Climate Change - Looking Back

[lukin]

It does when it accumulates over time. Now its some 30% or more higher than it was when the industrial age started.

We're responsible for 100% of that.

That's all hearsay. I don't subscribe to hearsay.

[waldo]

That's all hearsay. I don't subscribe to hearsay.

hearsay? Just what would you call your plagiarized, word for word, failed "source"... the one you even lack the integrity to link to/identify... notwithstanding your failed source doesn't explicitly provide a direct citation for the stated greenhouse effect (GHE) numbers claimed. And, again, you haven't even the presence to recognize you're improperly conflating absolute accumulated CO2 increase amount levels with GHE... that you crafted your failed ploy over an extended post exchange is gold, real gold!

if you weren't a fake skeptic you would take my suggestion and explore the topics of forcings/feedbacks and atmospheric residence times... and apply those fundamentals toward understanding recognized greenhouse effect numbers. You would realize that CO2 accounts for about 20% of the GHE... water vapour/clouds about 75% of the GHE... with minor gases/aerosols making up the remaining 5% of the GHE. You would also understand that the approximate 25% non-condensing GHG component (CO2 & minor gases/aerosols), is the principal factor in sustaining the Earth's GHE... that water vapour is a feedback effect, not a forcing agent. Plain and simple, a change in water vapour concentration is too short lived to affect climate... see precipitation/evaporation. However, water vapour most certainly is a positive feedback, one acting to further amplify CO2 caused temperature warming.

[lukin]

hearsay? Just what would you call your plagiarized, word for word, failed "source"... the one you even lack the integrity to link to/identify... notwithstanding your failed source doesn't explicitly provide a direct citation for the stated greenhouse effect (GHE) numbers claimed. And, again, you haven't even the presence to recognize you're improperly conflating absolute accumulated CO2 increase amount levels with GHE... that you crafted your failed ploy over an extended post exchange is gold, real gold!

if you weren't a fake skeptic you would take my suggestion and explore the topics of forcings/feedbacks and atmospheric residence times... and apply those fundamentals toward understanding recognized greenhouse effect numbers. You would realize that CO2 accounts for about 20% of the GHE... water vapour/clouds about 75% of the GHE... with minor gases/aerosols making up the remaining 5% of the GHE. You would also understand that the approximate 25% non-condensing GHG component (CO2 & minor gases/aerosols), is the principal factor in sustaining the Earth's GHE... that water vapour is a feedback effect, not a forcing agent. Plain and simple, a change in water vapour concentration is too short lived to affect climate... see precipitation/evaporation. However, water vapour most certainly is a positive feedback, one acting to further amplify CO2 caused temperature warming.

Again you are wrong.

[Michael Hardner]

Lukin,

You're not adding much here by stating unsourced opinions, saying "you're wrong" and so on.

Can you back up your sources ? Can you give a background on the person you identified above ?

[The_Squid]

Having a discusssion about science with someone who thinks that the exact same discussion is actually a political one just doesn't work.

You can show papers, talk about peer review science, discuss the current concencus in the scientific community and what you get in return is regurgitation of things written or said by paid lobbyists dressed in labcoats pretending to refute the current science.

And, on top of that, you get the mainstream media treating the scientific concensus and the lobbyists as equal!

Imagine if politicians listened to their public servants who are doing actual science (Envirnment Canada) rather than oil company lobbyists.......

2010 was the warmest (average accross the country) year on record.

The national average temperature for the year 2010 was 3.0°C above normal

[TimG]

Having a discusssion about science with someone who thinks that the exact same discussion is actually a political one just doesn't work.

The science is quite irrelevant. In the end the decisions that matter have to be made based on politics, economics, values and technology. i.e. if it is not technically possible to stop emitting CO2 the it really makes no difference how many scientists think it would be a good idea to reduce emissions because emissions will not be reduced.

The only people who go on about the science are political activists who think they can prevent a political debate about the alternatives by hiding under the skirts of scientists. It is a contemptible practice and the only reasonable response is to remind people that the question of what to do about CO2 is political debate - not a scientific one.

Edited December 15, 2011 by TimG

[jbg]

Lukin,

You're not adding much here by stating unsourced opinions, saying "you're wrong" and so on.

Can you back up your sources ? Can you give a background on the person you identified above ?

Not aiming at you, but someone here delights in personal attacks on myself and other global warming skeptics. Even though I'm a hard left-winger I'm attacked on this issue.

[waldo]

The science is quite irrelevant. In the end the decisions that matter have to be made based on politics, economics, values and technology. i.e. if it is not technically possible to stop emitting CO2 the it really makes no difference how many scientists think it would be a good idea to reduce emissions because emissions will not be reduced.

The only people who go on about the science are political activists who think they can prevent a political debate about the alternatives by hiding under the skirts of scientists. It is a contemptible practice and the only reasonable response is to remind people that the question of what to do about CO2 is political debate - not a scientific one.

much to your consternation, scientists will be involved in providing policy recommendations... just as they have been. Of course, per your norm, you give token inferred indirect acknowledgement for the need to reduce CO2 emissions... clearly a false acceptance on your part given that you don't accept anthropogenic sourced CO2 as the principal causal link to GW/CC... even though you're most hesitant and unwilling to provide just what you believe the alternate to be - hey?

as for your, "the only people who"... the only people who repeatedly emphasize the political, to the exclusion of the science and options/opportunities for mitigation/adaptation/prevention, are the types... like you... who steadfastly avoid the science while trumpeting calls for delay/no action.

[wyly]

The only people who go on about the science are political activists who think they can prevent a political debate about the alternatives by hiding under the skirts of scientists. It is a contemptible practice and the only reasonable response is to remind people that the question of what to do about CO2 is political debate - not a scientific one.

prevent a political debate ]OH THE IRONY![/b] the Harper blocked opposition MPs from attending the durban conference... that's some debating style the CPC have, closure in the HOC, blocking MPs from attending international debates.. :lol:

[wyly]

Not aiming at you, but someone here delights in personal attacks on myself and other global warming skeptics. Even though I'm a hard left-winger I'm attacked on this issue.

hard left winger??? maybe if you only one arm and you're left handed...

[Michael Hardner]

Not aiming at you, but someone here delights in personal attacks on myself and other global warming skeptics. Even though I'm a hard left-winger I'm attacked on this issue.

If you are personally attacked, you should report that.

[TimG]

much to your consternation, scientists will be involved in providing policy recommendations... just as they have been.

And politicians will continue to tell scientists that their recommendations are completely impractical and will be ignored.

Science does not trump economics or technology or values. It is a perfectly legimate choice to say that the future can look after itself and it is irresponsible to impose hardship on people today because climate change MIGHT be a problem in the future. No amount of bleating about science will change that.

[Michael Hardner]

It is a perfectly legimate choice to say that the future can look after itself and it is irresponsible to impose hardship on people today because climate change MIGHT be a problem in the future.

It's legitimate, but that viewpoint is more often criticized by conservatives in the form of deficit elimination, for example.

[jbg]

And politicians will continue to tell scientists that their recommendations are completely impractical and will be ignored.

Science does not trump economics or technology or values. It is a perfectly legimate choice to say that the future can look after itself and it is irresponsible to impose hardship on people today because climate change MIGHT be a problem in the future. No amount of bleating about science will change that.

Very well put.

[waldo]

Even though I'm a hard left-winger I'm attacked on this issue.

hard left winger??? maybe if you only one arm and you're left handed...

why wyly, it begs the question... is there a right-wing, left-wing dichotomy being presented here in terms of AGW/CC views held; and, if so, does one's self-positioning within said dichotomy, predispose towards review, assessment and resulting interpretation of offered statements/positions, regardless of their veracity?

[TimG]

It's legitimate, but that viewpoint is more often criticized by conservatives in the form of deficit elimination, for example.

Except the example of Greece and numerous other countries tells us that deficits are a REAL problem that are not going to dissappear because of wishful thinking.

Climate change is a purely hypothetical problem and there are no reasons to believe that humans cannot adapt to whatever changes come.

Edited December 15, 2011 by TimG

[waldo]

And politicians will continue to tell scientists that their recommendations are completely impractical and will be ignored.

careful… the shielding facade over your true anti-science persona is breaking down here. Obviously, policy-makers continue to rely on scientists for scientific based policy recommendations… for direction. No amount of TimG fawning over economists and shilling for BigOil will assign artificial illegitimacy to practical scientific based policy recommendations.

Science does not trump economics or technology or values. It is a perfectly legimate choice to say that the future can look after itself and it is irresponsible to impose hardship on people today because climate change MIGHT be a problem in the future. No amount of bleating about science will change that.

it's always bloody amazing to see a fake skeptic attempt to delineate technology from science... clearly, you live in an alternate reality - a bizarro world existence. Of course, your favoured adapt-R-Us only positioning begs the question in terms of science/technology... just where will those scientific and technology based adaptation solutions/alternatives come from? From your economists?

[TimG]

it's always bloody amazing to see a fake skeptic attempt to delineate technology from science...

Technology is practical science that is grounded in economics. Technology is judged by what works in the real world. Unlike a field like climate science where the "truth" is really nothing more than the unverifiable pronoucements of people with a vested interested in promoting a particular view.

Your failure to to distinguish between real science (a.k.a technology) and fake science (a.k.a climate science) explains why your views on the topic are so muddled.

Edited December 15, 2011 by TimG

[Michael Hardner]

Except the example of Greece and numerous other countries tells us that deficits are a REAL problem that are not going to dissappear because of wishful thinking.

Climate change is a purely hypothetical problem and there are no reasons to believe that humans cannot adapt to whatever changes come.

You, like many others, want subjective opinions to be accepted as fact.

Deficits may be a problem, and climate change may be a problem. What you have to face is that they really only become 'real' problems when people believe in them, and its time to act on them.

There are plenty of people who also think deficits are overblown, for example.

[TimG]

Deficits may be a problem, and climate change may be a problem.

Deficits are not subjective problem. Greece is in deep trouble because it can't pay its bills. Their economy is crashing. Unemployment is skyrocketing. Pensions are getting cut. It is a mess. It is a real problem that is causing real hardship. You playing games by trying to compare deficits to climate change due to CO2 where the harms from CO2 are basically non-existent at this time. Edited December 15, 2011 by TimG

[Michael Hardner]

Deficits are not subjective problem. Greece is in deep trouble because it can't pay its bills. Their economy is crashing. Unemployment is skyrocketing. Pensions are getting cut. It is a mess. It is a real problem that is causing real hardship. You playing games by trying to compare deficits to climate change due to CO2 where the harms from CO2 are basically non-existent at this time.

The world of economics, though, is even more about perceptions than the world of science.

Subjectivity is an attribute of being a human being.

[waldo]

Technology is practical science that is grounded in economics. Technology is judged by what works in the real world. Unlike a field like climate science where the "truth" is really nothing more than the unverifiable pronoucements of people with a vested interested in promoting a particular view.

excellent - keep firming up your anti-science pronouncements. Obviously, climate science is grounded in and based upon physical science... your extreme difficulty with science, with physical science, with climate science, is it simply counters your fake skeptic self. Because you can't rely on science to support your denial, you denigrate climate science and any/all scientists engaged in any/all aspects of climate science... you fall back to unverifiable pronouncements of people with a vested interest in promoting a particular view - see charlatans!

Your failure to to distinguish between real science (a.k.a technology) and fake science (a.k.a climate science) explains why your views on the topic are so muddled.

your failure to distinguish between real climate science's foundation (a.k.a. physical science) and your favoured unsupported fake skeptic "science" (a.k.a. denier science), explains why your views on the topic are so muddled, so skewed, so biased, so misinformed, so... fake!

[TimG]

The world of economics, though, is even more about perceptions than the world of science.

The economy is crashing in Greece. People are losing their jobs. Investment has dried up. These are cold hard objective facts that are directly linked to the government being unable to borrow money.

You are attempting to create equavalence when there is none.

Edited December 16, 2011 by TimG

[Michael Hardner]

The economy is crashing in Greece. People are losing their jobs. Investment has dried up. These are cold hard objective facts that are directly linked to the government being unable to borrow money.

You are attempting to create equavalence when there is none.

Because people won't buy their bonds anymore, right ?

[TimG]

Obviously, climate science is grounded in and based upon physical science...

So what? All science is based on math too. That does not make all science credible simply because it uses math. Climate science is a field that has no credibility because there are no real experiments that can be conducted to verify the results. Entire theories are developed based on guesswork and are only accepted because the people making a living in the field decide it is in their best interest to believe them to be true. Whether they are true or not is irrelevant.