The Most Extra New Super Global Warming Thread

[bkelly]

Originally Posted by Switchcraft

(On Lindzen's opinion of "global warming" = "man-made global warming") ...you will realize he is certainly not making those claims...he's telling you what claims he takes issue with, so you know what he's about to dispute.

Fair enough. I'll continue to distinguish "global warming" and "man-made global warming" in my posts.

Originally Posted by Switchcraft

Lindzen writes a lot about these two issues, and repeatedly and specifically rebuts the idea that hurricanes would be more frequent and more devastating during warming periods...

Okay.

Originally Posted by Switchcraft

...and also disputes again and again the idea that there is sufficient evidence to believe that man's carbon dioxide emissions account for any perceptable warming trend.

"Believe"? No. Lindzen argues that there isn't sufficient evidence to confidently state that man is a significant cause of global warming and there certainly isn't enough information to start passing laws- positions with which I don't totally disagree.

I still think my first quote of Lindzen where he said, "Nevertheless, for the most part I do not personally disagree with the Consensus..." is key. He states his own beliefs on man-made global warming which shows he is not a valid name for my original challenge to GhostintheShell.

And speaking of GhostintheShell, I still haven't seen a name!

bkelly

[Switchcraft]

Moving the goal-post for a third time! You didn't ask about the consensus, you asked about belief in MAN-MADE global warming, and no matter what he says about the consensus, he is clear when he says "In point of fact, the impact of man remains indiscernible..."

Well, hell, Lindzen wrote part of the IPCC report, let's look at what he had to say on CNN:

And there's a lot of confusion in this and, you know, at the heart of it, we're talking of a few tenths of a degree change in temperature. None of it in the last eight years, by the way. And if we had warmin, it should be accomplished by less storminess. But because the temperature itself is so unspectacular, we have developed all sorts of fear of prospect scenarios -- of flooding, of plague, of increased storminess when the physics says we should see less.

I think nobody is arguing about whether our climate is changing. It's always changing. Sea level has been rising since the end of the last ice age. The experts on it in the IPCC have freely acknowledged there's no strong evidence it's accelerating. ...All that's coming out Friday is a summary for policymakers that is not prepared by scientists. Rob is wrong. It's not 2,500 people offering their consensus, I participated in that. Each person who is an author writes one or two pages in conjunction with someone else. They travel around the world several times a year for several years to write it and the summary for policymakers has the input of about 13 of the scientists, but ultimately, it is written by representatives of governments, of environmental organizations like the Union of Concerned Scientists, and industrial organizations, each seeking their own benefit.

I'm saying that we have seen a rate of temperature change that is not outside the range of what the climate does by itself.

Richard Lindzen wrote one of the IPCC chapters, and has claimed everywhere he could that the alarmism is ridiculous, that the scare tactics employed by those who are dead set in favor of alarmism are "silly." He has predicted the future generations will be laughing at people who were worried about global warming in the present time.

Listen to this podcast (warning: it's like listening to that guy who used to paint happy trees on PBS) and you can hear him answer the question "Is global wamring happening." He responds "in typical professorial fashion" and says the question isn't whether it's happening, because the planet is always warming or cooling, but is it happening at an accelerated rate?

No.

Do melting ice sheets have to do with global warming? "...nobody has the faintest idea."


He debated Bill Nye about it on CNN! He's not Al Gore, he's a scientist, and if he disputes the idea that mankind is identifiably responsible for accelerated changes in the current climate, and in fact argues that there's no evidence to support the idea that the current climate is even out of any expected normal range, that's enough for me as an academic to say he disputes the "man made" global warming narrative. You can't possibly be serious in saying "he doesn't count." Anyway, I'm done with Lindzen for the day, his manner of speech makes my brain melt.

[GlobalWarmin]

Wikpidia links of Lindzen's associations and funding:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lindzen...ism_of_Lindzen

1) http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Western_Fuels_Association
2) ExxonMobil
3) Daimler Chrysler
4) http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cato_Institute
5) http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/George_...hall_Institute
6) http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Earhart_Foundation
7) http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sarah_Scaife_Foundation
8) http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lynde_a...tion#Criticism
9) http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Global_Climate_Coalition
10) http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/America...rise_Institute
11) http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Greening_Earth_Society

Talk about an agenda.

[bkelly]

Originally Posted by Switchcraft

Moving the goal-post for a third time!

I'm not the one moving the goal-posts Switchcraft.

Originally Posted by Switchcraft

You didn't ask about the consensus, you asked about belief in MAN-MADE global warming...

Not quite, I asked for the name of someone who was a member of specific organizations and believes that man-made global warming is not happening.

Originally Posted by Switchcraft

...and no matter what he says about the consensus, he is clear when he says "In point of fact, the impact of man remains indiscernible..."

It's clearer with the entire quote which is, "In point of fact, the impact of man remains indiscernible simply because the signal is too small compared to the natural noise." He believes that man has an impact on climate, albeit a small one, which does not mean he thinks man-made global warming is not happening.

Originally Posted by Switchcraft

And there's a lot of confusion in this and, you know, at the heart of it, we're talking of a few tenths of a degree change in temperature. None of it in the last eight years, by the way. And if we had warmin, it should be accomplished by less storminess. But because the temperature itself is so unspectacular, we have developed all sorts of fear of prospect scenarios -- of flooding, of plague, of increased storminess when the physics says we should see less.

So he thinks AGW proponents are using fear tactics which does not mean he thinks man-made global warming is not happening.

Originally Posted by Switchcraft

I think nobody is arguing about whether our climate is changing. It's always changing. Sea level has been rising since the end of the last ice age. The experts on it in the IPCC have freely acknowledged there's no strong evidence it's accelerating. ...All that's coming out Friday is a summary for policymakers that is not prepared by scientists. Rob is wrong. It's not 2,500 people offering their consensus, I participated in that. Each person who is an author writes one or two pages in conjunction with someone else. They travel around the world several times a year for several years to write it and the summary for policymakers has the input of about 13 of the scientists, but ultimately, it is written by representatives of governments, of environmental organizations like the Union of Concerned Scientists, and industrial organizations, each seeking their own benefit.

He thinks the IPCC Summary for Policymakers is political trash which does not mean he thinks man-made global warming is not happening.

Originally Posted by Switchcraft

I'm saying that we have seen a rate of temperature change that is not outside the range of what the climate does by itself.

He thinks the rate of temperature change is not outside of what's normal which does not mean he thinks man-made global warming is not happening.

Originally Posted by Switchcraft

Richard Lindzen wrote one of the IPCC chapters, and has claimed everywhere he could that the alarmism is ridiculous, that the scare tactics employed by those who are dead set in favor of alarmism are "silly." He has predicted the future generations will be laughing at people who were worried about global warming in the present time.

He thinks the threat of man-made global warming has been blown out of proportion which does not mean he thinks man-made global warming is not happening.

Originally Posted by Switchcraft

Listen to this podcast (warning: it's like listening to that guy who used to paint happy trees on PBS) and you can hear him answer the question "Is global wamring happening." He responds "in typical professorial fashion" and says the question isn't whether it's happening, because the planet is always warming or cooling, but is it happening at an accelerated rate?

No.

Do melting ice sheets have to do with global warming? "...nobody has the faintest idea."

I think your summary is a little off but it still reflects the tone well. He does imply that what we have observed isn't out of the realm of a normal climate which does not mean he thinks man-made global warming is not happening.

Originally Posted by Switchcraft

He's not Al Gore, he's a scientist, and if he disputes the idea that mankind is identifiably responsible for accelerated changes in the current climate, and in fact argues that there's no evidence to support the idea that the current climate is even out of any expected normal range...

Which he does.

Originally Posted by Switchcraft

...that's enough for me as an academic to say he disputes the "man made" global warming narrative.

If by "disputes" you mean he calls the theory into question, then I agree. He certainly thinks that a mountain has been made from the global warming molehill.

If instead you mean that he believes the theory of global warming is false, then I ask you to post the other articles you've been reading because that sure isn't in the ones above.

Originally Posted by Switchcraft

You can't possibly be serious in saying "he doesn't count."

Watch me.

He doesn't count.

He doesn't count because he does not believe that man-made global warming isn't happening, the second requirement, word-for-word, of my challenge.

bkelly

[bkelly]

Originally Posted by GlobalWarmin

Wikpidia links of Lindzen's associations and funding:

*snip*

Talk about an agenda.

Actually GlobalWarmin, I like what I've read of Lindzen so far. He does pimp himself out for talks and interviews and he does tailor his message to his audience, but the only thing he presents as fact is that nothing is for certain. With people in this thread suggesting that scientists are quick to jump on the global warming bandwagon, his reservations are a refreshing juxtaposition.

Consider this back-and-forth in the podcast posted by Switchcraft's. This transcript picks up around 15:02.


Kevin: Those that say that man-made carbon emissions are responsible for the warming can't really rebut the fact, professor, that the greatest amount of emissions took place prior to 1940 correct? I... Excuse me, after 1940 when there was actually a cooling period, correct?

Lindzen: Yeah.

Kevin: So, is that important? Doesn't that just discredit the notion that man-made...

Lindzen: No.

Kevin: No?

Lindzen: No, to be honest.

Kevin: So what does it say?

Lindzen: I mean... You know... In other words you have a system that has many, many factors operating and so I wouldn't say that proves or disproves anything. But what it does say is it's not a simple thing. It does tell you that simply looking at carbon emissions and looking at climate, you're not looking at a thing that is uniquely related.

Kevin: How... What do you mean it's not... So is your... Do you feel that there is some sort of relationship, potentially, between carbon emissions and temperature variation?

Lindzen: Sure, nobody argues that.


I would encourage people in this thread to read what Lindzen says. I think many of his positions are worth some consideration.

bkelly

[GlobalWarmin]

Greenland's Rising Air Temperatures Drive Ice Loss At Surface And Beyond

http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases...0220175223.htm

[War.mongeR1]

Ok. Many say they would drive totally electric cars in order to reduce CO2 emissions. But think about it. Unless it's nuclear or wind/water generated, where does that electricity come from? Much of the electricity in the world and the US comes from COAL power plants. So even if you have a "zero" emission car, I guarantee it does have emissions as a consequence. AND if everyone switched to all electric cars, power plant output would have to significantly increase, thus burning more coal, and outputting an equivalent amount of CO2. This could be helped by building more nuclear plants (which environmentalists don't want) or adding more wind power, in which Texas is proudly the leader.

So in conclusion, the solution for pollution is not so much in our cars, but more in the sources for our electricity. BTW, our cars are a tiny tiny tiny fraction of greenhouses. Livestock caused greenhouse gases are enormously higher, so if you really want to save the planet, become a vegetarian. Not that I'm willing to or anything.

[bkelly]

Hi War.mongeR1,

Originally Posted by War.mongeR1

AND if everyone switched to all electric cars, power plant output would have to significantly increase, thus burning more coal, and outputting an equivalent amount of CO2.

That wouldn't be true if an electric vehicle were more efficient than a normal internal combustion engine. Here's an older article exploring that very question. It concluded that EV recharging from a fossil-fuled power plant is about 28% efficient (generation, transmission and charging losses included) while an ICE has an overall efficiency of 14% (including refining).

So, if the article is correct, all of us switching to electric cars would half the amount of CO2 our existing fleet produces.

Originally Posted by War.mongeR1

This could be helped by building more nuclear plants (which environmentalists don't want)...

IMO, environmentalists will do an about-face on nuclear energy in the next decade as it is the only scalable carbon-free power source. This trend has already started.

Originally Posted by War.mongeR1

BTW, our cars are a tiny tiny tiny fraction of greenhouses.

This statement is misleading. Greenhouse gases keep our planet about 34 degrees C warmer than it would otherwise and automobile emissions are a pittance comparatively but nobody's suggesting we eliminate all greenhouse gases.

At most, radical environmentalists want to eliminate man's impact and of that, cars are a significant piece.

Originally Posted by War.mongeR1

Livestock caused greenhouse gases are enormously higher...

I would call bull-patties... except you're already talking about bull-patties.

Livestock is a significant contributor of methane and nitrous oxide, much stronger greenhouse gases than CO2, but they produce smaller concentrations. I agree that livestock's greenhouse footprint is probably higher than transportation's but I think that saying it's "enormously higher" is overstating your position.

bkelly

[El_Gringo_Grande]

Originally Posted by bkelly

Livestock is a significant contributor of methane and nitrous oxide, much stronger greenhouse gases than CO2, but they produce smaller concentrations. I agree that livestock's greenhouse footprint is probably higher than transportation's but I think that saying it's "enormously higher" is overstating your position.

And you have to understand that livestock often displaces other animals that produce the same "output". Livestock are in a higher concentration but most studies I have seen do not take this into account.

For example, buffalo poo is bigger than cow poo. And there USED to be bunches of buffalo.

Buffalo are now gone being replaced by cows.

Net change? Don't know but probably not much.

[Jimmy Jammer]

I definitely think that GW is real and an Earth issue that is so politicized that rather than dealing with the data and visual imagery people tend to try and take a root stance of whether or not it even exists. The LA smog will not get better, the winters in New England are really unpredictable and some of the worlds droughts are frightening...Does it exist? Well IMO yes. Are we doing enough as a planet, no...JJ

2¢

[GlobalWarmin]

Climate Change Has Major Impact On Oceans

http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases...0217102140.htm

Small Sea Creatures May Be The 'Canaries In The Coal Mine' Of Climate Change

http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases...0217102122.htm

[Switchcraft]

Temperature Monitors Report Widescale Global Cooling

[bkelly]

Originally Posted by Switchcraft

Temperature Monitors Report Widescale Global Cooling

Yup, they sure are.

I'm not surprised by a temperature drop since 2007 experienced La Nina, a minimum in the solar cycle and the lowest level of arctic ice (melting ice pulls heat from the environment) but an average .64 degree drop across the four studies for 2007 is big.

On the other hand, about 25% of this drop is due to just the January-08 numbers and, as I said before, the solar cycle needs to be factored in to find any temperature trends. One month's numbers, even with this dramatic a drop, doesn't change much. It will be interesting to see if this cold spell sticks and has a significant effect on temperature averages over 11 or 22 years.

Thanks for keeping an eye on the data Switchcraft. Keep it up!

bkelly

[GlobalWarmin]

Jan. 30, 2008 -- A Day of Climate Rampage
http://www.heatisonline.org/contents...21&method=full

A cooler 2008 and 2009 were already predicted, at least in what I have read. After 2009 the heat is expected to jump, though.

[bkelly]

Originally Posted by GlobalWarmin

A cooler 2008 and 2009 were already predicted, at least in what I have read. After 2009 the heat is expected to jump, though.

Predicted by whom?

bkelly