3:57 pm

≫ Next: Comment on State of the climate debate in the U.S. by Salvatore del Prete

≪ Previous: Comment on State of the climate debate in the U.S. by Mike Flynn

$

0

0

ATTP writes
1. “we want to risk the possibility of severe negative impacts.”

2. “Absent technologies/advancements that can remove GHGs from the atmosphere, it is irreversible on human timescales.”

Regarding #1- shouldn’t there be better evidence of net negative impacts today if these impacts will be increasing and so large in the future? It is difficult to take someone’s claims about a huge increase in the rate of sea level rise seriously (as an example) when the rate of rise has been fairly steady for close to 1000 years.

Regarding #2- I am skeptical about the claim that it is irreversible on human timescales. I have read several papers on the topic, but do not conclude the system is understood well enough to reach that conclusion.

---

Comment on State of the climate debate in the U.S. by Salvatore del Prete

June 15, 2015, 3:59 pm

≫ Next: Comment on State of the climate debate in the U.S. by Joseph

≪ Previous: Comment on State of the climate debate in the U.S. by Rob Starkey (@Robbuffy)

$

0

0

Dr. PAGE ,what does MCE stand for? Thanks.

all the Solar Activity data time series – e.g., Solar Magnetic Field strength, TSI, SSNs, GCRs, (effect on aerosols, clouds and albedo) CHs, MCEs, EUV variations, and associated ozone variations and Forbush events.

Comment on State of the climate debate in the U.S. by Joseph

June 15, 2015, 4:00 pm

≫ Next: Comment on State of the climate debate in the U.S. by Mike Flynn

≪ Previous: Comment on State of the climate debate in the U.S. by Salvatore del Prete

$

0

0

So, AK, you are saying that WG2 is not based on a review of the scientific literature on the impacts of climate change?

Comment on State of the climate debate in the U.S. by Mike Flynn

June 15, 2015, 4:03 pm

≫ Next: Comment on Driving in the dark by Mike Flynn

≪ Previous: Comment on State of the climate debate in the U.S. by Joseph

$

0

0

Steven Mosher,

According to Svante Arrhenius –

” By the influence of the increasing percentage of carbonic acid in the atmosphere, we may hope to enjoy ages with more equable and better climates, especially as regards the colder regions of the earth, ages when the earth will bring forth much more abundant crops than at present, for the benefit of rapidly propagating mankind.”

I presume you don’t want to see “more equable and better climates” or “much more abundant crops”.

I’m not sure why you want mankind to be miserable and hungry, but that’s the way it appears.

Or was Svante Arrhenius just dumb, in your opinion?

Comment on Driving in the dark by Mike Flynn

June 15, 2015, 4:10 pm

≫ Next: Comment on Driving in the dark by Vaughan Pratt

≪ Previous: Comment on State of the climate debate in the U.S. by Mike Flynn

$

0

0

Vaughan Pratt,

Here’s Svante Arrhenius’ stab at the future –

“By the influence of the increasing percentage of carbonic acid in the atmosphere, we may hope to enjoy ages with more equable and better climates, especially as regards the colder regions of the earth, ages when the earth will bring forth much more abundant crops than at present, for the benefit of rapidly propagating mankind.”

I think he won a Nobel Prize. Maybe you are smarter than him, and can point out where is wrong. His view seems a good one to me, but what would I know?

Can you help explaining where he went wrong?

Comment on Driving in the dark by Vaughan Pratt

June 15, 2015, 4:16 pm

≫ Next: Comment on State of the climate debate in the U.S. by AK

≪ Previous: Comment on Driving in the dark by Mike Flynn

$

0

0

But, none of the temperature increase is due to a “residual” warming after it cools at night, nor is it from a “residual” warming at the end of the year.

Say more. Explanation, quote, citation, link, …

(Are you talking about the residual layer just above the atmosphere’s nocturnal boundary layer? If so I have a guess as to what you might be referring to.)

Comment on State of the climate debate in the U.S. by AK

June 15, 2015, 4:35 pm

≫ Next: Comment on Driving in the dark by Don Monfort

≪ Previous: Comment on Driving in the dark by Vaughan Pratt

$

0

0

@Joseph... Everybody knows the "Summary for Policymakers" bears only a passing resemblance to any "science" within the body of the report. It's the result of a political negotiation among sponsors. As for any “<i>review of the scientific literature on the impacts of climate change</i>” in WGII, based on the policy I blockquoted, it would be on the “<i>impacts</i>” of increased “<i>risk of extreme weather events</i>”, not whether it actually “<i>increases as the temperature increases.</i>” The latter, if any, would be in WGI. Basically, invoking WGII to "prove" that “<i>that risk of extreme weather events increases as the temperature increases</i>” is tantamount to begging the question.

Comment on Driving in the dark by Don Monfort

June 15, 2015, 4:41 pm

≫ Next: Comment on State of the climate debate in the U.S. by Steven Mosher

≪ Previous: Comment on State of the climate debate in the U.S. by AK

$

0

0

I could have embarrassed you by asking about that strongly positive water vapor feedback BS, doc. Or, your perennial AGU poster. Are you still trying to sell the minikelvin thing? (I know what it is.)

You are usually always good people, doc. Probably because you are from Australia. Nice place and nice people. Just don’t drink the beer.

---

Comment on State of the climate debate in the U.S. by Steven Mosher

June 15, 2015, 4:44 pm

≫ Next: Comment on State of the climate debate in the U.S. by Mark Silbert

≪ Previous: Comment on Driving in the dark by Don Monfort

$

0

0

“Now this makes sense if someone knew that the human influence was in fact negative, but we don’t do we??? Nobody would want to stop the human influence if it was positive would they?”

We dont have to know. Simple fact is you dont know if the sun will come up but that doesnt stop you from taking action.

Comment on State of the climate debate in the U.S. by Mark Silbert

June 15, 2015, 4:45 pm

≫ Next: Comment on State of the climate debate in the U.S. by Ragnaar

≪ Previous: Comment on State of the climate debate in the U.S. by Steven Mosher

$

0

0

Thanks for posting this Norman Page. One of the saddest aspects of climate fanaticism is the attempted marginalization of scientists such as Dyson and to some extent Lindzen as being to old to contribute.

Comment on State of the climate debate in the U.S. by Ragnaar

June 15, 2015, 5:07 pm

≫ Next: Comment on State of the climate debate in the U.S. by aaron

≪ Previous: Comment on State of the climate debate in the U.S. by Mark Silbert

$

0

0

‘Hansen warned that the rise in sea levels was evidence
that humans were causing global climate instability.’
A steady rise is arguably stability. Say one was emptying a pool at a slow and steady rate. Or emptying an ice sheet into the oceans at a slow and steady rate. An acceleration of that now might prevent a greater acceleration and collapse later. The ice not melting in the face of rising temperatures would be instability. Systems can reorganize to prevent instability it seems to me.

Comment on State of the climate debate in the U.S. by aaron

June 15, 2015, 5:10 pm

≫ Next: Comment on State of the climate debate in the U.S. by GaryM

≪ Previous: Comment on State of the climate debate in the U.S. by Ragnaar

$

0

0

“The goal is reducing our influence on the climate.”

That’s really, really stupid goal.

I vote for maximizing our influence!

Comment on State of the climate debate in the U.S. by GaryM

June 16, 2015, 12:02 pm

≫ Next: Comment on State of the climate debate in the U.S. by timg56

≪ Previous: Comment on State of the climate debate in the U.S. by aaron

$

0

0

Ron Graf.

I didn’t miss the sarcasm. It is the sarcasm that I criticized.

If what you mean is she was being ironic, I considered that. But she has dropped too many off-hand, dismissive remarks regarding conservatives over the years to get the benefit of the doubt. She has improved significantly. But old tribal habits die hard.

Comment on State of the climate debate in the U.S. by timg56

June 16, 2015, 12:03 pm

≫ Next: Comment on State of the climate debate in the U.S. by PA

≪ Previous: Comment on State of the climate debate in the U.S. by GaryM

$

0

0

Beta,

There are constitutional law scholars who disagree with just how much the EPA is enabled. Not to mention members of Congress. And let us not forget that the sole determinate for the endangement finding was the IPCC. No other investigation or research was done. Even the Agency’s own Inspector General reported that the Agency failed to follow its own protocols in reaching their finding. Depending on how the climate does play out the next several years, I suspect the EPA may find they have stepped way out of bounds in support of a political agenda and ultimately will have compromised the integrity of the Agency.

FYI – I do appreciate your honesty is calling out what will be required – ie the impacts – of following an emissions reduction policy sufficient to make a difference. Most supporting that response never do so.

Comment on State of the climate debate in the U.S. by PA

June 16, 2015, 12:13 pm

≫ Next: Comment on State of the climate debate in the U.S. by ...and Then There's Physics

≪ Previous: Comment on State of the climate debate in the U.S. by timg56

$

0

0

Beta Blocker | June 16, 2015 at 2:42 pm |
…
In my view, the plan is a means for the President and the EPA to appear committed to the goal of fighting global warming, while at the same time avoiding the messy but necessary business of justifying their proposed GHG reductions to the American voting public in the court of public opinion, which is where things matter most if the President’s stated goals are ever to be met.

No sane person capable of logical thought believes that reducing CO2 is a good idea. It makes as much sense as banning fertilizer. Yes the lakes and rivers would be a little cleaner, but most people would find the cries of the starving billions somewhat disconcerting. Reducing CO2 emissions increases the risk of future starvation.

Your opinion that the future CO2 limitations will be ineffective would be reason for cheer – if they hadn’t partially achieved their objective of making electric power more expensive.

---

Comment on State of the climate debate in the U.S. by ...and Then There's Physics

June 16, 2015, 12:23 pm

≫ Next: Comment on State of the climate debate in the U.S. by Turbulent Eddie

≪ Previous: Comment on State of the climate debate in the U.S. by PA

$

0

0

PA,

This is bullsh*t.

No it is not. However, I doubt that it would be worth the effort trying to explain to you why it is not. Maybe consider that the natural sinks have been taking up an approximately constant fraction of our emissions.

Comment on State of the climate debate in the U.S. by Turbulent Eddie

June 16, 2015, 12:34 pm

≫ Next: Comment on State of the climate debate in the U.S. by timg56

≪ Previous: Comment on State of the climate debate in the U.S. by ...and Then There's Physics

$

0

0

Maybe consider that the natural sinks have been taking up an approximately constant fraction of our emissions.

Kinda makes you wonder how the natural sinks know how much to take up.
Do they wait for the numbers to come out before calibrating?

Much more likely, natural sinks respond to absolute levels and not to emissions at all, and would roughly mirror the rates leading up to a given moment of cessation.

Comment on State of the climate debate in the U.S. by timg56

June 16, 2015, 12:40 pm

≫ Next: Comment on State of the climate debate in the U.S. by ...and Then There's Physics

≪ Previous: Comment on State of the climate debate in the U.S. by Turbulent Eddie

$

0

0

From Ken Rice,

“No, I’m trying to point out that the real issue is whether or not we want to risk the possibility of severe negative impacts. Absent technologies/advancements that can remove GHGs from the atmosphere, it is irreversible on human timescales. Is it worth risking finding out whether the net effect is overall negative, or positive?”

Ken, in case you are unaware of it, there is the possibility of severe negative impacts to much of what humans do day to day. Every time we get in a car, ski down the side of a mountain, go boating, parachute from a plane, engage in a contact sport (or for that matter even non-contact sports – having had knees reconstructed after baseball and basketball injuries). In other words people every day risk finding out the hard way whether their decisions are worth it. Risk is a part of life (even though the nanny state finds that appalling). So in answer to your question, it is not a matter of simply stating there is the possibility of risk and therefore we should do whatever it takes to avoid it. You first need to define the risk and then provide the probabilities of each of those risks. You can’t do that. To date, no one has been able to. All they can do is play fancy computer doomsday games and report back the outcome.

Comment on State of the climate debate in the U.S. by ...and Then There's Physics

June 16, 2015, 12:46 pm

≫ Next: Comment on State of the climate debate in the U.S. by timg56

≪ Previous: Comment on State of the climate debate in the U.S. by timg56

$

0

0

TE,

Kinda makes you wonder how the natural sinks know how much to take up.
Do they wait for the numbers to come out before calibrating?

Oh come on, surely you can get this, even if others can’t. Consider having 3 containers with a fluid/gas flowing constantly between all 3. Now add more to one of those containers. It will eventually go up in all 3, and the amount that it goes up by will depend on whatever equilibrium conditions apply. It’s going up because there is more of the fluid/gas, not because one or two of those containers have suddenly magically increased the amount they can absorb.

timg56,
Huh?

Comment on State of the climate debate in the U.S. by timg56

June 16, 2015, 12:48 pm

≫ Next: Comment on State of the climate debate in the U.S. by JCH

≪ Previous: Comment on State of the climate debate in the U.S. by ...and Then There's Physics

$

0

0

PA,

You are wasting your time. When I first heard claims that the residence time for a molecule of CO2 was “thousands of years” I dug up my text books from Atmos Physics. Unless they have made some breakthrough in the 15+ years since i was in grad school, the known residence time is 6 years.

So if they can make claims of thousands of years in the face of basic physical knowledge, they can also ignore basic arithmatic. In fact they do it all the time.