I want to sue the republican party for willful denial of scientific evidence about climate change.

[AsburySkinsFan]

See, I thought we were even past THAT point, and were now discussing what the impact of humans actually is, and what the repercussions would be if we began "cleaning up" so to speak.

Nah, maybe at high level discussions with actual informed people, but at the layity level. The denial of ANY sort of climate change (global warming) is very real and ver prevalent.

I'll show you some screen captures of my newsfeed on a cool summer day some time.

Climate change denial is still very strong on the Rightwing.

[Burgold]

were they there for the severe winter drought of 1976-77? 

not trying to argue just looking for input

 

add

we used to go there every summer and quit after that, not that I minded since I hate snow.

need to go back with the wife since she has never been,and it is beautiful 

Anecdotal evidence is dangerous, I agree.  For instance, it has been beautiful in DC over the last week.  Temps in the 70's and low 80's.  That doesn't mean that I can pocket all my concerns or patterns about what geologists and other scientists have noted using longitudinal data.

[Special K]

TWA - I don't deny that there are natural fluctuations in weather patterns that cause periods of heating and cooling in the Earth's atmosphere.  However, to lump all recent climate data into that category, particularly with the overwhelming amount of scientists and climate experts saying and publishing studies otherwise is to be either willfully ignorant or willfully dishonest.    

 

 

Since we are talking weather where we live...

Northern VA has enjoyed an unusually cool summer, only a handful of days over 90 so far. Precipitation seems about normal. I recall last summer being about the same and of course last winter was probably one of the coldest on average. I quite enjoy the weather that we've been having so I enjoy it.

I'm not denying global warming but I'm saying that local examples are not a way to prove global warming exists.

I would agree since both sides use local data to "pimp" their causes.

 

I probably didn't articulate it very well since my observations were just about this current season, but in describing NorCal conditions, these examples really are part of an extended weather pattern/drought conditions we've been experiencing at a steady rate over the past several years.  Each year gets worse and this past season has been the worst, by far, which was why I included all the examples.

[twa]

Anecdotal evidence is dangerous, I agree.  For instance, it has been beautiful in DC over the last week.  Temps in the 70's and low 80's.  That doesn't mean that I can pocket all my concerns or patterns about what geologists and other scientists have noted using longitudinal data.

 

Patterns and noted data are good, projections that do not reflect that pattern are not.

 

kinda nice here as well,which is unusual for the first of August 

 

willful ignorance and dishonesty can certainly be problematic K, as can groupthink.

[PeterMP]

Patterns and noted data are good, projections that do not reflect that pattern are not.

 

kinda nice here as well,which is unusual for the first of August 

 

willful ignorance and dishonesty can certainly be problematic K, as can groupthink.

 

What projections don't match the pattern?

 

So we should encourage people to think things that don't fit the evidence just so we don't practice group think?

 

People that go out in the rain and declare it isn't raining should be lauded because they aren't "falling victim" to group think?

 

Ignorance and dishonesty should always be an issue.  Group think about data when there is an abundance of data indicating the group is right, shouldn't be.

 

That you'd equate the 3 of them though isn't surprising.

Edited August 3, 2014 by PeterMP

[Wrong Direction]

Mad Mike,

I'm sympathetic, but it's hard (for me) to support anger and hyperbole. I have a few points I think are worthwhile.

 

1. It's pretty undeniable that R's have supported more nuclear power for decades now. Nuclear would go a long way towards reducing American generated CO2, yet it's the left that has opposed.

 

2. Much of the reduction in CO2 over the last 10+ years has been due to the expanded use of natural gas. The D's have opposed natural gas for all kinds of political reasons, while the R's have been pushing for more of it. While natural gas is not the end all, be all, it certainly is preferable to crude oil, and it represents an economically viable transition which could be good for our economy and gradually wane the US and other power producers off of coal.

 

3. R's political position is one supporting "all of the above." With that position, the R's have signaled a readiness and willingness to invest in research for solar, wind, electric cars, bio fuels and more.

 

4. Lack of Republican support for "cap and trade" or Obama regulations is trumpeted by the left as Republican unwillingness to do what's done. Well, Bush wanted to reform Social Security and Republicans didn't. Should the R's have simply said for years that D's don't care about Social Security, or is it that D's simply didn't support what Bush wanted to do?

 

5. My point, when added to the points above, is that the R's position on the environment and climate change is no where near as close minded and simplistic as the left wants to make it out to be. While I believe that statement to be true, I freely acknowledge that the R's need to generate a better message and silence the "conspiracy" talk.

 

6. With all of that said, Peter raises some very important points about what the USA can do versus what China and India would need to do to effect meaningful change. Additionally, the cost-benefit challenges of any bill are another discussion altogether. It's hard to quantify doom and gloom. It's hard to know what NYC needs to do, when sea level's might rise 4 inches or 2 feet.

 

There's a thoughtful conversation that needs to happen, but instead we have two sides who engage in hyperbole and political gamesmanship rather than intelligent discussion of the very real challenges we face.

[twa]

What projections don't match the pattern?

 

 

 

 

the rise in co2 w/o a corresponding rise in temp 

 

add

http://dailycaller.com/2014/07/25/study-climate-models-overestimated-global-warming-for-the-last-55-years/

Edited August 3, 2014 by twa

[Special K]

 

willful ignorance and dishonesty can certainly be problematic K, as can groupthink.

You're right, "groupthink" can be dangerous.  

 

However, I certainly wouldn't classify a plethora of scientific data and published studies "groupthink," unless you're just looking for excuses to disregard scientific data.

 

To me it's like looking at published studies about the efficacy of vaccines, or antibiotics or a million other modern medical breakthroughs this past century and disregarding them as "groupthink."

Edited August 3, 2014 by Special K

[alexey]

I "all of the above" as a scam.

Government action is required to factor in the true cost of fossil fuels.

If you are not talking about the true cost of fossil fuels and us currently subsidizing/ignoring that cost, you are BSing.

[No Excuses]

the rise in co2 w/o a corresponding rise in temp 

 

add

http://dailycaller.com/2014/07/25/study-climate-models-overestimated-global-warming-for-the-last-55-years/

 

 

It's not a surprise that you are again citing people who are heavily funded by companies with vested interest in climate change denialism. Who in the past have used deceiving techniques to misrepresent data. Who also in the past has tried to pass of "research" by interchangeably using degree and radians without bothering to convert from one unit to another and deriving faulty conclusions from this data anyways. And this person is also a signatory to this drivel:

 

 

Earth and its ecosystems—created by God’s intelligent design and infinite power and sustained by His faithful providence —are robust, resilient, self-regulating, and self-correcting, admirably suited for human flourishing, and displaying His glory. Earth’s climate system is no exception. Recent global warming is one of many natural cycles of warming and cooling in geologic history.[12]

 

 

 

So Ross McItrick has a new paper now for the twa's of the world to cling on to despite plethora of evidence against it. Yippie. I wonder if McItrick is still modeling Antarctica with a population of 59 million.

 

Not that this has any effect on you because you are content living in the bizzaro world of biased blogs and Rush Limbaugh podcasts but I'll post this out there for those who probably care but don't have access since you are being misleading on purpose as usual. 

 

 

An apparent hiatus in global warming?

 

 

 

 

Global warming first became evident beyond the bounds of natural variability in the 1970s, but increases in global mean surface temperatures have stalled in the 2000s. Increases in atmospheric greenhouse gases, notably carbon dioxide, create an energy imbalance at the top-of-atmosphere (TOA) even as the planet warms to adjust to this imbalance, which is estimated to be 0.5–1 W m⁻² over the 2000s. Annual global fluctuations in TOA energy of up to 0.2 W m⁻² occur from natural variations in clouds, aerosols, and changes in the Sun. At times of major volcanic eruptions the effects can be much larger. Yet global mean surface temperatures fluctuate much more than these can account for. An energy imbalance is manifested not just as surface atmospheric or ground warming but also as melting sea and land ice, and heating of the oceans. More than 90% of the heat goes into the oceans and, with melting land ice, causes sea level to rise. For the past decade, more than 30% of the heat has apparently penetrated below 700 m depth that is traceable to changes in surface winds mainly over the Pacific in association with a switch to a negative phase of the Pacific Decadal Oscillation (PDO) in 1999. Surface warming was much more in evidence during the 1976–1998 positive phase of the PDO, suggesting that natural decadal variability modulates the rate of change of global surface temperatures while sea-level rise is more relentless. Global warming has not stopped; it is merely manifested in different ways.

 

 

 

Recent global-warming hiatus tied to equatorial Pacific surface cooling

Despite the continued increase in atmospheric greenhouse gas concentrations, the annual-mean global temperature has not risen in the twenty-first century^1, 2, challenging the prevailing view that anthropogenic forcing causes climate warming. Various mechanisms have been proposed for this hiatus in global warming^{3, 4, 5, 6}, but their relative importance has not been quantified, hampering observational estimates of climate sensitivity. Here we show that accounting for recent cooling in the eastern equatorial Pacific reconciles climate simulations and observations. We present a novel method of uncovering mechanisms for global temperature change by prescribing, in addition to radiative forcing, the observed history of sea surface temperature over the central to eastern tropical Pacific in a climate model. Although the surface temperature prescription is limited to only 8.2% of the global surface, our model reproduces the annual-mean global temperature remarkably well with correlation coefficient r = 0.97 for 1970–2012 (which includes the current hiatus and a period of accelerated global warming). Moreover, our simulation captures major seasonal and regional characteristics of the hiatus, including the intensified Walker circulation, the winter cooling in northwestern North America and the prolonged drought in the southern USA. Our results show that the current hiatus is part of natural climate variability, tied specifically to a La-Niña-like decadal cooling. Although similar decadal hiatus events may occur in the future, the multi-decadal warming trend is very likely to continue with greenhouse gas increase.

 

Edited August 3, 2014 by No Excuses

[twa]

Perhaps you will relieve me of my delusions by answering what I asked earlier......what reduction in human generated co2 is needed?

[PeterMP]

the rise in co2 w/o a corresponding rise in temp 

 

add

http://dailycaller.com/2014/07/25/study-climate-models-overestimated-global-warming-for-the-last-55-years/

 

Nobody said that only CO2 drives temperature increases and only temperature increases, but I'll directly address the idea of a TEMPERATURE hiatus.

 

 

 

 

The black line represents the linear best fit for the data from 1979-1998 (when people like to talk about a haitus starting).

 

The red line is that line extrapolated further.  The blue is what you get if there is no real change in temperature (right there might be noise, but the temperature would be flat in the context of that noise).

 

The dotted lines show the 95% error rate.  In other words, if the actual data was below the red dotted lines, you'd conclude that there was a 95% probability that the pre-1998 trend had not continued.

 

And the same thing is true for other temp data sets too:

 

http://tamino.wordpress.com/2014/01/30/global-temperature-the-post-1998-surprise/

 

And I'll point out that there could be NOT a haitus, but simply that the 1979-1998 trend had not continued (which is what has actually probably happened).

 

The data though is not consistent with concluding that the 1979-1998 temperature increase is not continued to the present.

 

And last year was the warmest non-El Nino year on record, and this year is even warmer.

 

And that's not even starting to talk about things like sea ice, which nobody is claiming shows a hiatus.

Edited August 4, 2014 by PeterMP

[AsburySkinsFan]

Seriously, I cannot for the life of me figure out why in the world you all are feeding the Texan troll.

Do you seriously think you're going to convert him in some burst of objectivity on his part?

[PeterMP]

Seriously, I cannot for the life of me figure out why in the world you all are feeding the Texan troll.

Do you seriously think you're going to convert him in some burst of objectivity on his part?

 

I honestly don't believe twa believes half of what he posts.  I think he just likes to be difficult.

 

(For example, I don't think he believes that producing drinking water for vast regions of the US is actually economically viable (which he didn't actually say, but did sort of insinuated), while alternative energy isn't.)

 

I respond, because its good general education.

 

In that same context, I'm going to put a part in here with respect to climate models:

 

http://www.skepticalscience.com/curry-mcintyre-resist-ipcc-model-accuracy.html

 

I particularly like this part:

 

"The observed trend for the period 1998–2012 is lower than most model simulations.  But the observed trend for the period 1992–2006 is higher than most model simulations.  Why weren't Curry and McIntyre decrying the models for underestimating global warming 6 years ago?"

 

"It's also worth looking back at what climate scientists were saying about the rapid short-term warming trend in 2007.  Rahmstorf et al. (2007), for example, said (emphasis added):

 

"The global mean surface temperature increase (land and ocean combined) in both the NASA GISS data set and the Hadley Centre/Climatic Research Unit data set is 0.33°C for the 16 years since 1990, which is in the upper part of the range projected by the IPCC ... The first candidate reason is intrinsicvariability within the climate system.""

 

And I'll quote more from the paper:

 

"A second candidate is climate forcings other than CO2"

 

This would be the models are right about CO2, but there is something else going on that we don't understand.

 

Then lastly:

 

"A third candidate is an underestimation of the climate sensitivity to CO2 (i.e., model error)."

 

And that would be that CO2 induced climate change is going to be worse than was being predicted by the models at the time.  At a time when models appeared to be "bad" based on UNDERESTIMATING the temperature change, the pro-climate change scientists that were publishing weren't saying "Oh No, it is worse than we thought!"

 

And it just wasn't temperatures.  From the same paper:

 

"Since 1990 the observed sea level has been rising faster than the rise projected by models"

"Again, we caution that the time interval of overlap is short, so that internal decadal climate variability could cause much of the discrepancy."

 

Over relatively short time scales, when the climate models have under estimated temperature increases and sea level rises, the response of pro-climate change researchers has been, well it is probably just natural variation.

 

(And I'll point out before, I think we will get to the a point where the climate models will start to fail.  There will be unanticipated interactions as things change.)

Edited August 4, 2014 by PeterMP

[No Excuses]

Perhaps you will relieve me of my delusions by answering what I asked earlier......what reduction in human generated co2 is needed?

 

Goggle is your friend but alas.

 

http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2006/11/how-much-co2-emission-is-too-much/#sthash.vad4RYg3.dpuf

 

 

Eventually, the chemistry of the ocean would equilibrate with this new atmospheric pCO2 concentration of about 380 ppm (the current concentration), and its absorption of new CO₂ would tail off. Presumably the land biosphere would also inhale its fill and stop absorbing more. How long can we expect to be able to continue our lessened emissions of 4 Gton C per year? The answer can be diagnosed from carbon cycle models. A range of carbon cycle models have been run for longer than the single-century timescale that is the focus of the IPCC and the FCCC negotiation process. The models include an ocean and often a terrestrial biosphere to absorb CO₂, and sometimes chemical weathering (dissolution of rocks) on land and deposition of sediments in the ocean. The models tend to predict a maximum atmospheric CO₂ inventory of about 50-70% of the total fossil fuel emission slug. Let’s call this quantity the peak airborne fraction, and assume it to be 60%.

The next piece of the equation is to define “dangerous climate change”. This is a bit of a guessing game, but 2°C has been proposed as a reasonable danger limit. This would be decidedly warmer than the Earth has been in millions of years, and warm enough to eventually raise sea level by tens of meters. A warming of 2° C could be accomplished by raising CO₂ to 450 ppm and waiting a century or so, assuming a climate sensitivity of 3 °C for doubling CO₂, a typical value from models and diagnosed from paleo-data. Of the 450 ppm, 170 ppm would be from fossil fuels (given an original natural pCO2 of 280 ppm). 170 ppm equals 340 Gton C, which divided by the peak airborne fraction of 60% yields a total emission slug of about 570 Gton C.

 

 

 

http://www.climatecommunication.org/wp-content/uploads/2011/08/presidentialaction.pdf

 

One way of doing this, proposed recently in a study by scientists at Duke University’s 

Nicholas School, would be for the G8 countries to decrease emissions by an average of 

2% per year starting in 2011, using 2010 as a baseline, for 40 years, resulting in an 80% 

reduction by 2050. In addition, the five largest developing countries (China, India, Brazil, 

South Africa, and Mexico) would begin a similar program ten years later, reducing their 

emissions by 2% a year starting in 2021, using 2020 as a baseline, and the rest of the 

world would have to stabilize emissions between 2030 and 2050. 

Around mid century, most other nations would also have to begin reducing emissions 

and/or the initial G8+5 would have to make greater reductions, in order to maintain the

CO2 concentration at or below 450 ppm. In addition, we would have to reduce emissions 

of the non-CO2 greenhouse gases (methane, nitrous oxide, soot, halocarbons, etc.) 

sufficiently to keep the temperature below the threshold discussed above. If we did not 

reduce those gases as well, their warming effect would take us above the target 

temperature discussed above

 

 

[Bang]

I think he gets paid by the contradiction.

 

~Bang

[Larry]

Perhaps you will relieve me of my delusions by answering what I asked earlier......what reduction in human generated co2 is needed?

Apropos of nothing whatsoever, I will idly observe that, every time someone points out that the federal deficit has gone down, every year since Obama took office, that your standard deflection is to point out that he hasn't reduced it to zero.

 

[PeterMP]

Apropos of nothing whatsoever, I will idly observe that, every time someone points out that the federal deficit has gone down, every year since Obama took office, that your standard deflection is to point out that he hasn't reduced it to zero.

 

 

I think that's another good example.  Essentially all economists believe some level of debt is okay and even good.  But most recognize that there are levels of debt that are bad and most that I know believe that we've crossed that thresh hold in general and should be trying to lower our debt (though I do know some that have been arguing that with interest rates so low we should be borrowing money to make long term investments in our economy, but even there you are talking about specific increases in debt for specific things given the very specific conditions present right now.)

 

But there's no magic number out there where people are saying if the debt doesn't get below A, X is going to happen and if it isn't below B, Y is going to happen.

[twa]

some level well above pre bailout is not much of a accomplishment, but if ya wish to use that kinda metrics then the US has reduced co2 and ya really need to get others to do more 

Kyoto is a damn joke

 

we have reduced co2 by about 10% last I heard,while China has raised theirs 20%.....progress????

[Bang]

You can't force your neighbor to clean their house, but it doesn't mean you should live like a pig, too.

 

~Bang

[PeterMP]

some level well above pre bailout is not much of a accomplishment, but if ya wish to use that kinda metrics then the US has reduced co2 and ya really need to get others to do more 

Kyoto is a damn joke

 

we have reduced co2 by about 10% last I heard,while China has raised theirs 20%.....progress????

 

We're 12th per capita.  China is down in the 30s.

 

We're releasing about 2X as much per a person.

Edited August 4, 2014 by PeterMP

[Kilmer17]

Mad Mike,

I'm sympathetic, but it's hard (for me) to support anger and hyperbole. I have a few points I think are worthwhile.

1. It's pretty undeniable that R's have supported more nuclear power for decades now. Nuclear would go a long way towards reducing American generated CO2, yet it's the left that has opposed.

2. Much of the reduction in CO2 over the last 10+ years has been due to the expanded use of natural gas. The D's have opposed natural gas for all kinds of political reasons, while the R's have been pushing for more of it. While natural gas is not the end all, be all, it certainly is preferable to crude oil, and it represents an economically viable transition which could be good for our economy and gradually wane the US and other power producers off of coal.

3. R's political position is one supporting "all of the above." With that position, the R's have signaled a readiness and willingness to invest in research for solar, wind, electric cars, bio fuels and more.

4. Lack of Republican support for "cap and trade" or Obama regulations is trumpeted by the left as Republican unwillingness to do what's done. Well, Bush wanted to reform Social Security and Republicans didn't. Should the R's have simply said for years that D's don't care about Social Security, or is it that D's simply didn't support what Bush wanted to do?

5. My point, when added to the points above, is that the R's position on the environment and climate change is no where near as close minded and simplistic as the left wants to make it out to be. While I believe that statement to be true, I freely acknowledge that the R's need to generate a better message and silence the "conspiracy" talk.

6. With all of that said, Peter raises some very important points about what the USA can do versus what China and India would need to do to effect meaningful change. Additionally, the cost-benefit challenges of any bill are another discussion altogether. It's hard to quantify doom and gloom. It's hard to know what NYC needs to do, when sea level's might rise 4 inches or 2 feet.

There's a thoughtful conversation that needs to happen, but instead we have two sides who engage in hyperbole and political gamesmanship rather than intelligent discussion of the very real challenges we face.

It's a shame nobody bothered to engage this post.

[twa]

We're 12th per capita.  China is down in the 30s.

 

We're releasing about 2X as much per a person.

 

how long before they catch us since we ARE reducing co2?......is it like the deficit/debt game?

(a losing one)

http://www.cnsnews.com/news/article/terence-p-jeffrey/706025967449751-federal-debt-7t-under-obama

 

add

 we can use my favorite Germans.....going up there as well ain't it?

Edited August 4, 2014 by twa

[PeterMP]

Mad Mike,

I'm sympathetic, but it's hard (for me) to support anger and hyperbole. I have a few points I think are worthwhile.

 

1. It's pretty undeniable that R's have supported more nuclear power for decades now. Nuclear would go a long way towards reducing American generated CO2, yet it's the left that has opposed.

I don't think this is true in any real significant manner. The Republicans have talked about supporting nuclear and even passed a couple of laws, but what have they really done to advance nuclear power.

Nothing.

Obama has given out loan guarantees and over seen the approval of the first new nuclear power plants in this country for a long time.

http://www.treehugger.com/corporate-responsibility/obama-announces-plans-for-first-nuclear-power-plant-in-3-decades.html

And he's doubled down on that with more loan guarantees in 2014.

 

There is no question that in my life time the two President's that have most aggressively supported nuclear power were both Dems (Carter and Obama).

Bush might have been more supportive than Clinton, but the net effect was the same in terms of advancing the nuclear power industry in the US.

 

Nothing.

 

2. Much of the reduction in CO2 over the last 10+ years has been due to the expanded use of natural gas. The D's have opposed natural gas for all kinds of political reasons, while the R's have been pushing for more of it. While natural gas is not the end all, be all, it certainly is preferable to crude oil, and it represents an economically viable transition which could be good for our economy and gradually wane the US and other power producers off of coal.

The rise of natural gas is directly tied to the decrease usage of coal. As using coal became less economically efficient due to environmental regulations, industry has moved to the next best things, which is natural gas.

And this is a case where the Dems can't actually claim all of the credit because Bush 1 and the clean air act.

But that had essentially nothing to do with climate change via CO2 and is something that the Republicans have and are actually pushing back against in a consistent manner today.

I also think that a lot of our reduction in CO2 is tied to the increase in gas prices and the resulting increase effeciency of the US car fleet (how many Hummers do you see on the road today as compared to the 1990s?), and the general economic down turn, which is partly coupled with and to out sourcing of industry.

I'm also not a huge fan of the rise of natural gas as tied to fracking, especially in developed areas. At some level, I suspect that lowering CO2 by going to more natural gas obtained from fracking is the equivalent to biting your nose to spite your face.

 

4. Lack of Republican support for "cap and trade" or Obama regulations is trumpeted by the left as Republican unwillingness to do what's done. Well, Bush wanted to reform Social Security and Republicans didn't. Should the R's have simply said for years that D's don't care about Social Security, or is it that D's simply didn't support what Bush wanted to do?

I don't think the Republicans have affectively supported any policy with respect to preventing climate change or mitigating climate change for that purpose.

And I think the last time that it actually happened at all (affectively) was the first George Bush and one of the reasons he lost that election was issues with the right not being happy with respect to the relevant law and its a law Republicans have tried to undermine and replace since.

It's a shame nobody bothered to engage this post.

I was working on it.

The science is more interesting/important to me, but it was something I was working on coming back to.

 

**EDIT**

With respect to national security, the all of the above approach makes sense.

 

But with respect to preventing climate change, it isn't likely to get the job done.  Given the huge historical advantages that fossil fuels have in terms of infrastructure and government it isn't likely going to get the job done.

 

Alt. energy approaches are getting better and in some cases and in some areas of the US they are really close if not there with respect to being economically effecient to fossil fuels.

 

But that isn't enough in terms of them being adapted even in those area's of the country.

 

With respect to climate change, you have to do something to shift the economics (e.g. cap and trade) to prevent climate change, or you should be talking about mitigating the effects. 

Edited August 4, 2014 by PeterMP

[Larry]

some level well above pre bailout is not much of a accomplishment, but if ya wish to use that kinda metrics then the US has reduced co2 and ya really need to get others to do more 

Kyoto is a damn joke

 

we have reduced co2 by about 10% last I heard,while China has raised theirs 20%.....progress????

Just out of curiosity, do you have any support for this claim that the US has reduced CO2 emissions?

I would be very surprised (and pleasantly surprised) if that were so.