The Global Warming Plateau

[waldo]

The 95% number was plucked out of the air based on the "gut feel" of the people writing the IPCC report (a small minority of scientists). But even if we accept the assertion that humans are changing the climate it does not automatically follow that CO2 reductions are the best way to deal with the problem. Adaptation as needed makes more economic sense.

no, it's a 95% probability likelihood, a confidence level, that a significant degree of the warming between 1951-to-2010 can be attributed to a combination of the anthropogenic sourced increase in greenhouse gas concentrations and other anthropogenic forcings; a confidence level based on an assessment of the science. It's a level that has iteratively grown in confidence as reflects upon scientific assessment; increasing from 50% in 1995, to 66% in 2001, to 90% in 2007 to, now, 95% in 2013.

your continued prattle on adaptation ONLY most certainly does not make 'more economic sense'. The appropriate, as you say, "problem dealing", includes both adaptation response and mitigation pursuit. Your Adapt-R-Us-Only nonsense would have you holding to the status quo, allowing emissions to continue growing/accelerating. Your nonsense completely ignores any consideration of the impact of both short-term and long-term feedbacks, influences that will work to compound upon themselves and further increase the atmospheric concentration of emissions/warming you presume to ignore in the first place... notwithstanding the compounding influence on ocean acidification, etc. Equally, your business as usual economics gives no consideration to the realities of an adaptation only response, on a global scale.

[Keepitsimple]

...........These climbdowns include, but are not limited to: a revision of the estimated rate of warming from .2 degrees C per decade to just .12 C, so basically half, and an admission that the computer models used may have exaggerated global warming; an acknowledgment that the Earth has not warmed in a statistically significant way since 1997, again, in direct contrast to what the models had projected; Antarctic sea ice levels have increased, once again defying the models; and a previous prediction of more numerous and more powerful hurricanes has been proven simply and incontrovertibly wrong.

And yet we are to believe that the scientific establishment is more confident than ever (95%) that humans are the dominant, driving force behind Climate Change? Isn't if getting terribly difficult for an objective, interested person to make sense of all these "mis-calculations"?

Link:http://fullcomment.nationalpost.com/2013/09/16/matt-gurney-climate-scientists-it-wont-matter-if-youre-right-in-the-end-if-no-one-believes-you/

Edited October 10, 2013 by Keepitsimple

[Michael Hardner]

And yet we are to believe that the scientific establishment is more confident than ever (95%) that humans are the dominant, driving force behind Climate Change? Isn't if getting terribly difficult for an objective, interested person to make sense of all these "mis-calculations"?

Link:http://fullcomment.nationalpost.com/2013/09/16/matt-gurney-climate-scientists-it-wont-matter-if-youre-right-in-the-end-if-no-one-believes-you/

Well, the thing I get from this is that the IPCC is now quoted by those who are skeptical about Climate Change. Of course the temperature adjustments can and should change based on the data. Will there be outrage if it gets adjusted the other way now ?

[waldo]

...........These climbdowns include, but are not limited to: a revision of the estimated rate of warming from .2 degrees C per decade to just .12 C, so basically half

of course, we get one of the National Posts stable of "skeptic journalists" openly touting the lies from serial misinformer, British tabloid "journalist" David Rose... one of Shady's regular go-to guys in the past! We've had many MLW posts expose the crap regularly spewed by David Rose. Clearly, this SimpleQuote is another big time denier fail; taking the very first reference provided, as quoted above:

- per the previous 2007 IPCC AR4 report, there was no estimated warming rate of a 0.2°C per decade; rather, per the report:

The linear warming trend over the 50 years from 1956 to 2005 (0.13 [0.10 to 0.16]°C per decade) is nearly twice that for the 100 years from 1906 to 2005.

as a reinforcement of that estimate, the following graphic presents a split review showing respective GISTemp temperature data trends from 1951-to-2006 & 1951-to-2012; specifically:

• 1951-2006 => ~ 0.124 degrees per decade
• 1951-2012 => ~ 0.127 degrees per decade

here you go, Simple! Your thoughts?

[dre]

Most 'deniers' acknowledge human caused warming ?

I guess I misunderstood that rather specific label, then.

I think its just more that the goalposts have moved.

1. First we saw outright denial that there an any warming at all. You still see that but maybe not as much.

2. Then some accepted the warming but denied the ammount of warming.

3. Others accepted the warming but denied humans played a part. It was a Natural Cycle! Or solar activity!

4. Now some accept AGW but deny we can do anything about it.

5. Now some more accept AGW and that we can do something about it... Its just too expensive! Not worth it.

Each of these represents a level of retreat. You try to hold the front as long as you can then you pull back to the next position and try to hold that for a while.

[TimG]

I think its just more that the goalposts have moved.

No they have not. The only thing that has changed is the alarmists are now realizing that demonizing and misrepresenting skeptical positions has only created more skeptics so now they acknowledge the wide range of skeptical opinions that have always been there.

From my perspective the outrageous attacks on reasonable skeptical positions by people with authority in the scientific community is what convinced me that the science cannot be trusted. The field is filled with idelogues who don't seem to care much about science.

Edited October 11, 2013 by TimG

[dre]

No they have not.

Sure they have, in exactly the way I described. Early on most of the argument was on whether there was any real warming at all, from there deniers retreated to position 2, then position 3, etc. I watched it happen.

[waldo]

No they have not. The only thing that has changed is the alarmists are now realizing that demonizing and misrepresenting skeptical positions has only created more skeptics so now they acknowledge the wide range of skeptical opinions that have always been there.

only in your denier dreams! Only your view shaped by your own persecution complex and your proclivity for failed denier blog science!!!

From my perspective the outrageous attacks on reasonable skeptical positions by people with authority in the scientific community is what convinced me that the science cannot be trusted. The field is filled with idelogues who don't seem to care much about science.

oh my! Outrageous attacks... like..... like...... like, what? Oh right, this is just one extension on your ongoing conspiracy bluster. Why's everybody keeping the poor denier man down!

[TimG]

Sure they have, in exactly the way I described.

For starters you have no clue. I doubt you have spent much time reading skeptical websites and get your opinions from alarmist propagandists which makes your opinions worthless.

There has always been people with a wide range of of skeptical opinions - the only thing that has changed is the number of people willing to self identify as skeptics has increased as the dishonest nature of alarmists has become apparent.

Edited October 11, 2013 by TimG

[waldo]

For starters you have no clue.

MLW member 'Michael Hardner' was recently on the firing end of your previous "no clue" labeling... and now, your sights have hit MLW member 'dre'. Apparently, not agreeing with you has consequences!

.

[Guest]

I think its just more that the goalposts have moved.

1. First we saw outright denial that there an any warming at all. You still see that but maybe not as much.

2. Then some accepted the warming but denied the ammount of warming.

3. Others accepted the warming but denied humans played a part. It was a Natural Cycle! Or solar activity!

4. Now some accept AGW but deny we can do anything about it.

5. Now some more accept AGW and that we can do something about it... Its just too expensive! Not worth it.

Each of these represents a level of retreat. You try to hold the front as long as you can then you pull back to the next position and try to hold that for a while.

That's not true in every case.

( I did notice in Waldo's graphic there that I am now lumped in with people who don't think the Earth is getting warmer. I guess the idea is to help convince the undecided to keep buying the curly light bulbs)

I knew about climate change over twenty years ago. It didn't take long to realise we can't do anything about it. I didn't have to go through the first three steps.

And by can't, I mean, of course, won't. We could sterilize everybody and replace fossil fuels with nuclear, but we won't.

We can keep buying the curly light bulbs, though.

[waldo]

( I did notice in Waldo's graphic there that I am now lumped in with people who don't think the Earth is getting warmer. I guess the idea is to help convince the undecided to keep buying the curly light bulbs)

what do you mean "lumped in"? The stages of denial graph simply speaks to a layering of denial... for some deniers, it reflects upon a progression that they move through; typically, stage movement reflects upon an indefensible position at a lower stage. For other deniers, the graph simply reflects upon a denial stage they're at - stuck at, comfortable at!

although you speak in weasel words, I infer that your "lumped in" phrasing and your attachment to the "can't fix it" denial stage, suggests that you don't deny the problem exists, you don't deny the problem cause... and you don't deny it's a problem.

I knew about climate change over twenty years ago. It didn't take long to realise we can't do anything about it. I didn't have to go through the first three steps.

And by can't, I mean, of course, won't. We could sterilize everybody and replace fossil fuels with nuclear, but we won't.

We can keep buying the curly light bulbs, though.

so... you're a visionary, ahead of the curve! Is your knowledge also stuck back 20 years ago? It does appear your particular brand of denial highlights a missing sub-category of denial within the denial stages graphic. Your "won't do anything about it" wording and nuclear emphasis, does suggest you do believe the problem could be fixed... if only nuclear were embraced! If only! Clearly, the graphic needs a 4a sub-category to fit you... what wording would you like to define your sub-category denial stage? Edited October 11, 2013 by waldo

[TimG]

I knew about climate change over twenty years ago. It didn't take long to realise we can't do anything about it.

I realized that the carbon mitigation provisions in Kyoto were doomed to fail long before I did any research into the science. When I did actually investigate the science I was surprised to discover how much BS is passed off as science.

In any case, there is nothing more contemptible than self righteous alarmists who make up crap about "what skeptics think" when they have never shown any interest in actually listening to skeptic arguments and understanding what they think.

Edited October 11, 2013 by TimG

[Mighty AC]

It does appear your particular brand of denial highlights a missing sub-category of denial within the denial stages graphic. Your "won't do anything about it" wording and nuclear emphasis, does suggest you do believe the problem could be fixed... if only nuclear were embraced! If only! Clearly, the graphic needs a 4a sub-category to fit you... what wording would you like to define your sub-category denial stage?

I think this is a very common position. It's really the "what's in it for me" attitude that often becomes more acute as we age. Most know that AGW is real and must be dealt with, but I think some people internally downplay the seriousness and urgency of the problem because mitigating the effects really won't benefit them. If you only have 10-20 years left, future catastrophes probably seem far less important than tax breaks, cheap meds and home care. This is a hard problem to overcome, made more difficult by the misinformation campaigns being used.

[waldo]

I realized that the carbon mitigation provisions in Kyoto were doomed to fail long before I did any research into the science. When I did actually investigate the science I was surprised to discover how much BS is passed off as science.

notwithstanding trading, land use, sinks, and the water-downed targets ... many countries within the Kyoto Protocol did reduce their emissions below 1990 levels. How does that mitigation success fit against your BS visionary prowess? Your BS take on science has been well showcased through your assorted board personas!

In any case, there is nothing more contemptible than self righteous alarmists who make up crap about "what skeptics think" when they have never shown any interest in actually listening to skeptic arguments and understanding what they think.

you have a ton of nerve to presume to speak for skeptics - when have you ever been a skeptic, a true skeptic, a legitimate skeptic? Your fake skepticism can't hide the denial you regularly trot out... can't hide your ever shifting positions/claims... can't hide your inability to support anything you bluster on about.

but let's play:

- what "crap" do you claim has been made up about, as you say, "what skeptics think"?

- what "skeptic arguments" have not been, as you say, "listened to"?

[Guest]

although you speak in weasel words, I infer that your "lumped in" phrasing and your attachment to the "can't fix it" denial stage, suggests that you don't deny the problem exists, you don't deny the problem cause... and you don't deny it's a problem.

Well, that's exactly right. And you deny we're doing enough to mitigate the problem. We're both deniers!

The problem with you is evidence selection. The evidence suggests that the climate is changing, and we are affecting it. It also suggests we can't get our act together to have any success in lowering greenhouse gas concentrations in the atmosphere. How come you just believe the one?

so... you're a visionary, ahead of the curve! Is your knowledge also stuck back 20 years ago? It does appear your particular brand of denial highlights a missing sub-category of denial within the denial stages graphic. Your "won't do anything about it" wording and nuclear emphasis, does suggest you do believe the problem could be fixed... if only nuclear were embraced! If only! Clearly, the graphic needs a 4a sub-category to fit you... what wording would you like to define your sub-category denial stage?

Not so much a visionary. I just had PBS and a brain.

Of course, if we took drastic steps to reduce the population, and replaced all coal power generation with nuclear, (and developed nuclear transport, lawnmowers, etc.) the amount of greenhouse gases in the atmosphere would peak and start to fall. We agree on that, right?

But we won't. We agree on that too, right?

If we just manage to postpone a pipeline or two, introduce the odd provincial carbon tax, get cars to go all the way across Canada on one tank of gas, these are all going to make some people feel good, but they won't make any difference.

Actually, the more I think about it, you're the real denier.

[Guest]

I think this is a very common position. It's really the "what's in it for me" attitude that often becomes more acute as we age. Most know that AGW is real and must be dealt with, but I think some people internally downplay the seriousness and urgency of the problem because mitigating the effects really won't benefit them. If you only have 10-20 years left, future catastrophes probably seem far less important than tax breaks, cheap meds and home care. This is a hard problem to overcome, made more difficult by the misinformation campaigns being used.

No kids then?

[waldo]

I think this is a very common position. It's really the "what's in it for me" attitude that often becomes more acute as we age. Most know that AGW is real and must be dealt with, but I think some people internally downplay the seriousness and urgency of the problem because mitigating the effects really won't benefit them. If you only have 10-20 years left, future catastrophes probably seem far less important than tax breaks, cheap meds and home care. This is a hard problem to overcome, made more difficult by the misinformation campaigns being used.

yes, unfortunately a too prevalent position for many with a 'me, me, me' and/or a 'gimme, gimme, gimme' mindset. As you say, throw the fossil-fuel industry/Koch Brothers/etc. funded denial machine into that mix and the problem most certainly magnifies.

[Guest]

many countries within the Kyoto Protocol did reduce their emissions below 1990 levels. How does that mitigation success fit against your BS visionary prowess?

How does it fit against current CO2 levels, and current rates of increase?

It appears to me that if such great successes can do nothing to stop the problem, then any suffering incurred as a result of their efforts was pointless. Or did they not really suffer for the cause, instead just moving carbon around on paper?

[waldo]

Well, that's exactly right. --- Actually, the more I think about it, you're the real denier.

no time to play for most of today... will respond at some point, later

[Guest]

no time to play for most of today... will respond at some point, later

Yeah, I really should get some work done too...

[Mighty AC]

No kids then?

I do have kids and I support immediate action. I like to clean up my own messes and pay my fair share. Unfortunately, many with children and grand children would rather dine and dash, leaving the bill for their progeny.

People who say things won't or can't change are as bad or worse than the ignorant masses who still deny the problem. This combination of apathy and ignorance is allowing governments to continue to cater to Big Oil. As long as enough people buy into any stage of denial we will continue to make things worse for our children. Embarrassingly, we Canadians are among the world's worst on this front.

[Keepitsimple]

I think its just more that the goalposts have moved.

1. First we saw outright denial that there an any warming at all. You still see that but maybe not as much.

2. Then some accepted the warming but denied the ammount of warming.

3. Others accepted the warming but denied humans played a part. It was a Natural Cycle! Or solar activity!

4. Now some accept AGW but deny we can do anything about it.

5. Now some more accept AGW and that we can do something about it... Its just too expensive! Not worth it.

Each of these represents a level of retreat. You try to hold the front as long as you can then you pull back to the next position and try to hold that for a while.

Dre.......your "retreat" fairy tale belongs in the dustbin with ol' Waldo's desperate "fake skepticism". For what is probably the millionth time......only a complete bonehead would ever deny Climate Change. Heck - we all learned (or should have learned) about the ice ages in school. Any reasonably informed person knows that the latest Climate change cycle has seen the world warming since 1850 or so. Most skeptics also accept that GHG's can have an affect on temperature.....but for true skeptics, that's where our paths diverge from the alarmists. Alarmists believe that humans are the driving force behind warming (some say Climate Change which is outright foolishness). Skeptics are simply that - skeptical of that particular claim - that's really all that skepticism has ever been about - how much humans actually affect Climate Change or the amount of warming. With nothing but computer models that now admittedly leave much to be desired - and observations that obliterate many Alarmist predictions - skepticism is rightfully increasing.

Edited October 11, 2013 by Keepitsimple

[Guest]

I do have kids and I support immediate action. I like to clean up my own messes and pay my fair share. Unfortunately, many with children and grand children would rather dine and dash, leaving the bill for their progeny.

People who say things won't or can't change are as bad or worse than the ignorant masses who still deny the problem. This combination of apathy and ignorance is allowing governments to continue to cater to Big Oil. As long as enough people buy into any stage of denial we will continue to make things worse for our children. Embarrassingly, we Canadians are among the world's worst on this front.

Why don't you just tell us what to do then? And then, when it doesn't get done, tell us why not.

Those who imagine that, if we all pull together, and maybe give up a few luxuries, we can convince the 3/4 of the world's population that are just discovering them to do without them too "are as bad or worse than the ignorant masses who still deny the problem". They will waste countless billions on windmills and corn, when that money could be better spent on developing technologies that actually work, or others that will help with adaptation.

It is so painfully, mind meltingly obvious that the world is not going to do anything significant to reduce the amount of greenhouse gases in the atmosphere until the population peaks and starts to fall, (and the third world is a thing of the past), or some bright spark discovers cold fusion, that I have to question the mentality of those who think we could, but choose not to. It's almost as though they have a problem with big oil, not climate change.

[waldo]

Dre.......your "retreat" fairy tale belongs in the dustbin with ol' Waldo's desperate "fake skepticism". For what is probably the millionth time......only a complete bonehead would ever deny Climate Change.

there's nothing fake about you! Your "fake skepticism" is the genuine article. One need look no further than your prior post; clearly, you have no interest in legitimate skepticism when you link to an article that simply regurgitates the misinformation from a British tabloid "journalist", a renowned serial denier. Your MLW fake-skeptic posting history speaks for itself.