My area is getting hit hard by global warming

i'm implying he's no more qualified than my neighbor, have you seen anyone using al gore as a source on this forum? You appear to incorrectly believe that opinions and blogs carry the same value as expert opinion....if you have a real data from real experts please present it...

 

You ignored my 2nd question.

 

There's no need, since world birthrate is dropping with increased education and will reach equilibrium in 2050. It's not a factor in warming, why drag in irrelevance? Have you nothing of substance to contribute, like facts?

 

False statements by David M.W. Evans in this video:

1. "The amount of amplification [water vapor feedback] is estimated by assuming that nearly all the industrial age warming is due to our CO2."

False. The amount of water vapor feedback can be (and has been) measured directly, e.g. during the global cooling caused by the eruption of Mt. Pinatubo. See: Soden et. al. 2002.

2. "In particular, water vapor condenses into clouds, so extra water vapor due to the direct warming effect of extra CO2, will cause extra clouds."

False. Clouds are caused by an increase in relative humidity, not by an increase in absolute humidity. As the Earth warms, the warmer air can hold more water vapor. If the rate of warming equals the rate of increased evaporation, relative humidity will stay the same -- and cloudiness will stay the same -- as the Earth warms.

In fact, measurements of relative humidity have shown a declining trend during the past 30 years as the surface temperature has warmed (Dai 2006), implying that evaporation has not kept pace with rising temps. Cloudiness has also been decreasing as the earth warms (Evan et. al. 2007).

In other words, Evans' entire argument has been undermined by actual measurements of actual data.

3. "The Earth's climate is long-lived and stable. It has never gone into runaway greenhouse, unlike Venus, which strongly suggests that the feedbacks dampen temperature perturbations such as that from extra CO2."

False. The entire history of the Pliocene and Pleistocene is nothing but a series of wildly swinging temperature oscillations of exactly the kind we would expect from a climate system with significant positive feedbacks.



Are these wild swings "stable"? Not in my book.

4. "The climate models have been essentially the same for 30 years now, maintaining roughly the same sensitivity to extra CO2."

False. The sensitivity assumed by Hansen in 1988 was 4.2°C per doubling of CO2. This is at the very high end of current consensus range of 1.5°-4.5°, and significantly higher than current consensus thinking of the best central estimate (2.5 to 3°).

If Hansen had used the current central consensus estimate of 2.5° to 3°, his 1988 predictions would have been right on the money.

5. "It's 20 years now [since IPCC 1990], and the average rate of increase in reality is below the lowest trend in the range predicted by the IPCC."

False. There were twelve IPCC projections in 1990, based on three different climate sensitivities and four different emissions scenarios. These twelve projections ranged from .35°C/decade (highest sensitivity and highest emissions) to .11°C/decade (lowest sensitivity and lowest emissions). The actual rate of temperature rise during 1990-2010 was 0.16°C/decade, well withing the IPCC range. Further, the actual radiative forcing from emissions during that 20 years was very close to the lowest emission scenario, thanks to the Montreal Protocols which ended CFC production. The IPCC 1990 lowest emissions combined with the IPCC's best (central) estimate for sensitivity gives a temperature rise of 0.17°C per decade during 1990-2010, almost dead-on bullseye accuracy.

Evans is simply lying through his teeth here.

That's just the first 5 minutes of Evans' video. I could go on, but this post is getting too long already.

 

Thats because it's absurd...

 

You mean like the major error that the models have missed according to real temperature data?

 

If you can prove that ONE error and that it is not cherry picked data for the purpose of misleading the public - go for it. I am even willing to start a formal debate on this - remembering that the bet as laid down calls for multiple disinformation to be identified

Which moderators would you like to have review the evidence?

 

LOL, it is so simple. The predictions did not predict the hiatus. Only and idiot would not see that and only an idiot would not understand that it is expected for scientists to explain it. The IPCC tried and there are numerous theories for it. But only an idiot would ignore that.

 

No - you are not answering my challenge but trying instead to deflect the conversation - the original bet was to match a known sceptic site against an agreed site like the iPCC and see who can find the most errors

I am not interested in your claims because you have never bothered to prove them beyond simply stating them

 

The elephant in the closet is that weather conditions where people actually live have, by and large, not changed much, except for short periods, since Roman times. Vegetation is roughly the same, with of course a few blights or insect infestations along the way. Any book about military history, ranging from books about Hannibal to the Revolutionary War to George Washington's era to the Civil War show heat waves and snowstorms in a way familiar to modern-day inhabitants.

That is why when we read about AGW we hear a lot about remote glaciers and ice packs. No one lives there and no one can verify if the events, even if real, are the long term results of stable temperatures as elevated from Ice Age days or the result of warming.

 

Some say a general warming trend after the Little Ice Age that happened after the Medieval Warming Period where some proxy data shows it was warmer than today. Some say it is a cooling trend if you pick the point of the Holocene Maximum.

 

Oh, but Human activity is the cause of global warming, isn't it?
Therefore the need to drastically cut the birth rate.

 

Why is it absurd?
You do believe that Human activity is the cause of global warming don't you? Therefore fewer humans=less warming.

 

Gee - why am I surprised there is no proof to this statement

Wait - that s because there really is evidence but as usual denialists cannot be bothered to check

 

Have you read any significant amount of non-fiction history of the kind I just referenced?

 

You make a silly jump too far. We need to cut emissions, not people.

 

But it is people that are making the emissions. More people=more emissions.

 

Unless, of course, we stop making emissions. Which we have already done in the case of CFC's.

I also note in passing: no reply to this post, which blows your favorite climate denier video out of the water.

 

You are misrepresenting the situation. Not unheard of in denier cultists.

 

I'm nearly at loss for words, the idiocy of that suggestion is unbelievable...given obvious solution of eliminating fossil fuel burning cars and the only option that occurs to you is the forced sterilization of people!...

 

So how do we cut emissions when more people use more resources that create those emissions?

- - - Updated - - -

How am I misrepresenting the situation?

 

You're at a loss for word? What exactly is so bad about sterilizing people? There are too many of them already. And with this warming thing there will be droughts and many will starve. Isn't it better if they are never born?

I do tend to be logical, candid and unpolitically correct, rather than sentimental when it comes to solving big problems..

How exactly do we eliminate fossil fuel burning cars? You have Big Oil to contend with you know? Do you see them doing anything to make their oil burn cleaner? Do you see the auto manufacturers making high mileage carburetors or other high mileage engines?

Do you see any plans for funding alternate energy products?
Do you see any investigation into already invented products that were bought up and hidden? Are you at all familiar with any of them?

Do you see China doing anything to clean up their horrendous smog? I guess they don't go for the global warming idea.

What exactly do you see in the way of a program to solve this alleged problem? Oh, the carbon tax. And how exactly is that going to help? It just takes more of your hard earned money and puts it in the hands of the politicians and their cronies.

BTW Oil is not a fossil fuel. I thought everyone knew this by now. It's old news, but it is being well covered up. http://rense.com/general67/oils.htm

 

There are dozens of ways to generate and use energy that are non-fossil. Iceland has a non-fossil grid, relying on geothermal. Norway has a non-fossil grid, relying on hydro. France has a non-fossil grid, relying on nuclear.

The problem with fossil fuels is that they have huge external costs -- those are costs that neither the buyer nor the seller pays, but are placed on the backs of the taxpayer. Coal kills thousands of people every year from pollution alone, and that's not even counting the cost of climate change. We have not just a right, but a responsibility, to recover those costs, and the way we do that is with a tax on fossil carbon. If we do that, non-fossil alternatives will compete fossil fuels out of the market. Problem solved.

 

In our country or continent, geothermal might work great in areas near Yellowstone, Banff and a small part of the Colorado Rockies. And oh, maybe near Saratoga Springs. Hydro has its own problems. Just ask California these days. Also, do you want to dam Grand Canyon? I sure don't, but some nitwits almost did back in the 1960's. The Sierra Club deserves a lot of the credit for stopping that fiasco though they were too late on the now-silted up Glen Canyon. What a waste on that one. And nuclear? Politically in the U.S. that's a real scream though I think it's probably a good idea. Thus all the alternatives you mentioned are politically or environmentally poison or impossible.

Fracking, one you on your list, is probably the best idea.

Problem created is that those taxes are highly regressive and blight poor and middle-income people more than upper middle-class and the wealthy. The rise in gas prices from $1.89 during January 2009 to around $3.79 in my area now is more of an annoyance than a tragedy for me. I can't say that for the needy.

The top 5 tactics of climate alarmists a/k/a warmistas:
1) Extrapolation of trends that are in fact cycles (PDO cycles like sunrise/sunset times are cyclical yet the warmistas could hypothesize 24 hour darkness or light);
2) Fake experts (Al Gore unwilling to debate Bjorn Lomborg, author of The Skeptical Environmentalist when he discovered that he was a real scientist)
3) Impossible expectations (that China and India wouldn't more than replace any "savings" and that any sane politician, even if pro-Kyoto won't reduce his own peoples' standard of living while chasing his tail);
4) Misrepresenting the science and logical fallacies (see 1 above, also omitting the fact that every real scientist hedges by writing what "could" happen rather than what "will" happen);
4a) Misrepresenting the science and logical fallacies (spoliation of evidence, such as the East Anglia e-mail-gate)
5) In place of "Conspiracy theories" Ignoring effects of financing incentives on scientific research and formation of governmental committees.

Honesty is not on the list.

 

And that's yet another reason for a carbon tax. Politics can change pretty quickly when your wallet is at stake.

Fracking is fossil. That's a non-starter.

Doesn't have to be, it depends on how it's constructed. For example, we could return 100% of carbon tax revenues to the taxpayers on a per-capita basis. Since the poor use less energy than the rich, the net effect would be progressive rather than regressive. A carbon tax structured this way would reward everyone who figured out any way to use less fossil carbon, or less than his neighbor.

Then perhaps you can answer this question:

Find me one time I have ever cited Al Gore as a credible source on this forum. EVER. Just one. You won't be able to, because his name in invoked only by deniers.

And yet the carbon tax I outlined above wouldn't lower anyone standard of living. But go ahead and keep lying about my position, if it makes you feel good.

See my answer to 1 above. And if you're upset about the difference between what "could" happen and what "will" happen, perhaps you can answer one simple question: when will the trend in the graph below come to a stop?

Because if you can't predict the future with perfect accuracy, it's rather unfair of you to expect others to. One might even call that an "impossible expectation."

If you believe that has actually occurred, perhaps you can point out exactly what was withheld or altered in what peer-reviewed publication. It's been four years now, so certainly if you've got something other than smoke and rumor, you should be able to articulate it with great precision.

Why not look up the meaning of "tenure" and see how foolish that makes this argument look.

Perhaps you would care to defend the honesty of this guy, on your side.
Or of this guy, on your side.
Or of this guy, on your side.

If not, may I suggest that you remove the plank from your own eye before worrying about the mote in anyone else's.