Now its Global cooling or rather Solar cooling.

[G7PSK]

Apparently the sun is cooling down and will have up to 60% less output by 2030/40. Another mini Ice age, What about solar cells then.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/paulhudson/entries/6d50a6bd-779a-32d6-bfca-06e4484d6835

http://www.huffingtonpost.co.uk/2015/07/13/a-mini-ice-age-is-just-15-years-away-as-scientists-predict-drop-in-solar-activity_n_7782928.html?1436776483

[ElectroIrradiator]

Write 100 times on a blackboard:

"Solar activity is not proportional to radiated solar output power."

The BBC article got it right. The expected drop, if it happens and all other things being equal, is expect to be on the order of 0.3-0.4 ^oC on global average temperature. This means it will probably not even be able to keep up with global warming over the same time period. So as seen from today the main consequence is likely to be political, when global warming naysayers will use the phenomenon to say we can just keep doing business as usual.

[Mechanical Menace]

I wonder which if either prediction is closer to what will happen? That a solar minimum may cause a mini ice age in the Northern Hemisphere but not really effect the global climate as Lockwood and his team suggested in the 2001 report linked to in the 2013 blog post or if the new as yet unpublished study suggesting global effects. Or if the new model even predicts that given (almost every) news outlets generally abysmal science reporting.

TBH if this does happen it wouldn't effect summer in the northern hemisphere much in regards to solar panels, the southern would hardly notice at all. Not sure how it would effect solar cells output in winter in the northern hemisphere, guess that would depend which parts of the sun's spectrum are most reduced. Are the frequencies most likely to directly heat the atmosphere the same as those solar cells harness most efficiently? They mainly use the blue-green end of the spectrum don't they?

[grumpydoc]

Write 100 times on a blackboard:

"Solar activity is not proportional to radiated solar output power."

Just as well - I would think that a 60% drop in the Sun's output would not cause a mini ice age but a full blown one, and then some. It would be the equivalent of moving the earth just beyond the orbit of Mars.

[ElectroIrradiator]

Just as well - I would think that a 60% drop in the Sun's output would not cause a mini ice age but a full blown one, and then some. It would be the equivalent of moving the earth just beyond the orbit of Mars.

Indeed.

People need to stop the stupid. Right now. The reduction in solar activity, meaning sunspots and coronal activity, will not have a noticeable effect on the efficiency of PV cells, except possibly a minor local effect due to an increase in average cloud cover. Additionally PV cells are already a dubious investment in the northern latitudes due to a combination of clouds and low average incident solar angle, particularly during the winter.

On the contrary, then if we do get a period with slightly harsher winters and ditto colder summers, then this would mean more wind power and more precipitation for the hydroelectric dam reservoirs.

[JoeO]

FTA: "According to research conducted by Michael Mann in 2001, a vociferous advocate of man-made global warming, the Maunder minimum of the 1600s was estimated to have shaved 0.3C to 0.4C from global temperatures. "

Michael Mann is the gentleman who included in his computer program, a "fudge factor" his term, in order to create the famous "hockey stick" graph.

Michael Mann has zero credibility.

[G7PSK]

According to the latest research by Prof Valentina Zharkova the down turn could be near the Maunder minimum. When the Maunder minimum occurred the River Thames froze over in winter and there was wide spread famine in Europe.

http://nam2015.org/index.php/press-releases/64-irregular-heartbeat-of-the-sun-driven-by-double-dynamo

[Mechanical Menace]

Michael Mann has zero credibility.

Funny how the scientific community and the courts disagree

[ElectroIrradiator]

According to the latest research by Prof Valentina Zharkova the down turn could be near the Maunder minimum. When the Maunder minimum occurred the River Thames froze over in winter and there was wide spread famine in Europe.

http://nam2015.org/index.php/press-releases/64-irregular-heartbeat-of-the-sun-driven-by-double-dynamo

The Mainder minimum is actually a very good example of how a minor change in average global temperature can have a significant effect on the local weather.

[LabSpokane]

Regardless of what happens to weather, ocean acidification *is* real and the very demonstrable effects are evidenced by dramatically reduced shellfish reproductive rates in the ocean waters off the coast of my home state of Washington.  Oysters used to propagate naturally here.  Now the juveniles have to be started in Hawaii and flown back.  If the pH keeps going down, that may not even work. 

Then there's the food supply: we're feeding whatever current population of the earth that exceeds approx. 1B with fossil fuels.  Without them, we could not extract or create the chemical fertilizers and pesticides that we are using to sustain the "green revolution."  Fertilizer production is the new global gold mine - almost literally.  It is what mining companies are turning to sustain them after the collapse of global metals prices. 

The petroleum century has filled everyone with unrealistic expectations of abundance without consequence.  Neither will be true.    No matter what happens with climate, releasing tens of millions of years of stored up solar energy in the geologic blink of an eye is turning out to be a bad experiment for everyone involved.

[M4trix]

Speaking of which, this is my favorite one...

[nctnico]

It never ceases to amaze me that climate sceptics keep posting links that they clearly haven't read or understood. The very first link to the BBC article debunks the OP in his own post.

The sun's output seems to be quite constant although there is a very regular 0.2% variation:
http://hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu/hbase/thermo/solact.html

By the way there is a strong correlation between winters in the NL and the cycle of the sun. In NL there is a tradition which goes back over a century where they have an ice skating race on natural ice (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Elfstedentocht) . If you put the years where they where able to keep the race next to the years where the solar output is minimal you'll see it matches almost perfectly. So even though the variation is only 0.2% it does have an effect.

Anyway I'll just see and happens. According to my memory winters have become less snowy and icey over the past couple of decades. I think I have been able to walk on natural ice only twice in the past 20 years while this used to be possible nearly every winter when I was a kid.

[Deathwish]

It is best to ignore this topic. Now that Dave has been kind enough to provide an ignore topic facility it is easy. It is just another mischievous trolling attempt.

where ?, i cant find that

[G7PSK]

I really cannot understand why any one would think I am a climate sceptic or a troll. I posted this as I find it interesting that the Sun has two magnetic fields that move about at slightly different rates which affect its output according to how in phase the fields are. I realise that one cannot shit on your own doorstep indefinitely and burn hundreds of millions of years worth of carbon sequestering in a few tens of years. On the other hand there are far greater forces at work than mere humans in the universe and I do not mean gods of any form. If people had bothered to follow the stories and the sources and links within them they would have found that the UV is going to have the greatest drop in output which will have far reaching affects on earth, a large part of the suns heat is from UV absorption in the atmosphere wireless communications will be affected some good and some bad. Plant growth will be reduced and better violins will be able to be made as a result of that. And just from the title it should be possible to see that I am rather scornful of the media's take on this research.

[Halcyon]

I really cannot understand why any one would think I am a climate sceptic or a troll.

Don't feed the actual trolls. No matter how hard you try to remain objective and mature about things, it's inevitable for a handful of people to take something out of context, look into some hidden meaning that isn't there or just have to have the last say.

'Climate change' is a touchy subject for some people.

:-)

[zapta]

'Climate change' is a touchy subject for some people.

:-)

Like any other religion. People feel threatened by decent.

[LabSpokane]

I really cannot understand why any one would think I am a climate sceptic or a troll.

I inferred the climate skeptic part from the title. I'm skeptical of the most dire predictions as well. I was only trying to point out that there are clearly demonstrable, objective consequences, adverse ones, of our fossil fuel use today.

As for the interest in solar activity, I am totally down with that.  The sun and its affect on space weather is widely ignored by the general public.

[tom66]

Like any other religion. People feel threatened by decent.

Hm Freudian slip from the climate troll?

[TerraHertz]

"Now its Global cooling or rather Solar cooling"

What do you mean 'now'?
There have been many sources predicting the Sun will be going into a new Minimum. These predictions have been based on actual solar cycle decline for about the last three years iirc.  And there were speculative but sensibly based projections of this happening since at least 2009.

Whether the Sun's _already_ obvious quietening, and discernible Earth cooling are related, and how long it will take to really start biting, is the only remaining issue. Some argue there are already signs of a dramatic cooling trend. This present solar sunspot cycle is very weak and there are a lot of new minimum seasonal temperature records being broken around the world this year.

All that's happened 'now' news-wise, is that suddenly a few mainstream outlets have noticed the latest predictions. Possibly due to Earth's 'disastrous warming' having been paused for about 19 years now (other than in Warmists' fudged data dreams) and so maybe the Warmists have decided it's time to start shifting blame for the complete failure of their predictive models. Before cooling becomes too obvious to hide with more 'hottest year ever' faked-data lies, which just make them look absurdly stupid when they get caught in the lies every time. Not to mention culpable for all the mis-allocation of economic resources per the CO2-warmist creed.

Incidentally, there's much more to it than plain solar radiance output. A large factor is the solar wind strength, determining the radius and density of the heliosphere. The heliosphere acts as an absorbing barrier to high energy cosmic rays (from outside the solar system.) The cosmic ray flux in the Earth's upper atmosphere has been experimentally demonstrated to influence high altitude cloud formation, via ionization of air molecules initiating water droplet nucleation. So, less solar wind, results in more cosmic rays reaching Earth, which results in more high altitude cloud, resulting in greater average Earth albedo, thus less admittance of solar radiance, hence cooling of the Earth.
As an aside to that, the CO2-Warmists tried to shut down the CLOUD experiment at CERN LHC, that demonstrated the cosmic ray - cloud nucleation effects. Because CO2-Warmists are not scientists, they are cultists, and actually hate real science.

A few AGW-skeptic sites below. Note that the term 'climate change denier' is a straw-man, in that the AGW skeptics are all perfectly aware that climate changes all the time, always has and always will - a LOT. In fact the 'skeptics' tend to be far more aware of this than the Warmists. It wasn't a skeptic who wrote "We have to hide the medieval warm period", it was one of the early originators of the AGW-CO2 bullshit, during email discussions with colleagues on how to manipulate (lie, fudge, alter, distort) the historical temperature record to obscure the awkward detail that Earth was actually warmer around 1000-1200AD than it is today. Oh and I note Wiki is still trying to pretend the MWP was localized, though it's long been soundly established that it was global. Plus they seem to have caught hockey-stick disease in their leading graph, in order to pretend today is warmer than the MWP. Do you see anyone growing grapes in Wales (England) today? Like they did in the MWP? No, didn't think so.

Anyway... the last two of these sites have existed for years, and are dedicated to effects of solar cycles on Earth's temperature variations. If you think you know anything about the climate debate but didn't know about these, then you have had your fingers stuck in your ears. For years.

http://wattsupwiththat.com              One of the best Climate Sense sites.
http://stevengoddard.wordpress.com      Real Science
http://climateaudit.org/                Climate Audit
http://www.climatedepot.com/            Climate Depot
http://nextgrandminimum.wordpress.com/  The Next Grand Minimum
http://iceagenow.info                   Ice Age Now

And more: http://everist.org/archives/links/     (several lists titled "__AGW_***")

LOLs at all the people who can't tell the difference between the term 'solar activity' and total solar radiance. So start waving their arms and running around yelling "Sun's output to drop 60%". How the hell is humankind supposed to survive .... with dimwits like those amongst us?

[Seekonk]

Global Dimming has been known for decades.  Not the sun, but reflection off particles like dust and clouds.  After 911there weren't aircraft flying for a while.  The lack of reflection off jets vapor trails was quite measurable and average temperatures rose.  Agriculture records go back more than a 100 years. Evaporation pan water loss records are a good indicator of solar radiation.  Evaporation depends more on radiation bouncing molecules off than temperature.  So we would be in a lot worse shape climate warming wise without all the jets and pollution.

[Marco]

Apparently the sun is cooling down and will have up to 60% less output by 2030/40.

Apply some critical thought to what you wrote there ...

[Marco]

A few AGW-skeptic sites below. Note that the term 'climate change denier' is a straw-man

In the other thread we had a Nobel Prize winner arguing based on Greenland's hottest and coldest years that the global temperature data was being forged ... they aren't straw men, they are easy targets who confuse the issue. One side has it's hockey sticks, the other side has it's denialists ... I imagine they'd both be happier without them, but neither is made of straw.

[mtdoc]

A few AGW-skeptic sites below. Note that the term 'climate change denier' is a straw-man, in that the AGW skeptics are all perfectly aware that climate changes all the time, always has and always will - a LOT.

Being a skeptic means having an open mind to evidence. A skeptic is willing to give up their skepticism once presented with evidence.  Scientists are skeptics - the nature of good science demands it.

Climate change (or if you prefer AGW) deniers are not skeptics but are ideologues pushing a political or philosophical agenda.  Typical AGW denial websites as you link are propaganda points generally funded by right wing political organizations and/or the fossil fuel industry.

At this point. in the face of 20+ years of overwhelming evidence,  unless woefully uninformed, calling oneself a  AGW skeptic is akin to calling oneself an evolution skeptic or a germ theory of infectious disease skeptic.

For a true scientist skeptic who appropriately gave up his skepticism once he looked at the evidence see below:

[donotdespisethesnake]

The funny thing is... although the deniers are utterly wrong on the science, AGW is actually good for long term human civilisation. A glacial period would pretty much wipe out modern civilisation. By inadvertently raising CO2 levels, we have postponed the next glacial period, possibly for several million years. If the polar ice gaps melt, then technically we will be out of the Ice Age completely.

That's a pretty remarkable achievement, even if it was accidental!

Of course, if we are not careful we might overcook it. However, a truly planetary scale intentional civilisation lasting thousands to millions of years would have to carefully manage CO2 levels, which would require controlled release or sequestration of CO2 as necessary.

I don't put a high chance on human civilization surviving at a high level, a super-volcano would probably wipe it out. We'll be back to pre-industrial agrarian existence. With all the easy to access resources gone, industrial civilization will never arise again. Perhaps that is the answer to the Fermi paradox (if intelligent aliens exist, why aren't they here yet?).

Life on Earth survives in a fine line between deep freeze and overheating, both of which have caused mass extinctions. Without those extinction events, would humans even have evolved?

[zapta]

Being a skeptic means having an open mind to evidence. A skeptic is willing to give up their skepticism once presented with evidence.  Scientists are skeptics - the nature of good science demands it.

The skepticism is not just about temperature change and its cause but also about the implications and the catastrophe projections by the alarmists.

Climate change (or if you prefer AGW) deniers are not skeptics but are ideologues pushing a political or philosophical agenda.  Typical AGW denial websites as you link are propaganda points generally funded by right wing political organizations and/or the fossil fuel industry.

That cherry picking. The alarmist side is heavy on propaganda and has vast financial interests. A skeptic climate catastrophe scientists has much more difficult to get funds.

At this point. in the face of 20+ years of overwhelming evidence,  unless woefully uninformed, calling oneself a  AGW skeptic is akin to calling oneself an evolution skeptic or a germ theory of infectious disease skeptic.

Well, the data doesn't match the prediction. No increase in storm, no increase in ocean floods, no reduction in food production and the planet gets greener, so it's not that simple.

For a true scientist skeptic who appropriately gave up his skepticism once he looked at the evidence see below:

Muller and is Berkeley Science is one of the more honest scientific operations in this area. My understanding is that he debunked the Mann/ICPP hockey stick graph, observed that temperature increased correlates with CO2 emissions, observed the 15-20 years hiatus but claims it is not statistically significant yet and as far as I know, didn't addressed the implications/catastrophe claims of the alarmists.

We need honest scientists, without the thick layer of propaganda and fear that the alarmists attach to it.

[owiecc]

A skeptic climate catastrophe scientists has much more difficult to get funds.

If by a skeptic you mean denier then it is good that they don't get funds. Biased researchers shouldn't get money. We don't need another study proving AGW.

[G7PSK]

At the risk of repeating myself this is new research into the suns magnetic field or rather magnetic fields as it has been found that there are two main fields both with about eleven year periods but slightly out of sync with each other. It is down to whether they are in alignment or opposing each other that regulates the solar output.They are coming up to an opposing period so the magnetic field cancel that is the concern here.

 http://nam2015.org/index.php/press-releases/64-irregular-heartbeat-of-the-sun-driven-by-double-dynamo

[M4trix]

If the polar ice gaps melt, then technically we will be out of the Ice Age completely.

What about the sea level then? I don't want to live in a rusty tanker like those in Waterworld ! 

[zapta]

A skeptic climate catastrophe scientists has much more difficult to get funds.

If by a skeptic you mean denier then it is good that they don't get funds. Biased researchers shouldn't get money. We don't need another study proving AGW.

People like you destroy science.

[MikeW]

Regardless of any technical scientific debate, I think it comes down to this:

Do you really think that suddenly releasing massive amounts of anything into an ecosystem is not going  to have an effect?

Unlikely.

What those effects are? Who knows. Will they be good? I'd be surprised.

Are we really releasing massive amounts of stuff or just negligible quantities of anything? Harder question to answer?

Should we take the risk? probably not.

[tom66]

I'll be the first to admit that what will -actually- happen when global temperatures rise by 2-3 degrees is difficult to determine to any degree of accuracy.

That the world temperature is rising since the burning of fossil fuels is not really debateable in the same way as gravity is not really debateable, there are thousands of temperature sensors and satellite measurements that confirm this. To suggest that a conspiracy of scientists could somehow manage to correlate all data strongly in one direction with the same magnitude is bordering on insane. Very few point show a consistent decline (which could be local minima or climate effects; it's hard to tell), and the statistical significance of the brief pause is very much debateable, if one even exists at all. The rise in temperature is almost certainly caused by humans, because all of the known other sources either appear to be approximately neutral, or declining in temperature contribution. There is a nice Bloomberg BusinessWeek infographic about this, it's a bit hand-wavy, but it still gives a nice general idea of the potential sources and net contributions:
http://www.bloomberg.com/graphics/2015-whats-warming-the-world/

Now it could turn out that a 2-3C rise would be relatively minor. Perhaps we will see an increase in flooding or extreme weather, but nothing we have not been able to cope with before. It could be, alternatively, really, really bad. Especially if we see some ocean acidifcation effects entirely independent of world temperature - this would be something like taking the food chain out from underneath our feet and could cause an ecological catastrophe on a scale never seen in human times.

I am not a climatologist so I will not pretend to understand the risk factors here. But I do think it is *incredibly* short sighted to say that we cannot have a significant effect on our environment by burning enormous quantities of fuel produced over 100 million years, in just 300 years. We've managed to do a lot of damage so far, the Earth is not immutable.

[mtdoc]

It is very likely, due to positive feedback cycles, that a rise of 2-3 degrees C will mean a rise far beyond that.

At 4 degrees C or more rise, it is not entirely clear if the planet will support large mammals. Anyone who doubts that is possible should do some learning about ecosystems and animal physiology.

Part of the problem is the rate at which the increase is occurring. It will be difficult for ecosystems to adapt fast enough. We are already in the middle of the sixth great extinction.

One thing for certain, we're conducting a huge science experiment on the planet and based on current knowlegde, it is very likely that if we continue to conduct it (which we will), it will blow up in our faces.

[zapta]

At 4 degrees C or more rise, it is not entirely clear if the planet will support large mammals. Anyone who doubts that is possible should do some learning about ecosystems and animal physiology.

The fact is that the number of large mammals grows with the increase in co2 emission.

[miguelvp]

I think that's a typo and it's supposed to say obsess instead of obese

Then again, they are probably related.
 

[EEVblog]

A skeptic climate catastrophe scientists has much more difficult to get funds.

If by a skeptic you mean denier then it is good that they don't get funds. Biased researchers shouldn't get money. We don't need another study proving AGW.

People like you destroy science.

+1

[tom66]

The fact is that the number of large mammals grows with the increase in co2 emission.

"Breaking News: Obesity caused by Fossil Fuel usage! May also cause Global Warming!  Scientists have discovered that obesity is more frequent in countries where people have easy access to food and motorised transport. It is not yet fully understood how obese people contribute to climate change and global warming but scientists are investigating the link between correlation and causation as we speak. Results expected at 9."

[Halcyon]

[Mechanical Menace]

The fact is that the number of large mammals grows with the increase in co2 emission.

Humans are only medium game, like deer.

[mtdoc]

At 4 degrees C or more rise, it is not entirely clear if the planet will support large mammals. Anyone who doubts that is possible should do some learning about ecosystems and animal physiology.

The fact is that the number of large mammals grows with the increase in co2 emission.

One of the great things about this forum (unlike most places on the web) is the high level of scientific literacy and critical thinking exhibited by forum members. But sometimes.. Not so much ...

On the other hand maybe it was meant as a joke...

[LabSpokane]

At 4 degrees C or more rise, it is not entirely clear if the planet will support large mammals. Anyone who doubts that is possible should do some learning about ecosystems and animal physiology.

The fact is that the number of large mammals grows with the increase in co2 emission.

One of the great things about this forum (unlike most places on the web) is the high level of scientific literacy and critical thinking exhibited by forum members. But sometimes.. Not so much ...

On the other hand maybe it was meant as a joke...

Actually, that's a very accurate statement since food abundance has almost a 1:1 correlation with fossil fuel use. It was ironically funny, but is still essentially correct.

[monksod]

Hi, as someone yet to be convinced by either side of the debate, where do I go for answers? I agree a lot of "climate change" stuff is alarmist, but I also think there is a lot of propaganda from the reactionary fossil-fuel monopolies... I don't see the "erratic weather" everyone goes on about, in actual fact I'm seeing cold winters & hot summers - isn't this how it's mean to be? Lol. I don't like the oil/petrochemical industries & no doubt they & modern society in general are doing a lot of damage to the planet... but are these things steering us into a Venus-like "greenhouse" furnace? Lol, I dunno. I don't think anybody does. It's all just a vehicle for people to play out their idiotic "left" vs "right" ideological melodramas, methinks... ha...

In other news I was just reading about the new CSIRO scientific research ship, the RV Investigator, which hopefully will be doing a whole lot of oceanographic & atmospheric science in years to come & no doubt will accumulate a lot of solid data to answer our questions about climate? There is a very cool interactive "virtual tour" of the whole ship here - http://www.csiro.au/RV-Investigator-virtual-tour/rv_investigator.html?html5=prefer

[zapta]

Hi, as someone yet to be convinced by either side of the debate, where do I go for answers?

This is not easy because this topic is heavily politicised but you can look around for sources that seems to have a honest and open minded attempt to look at reality. Also,  ignore intimidation, it's just noise.

Another option is to wait a few more years as things get clearer.

[mtdoc]

At 4 degrees C or more rise, it is not entirely clear if the planet will support large mammals. Anyone who doubts that is possible should do some learning about ecosystems and animal physiology.

The fact is that the number of large mammals grows with the increase in co2 emission.

One of the great things about this forum (unlike most places on the web) is the high level of scientific literacy and critical thinking exhibited by forum members. But sometimes.. Not so much ...

On the other hand maybe it was meant as a joke...

Actually, that's a very accurate statement since food abundance has almost a 1:1 correlation with fossil fuel use. It was ironically funny, but is still essentially correct.

Yes but in no way contradictory to my point, implying an absense of critical thinking. The fact that large mammals cannot thrive on an overly warmed planet has absolutely no relationship to fossil fuels allowing excess food production.

It's like disputing the fact that electronic components may fail due to high temperatures by pointing out that some batteries operate better when warm.

[c4757p]

Dave...you're better than to get into yet another climate change argument thread on this forum...why don't you just lock it up and be done with it?

[edavid]

At the risk of repeating myself this is new research into the suns magnetic field or rather magnetic fields as it has been found that there are two main fields both with about eleven year periods but slightly out of sync with each other. It is down to whether they are in alignment or opposing each other that regulates the solar output.

You keep saying "solar output" when you mean "solar activity".

[zapta]

Dave...you're better than to get into yet another climate change argument thread on this forum...why don't you just lock it up and be done with it?

c4757p, why do you feel threaten by an open discussion?

[M4trix]

Why don't we just point the finger at those who are most responsible for global warming and those who rejected the Kyoto protocol ? Like USA for an example? 

[LabSpokane]

Hi, as someone yet to be convinced by either side of the debate, where do I go for answers? I agree a lot of "climate change" stuff is alarmist, but I also think there is a lot of propaganda from the reactionary fossil-fuel monopolies...

There is a lot of controversy to be sure. 

I would avoid demonizing the petroleum industry in this.  Koch brothers and their antics aside, major oil companies are full of very intelligent people with open minds.  Oil companies serve customers.  That would be you and me.  They supply what we demand. We enjoy wonderful, rich lives thanks to the miracle of fossil fuels.  And petroleum, it's distillates, and subsequent products truly do fall under that "near miracle" category.  For all the billions we have spent searching, we have yet to find a substitute that is as energy dense, safe, clean and portable.  All this creates virtually addictive demand for fossil fuels - particularly of the liquid variety.

And energy companies do spend a lot of money investigating alternatives to petroleum.  If they had found a better substitute, they would sell it.  There really isn't a conspiracy.  You don't hear much about R&D other than press releases because so much of the work is protected as trade secrets.  Companies and researchers also don't trumpet their failures.  These alternative fuels projects start up to great fanfare, then usually fade away in silence.  Unfortunately, that gives some the misguided impression that somehow a miracle is being suppressed due to a conspiracy.  Mistakes have certainly been made. Wrong actions have most certainly been taken.  Greed has played a starring role in some of these failures.  But, there really is no conspiracy, nor active policy to suppress replacement fuels. 

If we want something different, it is *we* who must change.  When we do, smart oil companies will follow.

[mtdoc]

Hi, as someone yet to be convinced by either side of the debate, where do I go for answers?

Websites of NASA and the major scientific organizations: See HERE and HERE.

These are non partisan organizations (consisting of people from all political persuasions) that do not receive private funding and which form the foundation of science as we know it (which in itself is not a political process despite what those who disagree with it's conclusions may say).

For a point by point explanation of the underlying science addressing (with scienctific references) all of the points that any honest skeptic might raise, see Skeptical Science.

Avoid websites and indiviuals linked to political "think tanks" and organizations funded by the fossil fuel industry (or renewable energy industry for that matter).

For any source in question try googling them to see what ties, if any they have to political organizations or industry. Wikipedia will have entries for most of the major organizations and websites  (including skeptical science).

[LabSpokane]

Dave...you're better than to get into yet another climate change argument thread on this forum...why don't you just lock it up and be done with it?

I would like to see people discuss this issue.  What I'd hope to see is everyone leaving the hyperbole aside - from both camps.  We all largely know and agree that unrestrained fossil fuel use and dependence will have a negative outcome.  Rather than arguing about the weather models versus the Farmer's Almanac, it would be far more constructive for everyone to think about what small changes we could make that would add up to a large societal benefit.  We have all benefited from the modern age, just as much as we're all to blame.  And we all must assume a modicum of responsibility to secure the future. 

It's possible, but not via partisan / nationalistic bickering.

A lot of us here are engineers and scientists.  We can do this.

[miguelvp]

Why don't we just point the finger at those who are most responsible for global warming and those who rejected the Kyoto protocol ? Like USA for an example? 

The US didn't want to give up their sovereignty over our land to external powers.

That doesn't mean we didn't want to agree to pollution levels and carbon goals, but the Kyoto Protocol was just a bit too overreaching and there is no way our government is going to give control of our land to foreign interests.

[mtdoc]

Why don't we just point the finger at those who are most responsible for global warming and those who rejected the Kyoto protocol ? Like USA for an example? 

The US didn't want to give up their sovereignty over our land to external powers.

Yet that hasn't stopped the same political and industry actors from pushing through the Transpacific Partnership...

[c4757p]

A lot of us here are engineers and scientists.  We can do this.

You can. People like zapta, on the other hand...

c4757p, why do you feel threaten by an open discussion?

...tend to throw their toys out of the proverbial pram when challenged.

Please. We've done this one before.

[hendorog]

Why don't we just point the finger at those who are most responsible for global warming and those who rejected the Kyoto protocol ? Like USA for an example? 

The US didn't want to give up their sovereignty over our land to external powers.

That doesn't mean we didn't want to agree to pollution levels and carbon goals, but the Kyoto Protocol was just a bit too overreaching and there is no way our government is going to give control of our land to foreign interests.

How does signing the Kyoto protocol hand over sovereignty of the USA to external powers??

I thought the US didn't sign because they believed it was an economic burden. This is from Wikipedia FWIW:

"the United States should not be a signatory to any protocol that did not include binding targets and timetables for developing nations as well as industrialized nations or "would result in serious harm to the economy of the United States"

[miguelvp]

Why don't we just point the finger at those who are most responsible for global warming and those who rejected the Kyoto protocol ? Like USA for an example? 

The US didn't want to give up their sovereignty over our land to external powers.

Yet that hasn't stopped the same political and industry actors from pushing through the Transpacific Partnership...

That's a myth, and really the concern had nothing to do with sovereignty.

The Kyoto Protocol would had given external actors the means to dictate land usage in the US.

The TPA concern is about once we commit to an FTA we couldn't change our minds. Well that's just not true. Congress still has the sole authority to ignore any promises made under the FTA and TPP.

[mtdoc]

The US didn't want to give up their sovereignty over our land to external powers.

Yet that hasn't stopped the same political and industry actors from pushing through the Transpacific Partnership...

That's a myth, and really the concern had nothing to do with sovereignty.

I strongly disagree as do many policy experts and members of congress from across the political spectrum, who have actually read the agreement. In any case, this is way, way OT so I'll leave it at that.

[miguelvp]

I know Edwin Meese has not been in office for a while but here is what he has to say about TPA:

http://www.heritage.org/research/reports/2001/11/why-trade-promotion-authority-is-constitutional

Future trade deals would not be unconstitutional, nor would they undermine U.S. sovereignty, if they contained an agreement to submit some disputes to an international tribunal for an initial determination. The United States will always have the ultimate say over what its domestic laws provide. No future agreement could grant an international organization the power to change U.S. laws.

A ruling by an international tribunal that calls a U.S. law into question would have no domestic effect unless Congress changes the law to comply with the ruling. If Congress rejects a ruling or fails to act, other countries might impose a trade sanction or tariff, but they are more likely to impose high tariffs now without any agreement. The fact remains that no international body or foreign government may change any American law. Moreover, Congress may override an entire agreement at any time by a simple statute. Nations also may withdraw from international agreements by executive action alone. That is one reason why such agreements do not interfere with the underlying sovereignty of each nation to chart its own course in the world. In short, the U.S. Constitution and any laws and treaties we enact in accordance thereto are the only supreme law of our land.

Just a strongly disagree doesn't prove we lost sovereignty, as for being OT yup I agree, but someone had to bring Kyoto to the table and why the big bad US of A didn't want to play ball. Well there are always reasons behind everything. It's not simple and not cut and dry. Relations between all the actors going down to each individual is as complex as the climate and even if the same patterns emerge and tend to repeat, you can't predict what is going to happen in the long run.

[mtdoc]

I know Edwin Meese has not been in office for a while but here is what he has to say about TPA:

http://www.heritage.org/research/reports/2001/11/why-trade-promotion-authority-is-constitutional

Edwin Meese?, The Heritage Foundation?. Really?, Really?

For any of these issues, be it the TPP, climate science opposition, or whatever,  I think one should consider the source of the information, and I don't just mean political ideology. Follow the money...

BTW, you (and Edwin), refer to the TPA ( Trade  Promotion Authority) which does not encompass all of the evils of the TPP (TransPacific Partnership). One could be in favor of TPA but oppose the TPP.

[zapta]

Websites of NASA and the major scientific organizations: See HERE and HERE.

These are non partisan organizations (consisting of people from all political persuasions) that do not receive private funding and which form the foundation of science as we know it (which in itself is not a political process despite what those who disagree with it's conclusions may say).

Assuming that government funding for climate research and governmental organizations such as NASA and ICPP are unbiased is very naive.

[mtdoc]

Assuming that government funding for climate research and governmental organizations such as NASA and ICPP are unbiased is very naive.

It's the exact same public funding mechanism which funds almost all science. Humans are involved so there will always be individual cases of bias, but the very nature of public funding of science across thousands of institutions and hundreds of countries means that individual biases are washed out and on whole it is unbiased. That's just the reality.

The truth is, the way to gain notoriety and attract major amounts of funding, would be to publish convincing evidence that refutes AGW. Many have tried and have failed. That's the way science works. Funding and notariety are achieved by unexpected, new, results - not by doing "me too" research.


Just because the conclusions of the science are contrary to your politcal ideology doesn't mean you can choose to attack this particular instance of scientific consensus reached over decades by thousands of scientists in many countries and still claim to be pro science. That in itself would be an anti-science ideology. The very nature of science is to accept the evidence, whether you like it or not.

And if you don't trust NASA or the IPCC, what about the 18 major scientific societies cited?

(And why did you strip out the links from my quote?)

And what about the statement by The APS? Do you disagree with their statement on creationism as well?

[miguelvp]

http://www.finance.senate.gov/newsroom/chairman/release/?id=4f4d0dd8-6b9d-48f6-ab4c-f5977a7bb1e7

Does ISDS put American sovereignty in jeopardy?

No. ISDS has no power to overturn U.S. laws or regulations. The U.S. constitution makes clear that only Congress can change U.S. law.

TPA 2015 specifically states the United States cannot be compelled to change its law due to an adverse finding by an arbitration tribunal.

But if you have any information to the contrary that states that the ISDS has power to change US law, please share.

I'm not saying that I agree with TPA, but in no way it threatens our sovereignty.

If you don't trust your congressman/woman then you should run for office if you can represent your state better than they can.

After all, TPA reached across the aisle, that doesn't happen often.

[mtdoc]

I've seen no one claim that ISDA has the power to change US law. Of course it doesn't. That's a straw man.

The whole issue with ISDA is that it completely side steps US law and enables financial liability to be imposed completely independently of the US legal system. Are you ok with that? I'm not.

[mtdoc]

After all, TPA reached across the aisle, that doesn't happen often.

Of course it does - all the time when big money is involved.

Again, i'm talking about the TPP, not TPA.

And of course opposition to the TPP (and TPA) is across the isle (as is support).

[miguelvp]

I've seen no one claim that ISDA has the power to change US law. Of course it doesn't. That's a straw man.

The whole issue with ISDA is that it completely side steps US law and enables financial liability to be imposed completely independently of the US legal system. Are you ok with that? I'm not.

Well, I can't read minds. In context it sounded like you were implying that.

Why don't we just point the finger at those who are most responsible for global warming and those who rejected the Kyoto protocol ? Like USA for an example? 

The US didn't want to give up their sovereignty over our land to external powers.

Yet that hasn't stopped the same political and industry actors from pushing through the Transpacific Partnership...

But as in TPA, or TPP or NAFTA or whatever, they are trade agreements and we had those for way longer than that.
http://thefederalist.com/2015/06/09/top-nine-myths-about-trade-promotion-authority-and-the-trans-pacific-partnership/

But, hey, maybe the illuminati is a thing.

We can call foul on everything, look at your profession. I could say that all doctors in general are bought by the big pharma and will prescribe me unnecessary drugs and treatments because they sold out.

Trust no one, is really not a good way to go through life

Of course the same can be said for any other aspect, including science. Who decides what scientists get to work on? not the scientists anymore.

[mtdoc]

http://thefederalist.com/2015/06/09/top-nine-myths-about-trade-promotion-authority-and-the-trans-pacific-partnership/

Again, consider the source:  thefedereralist.com is Ben Domenech's website. Follow the money.

NAFTA was a mistake. Ross Perot was right. TPP is exponentially worse with provisions completely outside the scope of NAFTA.

We can call foul on everything, look at your profession. I could say that all doctors in general are bought by the big pharma and will prescribe me unnecessary drugs and treatments because they sold out.

  Of course anyone can say anything.  Common misconception there. Yes a few doctors are sell outs - but the vast majority of primary care doctors make it a point to only prescribe generic, off patent medications and many do not allow drug sales reps in their offices. This is also the policy of many US medical schools. Do you have evidence otherwise? I can reference med school and medical organization policies if need be.

Trust no one, is really not a good way to go through life

  Straw man.

[zapta]

It's the exact same public funding mechanism which funds almost all science.

If you believe in this I have an eBay Hakko to sell you.

The good news is that the catastrophic climate predictions are time bounded (a few tens of years) and are unambiguous enough (ocean covering cities, significant reduction in food production, significant increase in extreme storms, etc) so we will know soon enough how valid they are. The sad thing is that even they will be proven false, people will come up with new ones as they always do.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_dates_predicted_for_apocalyptic_events

[Marco]

trade agreements

10 years ago maybe calling these agreements trade agreements could still have passed ... but it wouldn't have been accurate then. It's down right disingenuous now.

It's all about foreign investment ... which for most developed countries (or even undeveloped countries with good resources) is not only unnecessary but actively destructive. I like to point out New Zealand in this regard, every year a trade surplus, every year a current account deficit.

[mtdoc]

It's the exact same public funding mechanism which funds almost all science.

If you believe in this I have an eBay Hakko to sell you.

It's not a matter of belief. The grant funding of almost all climate science is a matter of public record. Your wishes won't make that fact go away.

Again - if you disagree with the position of the APS and all the other major scientific organizations please justify why.  Do you have evidence they are not basing their opinions on the scientific evidence?  Are there other positions of theirs you disagree with, or is it just climate science?

Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence.

[EEVblog]

The truth is, the way to gain notoriety and attract major amounts of funding, would be to publish convincing evidence that refutes AGW. Many have tried and have failed. That's the way science works. Funding and notariety are achieved by unexpected, new, results - not by doing "me too" research.

Indeed. In fact there is world wide fame and fortune and probably a Nobel prize in it for anyone who can come up with a convincing new alternative theory.
It must be the holy grail of every climate researcher on the planet. Just as it would be every theoretical physicists dream to prove relatively theory incorrect.

[Marco]

Yes a few doctors are sell outs - but the vast majority of primary care doctors make it a point to only prescribe generic, off patent medications and many do not allow drug sales reps in their offices. This is also the policy of many US medical schools. Do you have evidence otherwise?

Statins in particular are a bomb under the trust in the medical profession in my opinion, sure they have a statistical effect ... on both heart attack rate and muscle mass and thus activity and thus quality of life. If it turns out in the end to decrease heart attacks simply by making people lethargic, people are going to feel a bit miffed about the trillions spend on them.

[mtdoc]

I've prescribed statins to hundreds (maybe thousands) of patients. Probably less than 5% of those had any side effects- and never anything serious - just stop the med and they go away. On the other hand I've taken care of many hundreds of patients with heart attacks or strokes.  There is overwhelming evidence that the benefit of statins far outweighs their harm. 

But of course just like anything, the internet is full of anectdotal horror stories of people who blame everything from their hemorrhoids to their multiple sclerosis on statins (or various other prescription drugs). Yes,  there are the rare cases of serious side effects and lots of noise about those cases, especially online- that doesn't negate the thousands of lives saved and thousands more whose quality is improved by these meds.

Almost all the statins are off patent now so there is meager profits in them for the drug companies.

I'm no fan of big pharma and their sales tactics are despicable. Lots of colorful charts with dishonest axis and no error bars to make small effects appear large, etc. Unfortunately medical schools do not spend enough time IMO teaching students how to critically evaluate data.  I went into it after graduate school and 10 years of research and teaching so I had some background = but most don't.

Anyways, lots of expensive drugs out there with marginal benefits but statins aren't one of them.

BTW your theory that they decrease heart attacks by making people lethargic makes no sense - less physical activity increases risk of heart attacks.

If you want to use real examples of drug companies marketing and selling a drug later found to be of more harm than benefit, there are many good examples - e.g. Vioxx, Avandia

[Marco]

There is overwhelming evidence that the benefit of statins far outweighs their harm.

Not all the evidence is very good and the research into the harm to muscle mass is from the last 5 years. Research into the level of physical activity of statin users is only just starting up ... the patents ran out you say? What is clear is that it's not a rare side effect but a significant one affecting every person using it. So lets not jump to conclusions either way shall we?

All I know is that my father broke out in hives and had to get off them pretty much immediately, followed by a couple months of UV therapy. Probably for the best, the as of yet undiagnosed anemia is screwing up his mobility enough as is (I suspect it's an auto-immune response he got after a pretty severe blood shock during a halted transfusion after an operation, pretty out there but we're down to out there causes, need to remember to piss off the doc by getting my father to ask if he ran a Coombs test yet on his next visit).

[miguelvp]

We can call foul on everything, look at your profession. I could say that all doctors in general are bought by the big pharma and will prescribe me unnecessary drugs and treatments because they sold out.

  Of course anyone can say anything.  Common misconception there. Yes a few doctors are sell outs - but the vast majority of primary care doctors make it a point to only prescribe generic, off patent medications and many do not allow drug sales reps in their offices. This is also the policy of many US medical schools. Do you have evidence otherwise? I can reference med school and medical organization policies if need be.

In case you didn't noticed, and it seems you didn't my comment was tongue in cheek.

I know of doctors that not only refuse to play the game but actual publish against big pharma, but they are heavily criticized by their peers.

Trust no one, is really not a good way to go through life

  Straw man.

Not really, that was again a tongue in cheek comment because as your mention that there are hidden agendas as in "follow the money".

Me, I don't believe that is the case.

Same goes to science. I don't believe all scientists are sell outs, but keeping both sides open is a good idea.

Are there sellouts, sure, is it the vast majority? I don't think so.

At the end of the day, there is no stopping progress, might slow it down but the groups with better trading, science, engineering, etc will overtake eventually the status quo.

What I know is that "IF" and that is a big "IF" I was a noble price laureate, I wouldn't want history to taint my achievement because of some supposed cartel. If someone of that caliber says something, why not listen to it?

He asked specific questions and no answer are given other than refuting his interpretations of ocean temperatures put in play. What about the rest? nah just refuting one thing is enough.

Also at the end of his speech, he was applauded, do you think that's because of the rest of the Nobel price society is being polite? or because they do agree with the spirit of his concerns?

He is left unchallenged on the majority of his assessments, but since since he is not a climate expert (whatever that means) and just a silly physics Nobel laureate that questions why so much money and effort is placed into alarming end of the world statements. There have been many of those statements btw.

He is asking simple questions and the only come backs are about his miss-interpretation of the data at hand, which I don't see it as a miss-interpretation. There is more to water temperatures as the surface. it's a big convection with frozen currents in the bottom of the oceans. He raises that the south pole is colder than ever, shows graphs of satellite sensors that show climate not being much different, no more or less storms than usual, etc, etc, etc.

But time will tell wont it? what his concern is about, is that we as a global society could end hunger and a lot of other bigger problems if the resources where not wasted in chasing end of the world scenarios.

What to me brings his points home is how he defines humans. We are the first and only animals that trade, and that does define us for better or worse. My take on that is that the rest, research, engineering, economies, social, political etc are just tools to get the trade.

And as silly as that sounds, there is a huge amount of truth that trade defines humanity at large and everything that humanity is. Might sound as a belittle of the great achievements of the human race, but that doesn't make it not true. Our brains and acts are all trade oriented to the core of our beings.

That's my take away from that (dare to say) brilliant man. Would I want Al Gore in the same pedestal? not me, not really, because of trade, there are opportunistic Noble laureates and the ones that actually deserve it. Ok, they all do in their own peculiar way but there are big differences in my opinion.

So here we are, trading ideas and points of view, and that's what this is, human nature at its best as in trading one's view, wrong, right? does it really matter? it's a give and take, maybe I'll take some of your perspective and maybe you'll take some of mine, or none at all. But that is what we humans do.

Then again, if someone uses alarming news, then it shifts the give and take doesn't it? the world is going to end at the year 1000 send us money so it won't happen, y2k is going to bring all the computers down, send us money, mayan calendar predicts the end of the world, (no money sent in that one), Ozone layer hole, what was a doozy. Now we get the 60% mini ice age, we can't survive!

Meh, I'm traded out!

Edit: I guess I crossed thread replied, because I thought this video was in this thread:



But since that one was more on this topic than on that one I guess that's the reason I got them crossed.

[LabSpokane]

The truth is, the way to gain notoriety and attract major amounts of funding, would be to publish convincing evidence that refutes AGW. Many have tried and have failed. That's the way science works. Funding and notariety are achieved by unexpected, new, results - not by doing "me too" research.

Indeed. In fact there is world wide fame and fortune and probably a Nobel prize in it for anyone who can come up with a convincing new alternative theory.
It must be the holy grail of every climate researcher on the planet. Just as it would be every theoretical physicists dream to prove relatively theory incorrect.

Unfortunately, the fame, notoriety, and acknowledgement in science can come after several decades of scorn, ridicule and public humiliation.  One classic example is J Harlen Bretz, who was a geologist from Chicago who explored the scablands of eastern Washington State in the U.S. and realized that they must have been formed by a series of unimaginably catastrophic floods in the recent geologic past.  This would have been great news, except for the fact that Bretz' theory directly contradicted the overwhelmingly "correct" geologic theory of Uniformitarianism, where all geologic features were assumed to have formed slowly over much longer time frames. 

It was decades before Bretz and his theory were finally vindicated - in large part thanks to high altitude aerial photography where the features showed the path of the floodwaters in vivid detail. 

Science is the best process we have to describe the world we live in, and it is self-correcting.  But sometimes, getting to correct takes a bit longer than it ought to.  If someone successfully turns AGW on its head, expect a few decades of wrangling before it all shakes out. 

[mtdoc]

There is overwhelming evidence that the benefit of statins far outweighs their harm.

Not all the evidence is very good and the research into the harm to muscle mass is from the last 5 years. Research into the level of physical activity of statin users is only just starting up ... the patents ran out you say? What is clear is that it's not a rare side effect but a significant one affecting every person using it. So lets not jump to conclusions either way shall we?

All I know is that my father broke out in hives and had to get off them pretty much immediately, followed by a couple months of UV therapy. Probably for the best, the as of yet undiagnosed anemia is screwing up his mobility enough as is (I suspect it's an auto-immune response he got after a pretty severe blood shock during a halted transfusion after an operation, pretty out there but we're down to out there causes, need to remember to piss off the doc by getting my father to ask if he ran a Coombs test yet on his next visit).

Marco,

Sorry to hear about your dad. Hives is a type of allergic reaction that can happen with any drugs, foods, etc.  Transfusion reactions are rare but do happen. Usually the effects are short lived. It's tough when those close to us are ill.

The effects of statins on muscle tissue has been known and understood for years.

I read the blog post you linked. It's a tempest in a teapot. He's addressing one error in one paper  that addresses one small use of statins - that is primary prevention in elderly patients. This is not the major use of statins and yes, their effectiveness in that subgroup is relatively weak. (and BTW, the author acknowledges their strong effectiveness in other groups).

[mtdoc]

It was decades before Bretz and his theory were finally vindicated - in large part thanks to high altitude aerial photography where the features showed the path of the floodwaters in vivid detail. 

Science is the best process we have to describe the world we live in, and it is self-correcting.  But sometimes, getting to correct takes a bit longer than it ought to.  If someone successfully turns AGW on its head, expect a few decades of wrangling before it all shakes out.

That's a good example and there are numerous others. That is how science works. But the examples like that are the exceptions that prove the rule. Science is self correcting. The difference between these examples and AGW is that they did not have decades of work by thousands of scientists across the globe all confirming the same basic facts:  The planet is warming and the evidence is overwhelming that it is due primarily to burning of fossil fuels.

This is not a small obscure area of research or an area with only a few years of research behind it.  It is not an area with only a few small groups of researchers working. The implications for the world population, the financial implications, are huge and scale of the research effort has been proportionately large.

The warming of the planet is a measurable phenomenon just like any physical parameter so denying that it is occurring is no different than denying that gravity exists,etc.

But, as I've said before, there can never be 100% certainty that the warming is due to burning of fossil fuels since the controlled experiment is impossible to do. But as is often the case in such things, you get to a point where the evidence is overwhelming enough that the probability of an alternative explanation becomes vanishingly low.   

20 years ago it was still a reasonably open question. Not now.

But here's a thought experiment:  What if the probability of the warming being due to human activity was only 50%?  If someone gave you a revolver with only 3 bullets in it - would you still play Russian roulette with it?  It's a rhetorical question but I think it illustrates the insanity of the endless debate that the deniers strive to keep alive (and they're succeeding!)

In any case I'm fatalistic about the topic. As fun as it is to discuss this issue (over and over again  ) here among engineers and scientists, in the end it really doesn't matter IMO. If we woke up tomorrow and 100% of the worlds population accepted the validity of the AGW science, we still wouldn't do anything substantial as a society. We're just not wired to address something on this timescale.

[LabSpokane]

The warming of the planet is a measurable phenomenon just like any physical parameter so denying that it is occurring is no different than denying that gravity exists,etc.

I'm not denying it, FWIW.  Of course the planet is warming, and of course CO2 concentrations are rising at a disturbing pace. I will say that all the hyperbole (both believer and denier, if you will) has really held back meaningfully addressing the problem.  Global Warming is like politics, the most profitable path is to divide.

I'll go back to the common ground: that virtually every reasonable person I know, no matter what their opinion is on AGW will tell you that they are concerned with fossil fuel use.  Pick an issue: price, availability, environmental consequences, safety (oil trains), national security, etc.  Virtually everyone sees that the status quo cannot continue.  We disagree on the specific reasons why, but most intelligent people intuitively feel that something is amiss with this behavior of using as much fuel as possible as quickly as possible.

I think the best way to address this common "gut feeling" is to start asking one another: what concessions can we make?  How do we change without compromising things like our health, safety, food availability, national security?  Baby steps to be sure, but at least we would have some progress. 

If each camp of AGW keeps trying to burn one another as witches, that will only increase atmospheric CO2 concentrations. 

[zapta]

The warming of the planet is a measurable phenomenon just like any physical parameter so denying that it is occurring is no different than denying that gravity exists,etc.

It's a long stretch between having measurable affect of co2 emission on the temperature to Al Gore and other alarmists' predictions about flooded cities, increased storm activities and dwindling food supply.

Indeed. In fact there is world wide fame and fortune and probably a Nobel prize in it for anyone who can come up with a convincing new alternative theory.
It must be the holy grail of every climate researcher on the planet. Just as it would be every theoretical physicists dream to prove relatively theory incorrect.

That's like winning the lottery but most of the government funding of global warming related research is much more mundane than that. Academics depends on funding from funding from administrations that have a vast political investment in the conclusions.  There are numerous testimonies that the funding is biased:

"Billions of dollars have been poured into studies supporting climate alarm, and trillions of dollars have been involved in overthrowing the energy economy,” Dr. Richard Lindzen of MIT wrote in the Wall Street Journal. “So it is unsurprising that great efforts have been made to ramp up hysteria, even as the case for climate alarm is disintegrating.”

http://dailycaller.com/2015/03/05/top-mit-scientist-govt-funded-climate-science-promotes-alarmism/

Here is for example a statement from the Whitehouse' site

"In June 2014, the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) proposed the Clean Power Plan – the first-ever carbon pollution standards for existing power plants that will protect the health of our children and put our nation on the path toward a 30 percent reduction in carbon pollution from the power sector by 2030. Power plants are the largest single source of carbon pollution, accounting for about one-third of all domestic greenhouse gas emissions. The Clean Power Plan will set standards for carbon pollution from power plants, just as we have set limits on power plant emissions of arsenic, mercury, sulfur dioxide, nitrogen oxides, and soot."

If you believe that NASA researches which are part of the administration are free to challenge the claims by their boss or that government agencies that provides the grants don't see in what direction the political wind blows you are naive.

I am optimistic though about the long term future of honest science because it will be obvious in a few tens of years weather the extreme predictions materialized or not and we already have almost 20 years of post prediction data about ocean level, food supply and storm activity.

[tom66]

I'm sure there exists bias in some funding sources, but there are many universities and institutions that are funded by private donors, or through their endowments.  They would be free to conduct their own research with little fear of losing grant money.  Yet, the vast majority of them appear to come to the same basic conclusions.  For example, the much maligned Climatic Research Unit lists its recent grant sources here:
http://www.cru.uea.ac.uk/cru/research/grants.htm

Most of these are grants from research organisations, which are indirectly funded by the UK/EU government and private donations.

Obviously, there are some studies and groups that are funded by the fossil fuel industry: for example, ExxonMobil fund ALEC. Funny thing is, ALEC actually don't deny the existence of climate change/GW, but they do say it could be "potentially beneficial" and the "science is uncertain". Hmm, and don't forget Dr. Willie Soon - over $230,000 from the Koch family!

[zapta]

Funny thing is, ALEC actually don't deny the existence of climate change/GW, but they do say it could be "potentially beneficial" ...

Funny?

"One of the most consistent effects of elevated atmospheric CO2 on plants is an increase in the rate of photosynthetic carbon fixation by leaves. Across a range of FACE experiments, with a variety of plant species, growth of plants at elevated CO2 concentrations of 475–600 ppm increases leaf photosynthetic rates by an average of 40% (Ainsworth & Rogers 2007). Carbon dioxide concentrations are also important in regulating the openness of stomata, pores through which plants exchange gasses, with the external environment. Open stomata allow CO2 to diffuse into leaves for photosynthesis, but also provide a pathway for water to diffuse out of leaves. Plants therefore regulate the degree of stomatal opening (related to a measure known as stomatal conductance) as a compromise between the goals of maintaining high rates of photosynthesis and low rates of water loss"

http://www.nature.com/scitable/knowledge/library/effects-of-rising-atmospheric-concentrations-of-carbon-13254108



http://cdn4.sci-news.com/images/2013/07/image_1209-climate.jpg

[Stonent]

It never ceases to amaze me that climate sceptics keep posting links that they clearly haven't read or understood. The very first link to the BBC article debunks the OP in his own post.

I'm not skeptical about the climate. Just skeptical that it's all the fault of us evil humans. That being said I dislike pollution and applaud people who help clean up trash and other stuff, don't pour chemicals into lakes or sewers.

I also admire efficiency. If you can make a car get 30 miles per gallon and also 300hp I think that is great!

[tom66]

Right, and I've not heard anyone say that there are zero benefits to a warmer climate or higher levels of CO2. The question really is, will the overall effect be beneficial or not? If it's difficult to say either way, is it worth taking the risk, given the possibly serious complications?

[miguelvp]

1,000 ppm ASHRAE and OSHA standards
5,000 ppm is considered safe for an 8 hour work day environment.
50,000 toxic and would make you feel really sick.
100,000 you'll fall unconscious and eventually die.

less than 600 ppm is totally acceptable as normal for humans.

[mtdoc]

depends on funding from funding from administrations that have a vast political investment in the conclusions.

This shows a complete lack of understanding of how scientific research is funded.

1) For example, here in the US, most funding for climate research is through the NSF (National Science Foundation).  The NSF is staffed by career employes that are not political appointees. 

2)  Grant funding cycles last years, sometimes decades, and do not correspond with election cycles.

3)  Research grants are applied for based on proposed areas of study, not proposed results.  For example, a researcher might apply for a grant to study the concentrations of CO2 in ice cores from  Antarctic ice.  The results are unknown at the time of the grant application and funding.

This is how science, works.  Data is collected and results either confirm or refute the null hypothesis. The outcome is completely unknown at the time of the grant application. If the results were known ahead of time, it would not be worth studying and would not be funded. You do not get extra money based on the results. As has already been explained, unexpected results attract more funding and notoriety - not results that confirm previous studies.

Even if none of the above was true, climate research confirming AGW has occurred across multiple administrations - the bulk of it under the Bush/Cheney administration.

This whole line of propaganda shows either a complete lack of understanding of how science works or more likely an intentional attempt to create FUD. 

The quote you provided has absolutely nothing to do with funding of research.

And the idea that because plant life may do well under conditions of high CO2 means that AGW is not a problem is just as idiotic.

These kinds of  FUD spreading efforts may work  in other places but fortunately the level of science literacy here on this forum  means the intent is transparent.

[mtdoc]

1,000 ppm ASHRAE and OSHA standards
5,000 ppm is considered safe for an 8 hour work day environment.
50,000 toxic and would make you feel really sick.
100,000 you'll fall unconscious and eventually die.

less than 600 ppm is totally acceptable as normal for humans.

If you think humans will be around with an atmospheric CO2  concentration of 600 ppm then you have no understanding of how ecosystems work.  Just because you can put a person in a sealed chamber with 600 ppm CO2 and they won't be harmed doesn't mean the planet's ecosystems can tolerate that.

Humans can also tolerate an atmosphere of 90% O2. Does that mean the planet's ecosystem can?

[miguelvp]

I worked at a university as an employee for a medical related research lab. I now how NSF and NIH grants are earned.

Spend the money show results and publish so you can keep on getting funding.

If you don't spend it all this year, next year you'll get less. That was 25 years ago, I bet it has not changed a bit. Plus as an added bonus I get to put my SPIE papers that I contributed on my resume and that impresses employers

[mtdoc]

Spend the money show results and publish so you can keep on getting funding.

Sure, no researcher is going to continue to get funding if they don't publish results.  But as has been pointed out many times, it's unexpected results that get the most attention and make it easier to get additional funding in the future.

[zapta]

Spend the money show results and publish so you can keep on getting funding.

Sure, no researcher is going to continue to get funding if they don't publish results.  But as has been pointed out many times, it's unexpected results that get the most attention and make it easier to get additional funding in the future.

Cherry picking researches and hypothesis for funding is an efficient way to influence and politicize science. Claiming that government agencies are agnostic to the conclusions of climate related researches is naive at best.

"Many elements of the Administration’s climate change portfolio are designed to provide incentives for greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions reductions domestically to support community-based preparedness and resilience efforts, to ensure that
Federal operations and facilities continue to protect and serve citizens in a changing climate, and to
promote international initiatives focused on concrete actions toward reducing greenhouse gas emission
and enhance climate preparedness globally"

https://www.whitehouse.gov/sites/default/files/omb/assets/legislative_reports/fcce-report-to-congress.pdf

[mtdoc]

Zapta - that quote has nothing to do with research funding or your unsubstantiated claims of systemic bias.

What is does show is that for you this is all about your political ideology and nothing to do with the science.

You still have shown no evidence to back up your claims and have still not addressed why you think the APS and every other major scientific organization have publicly stated that AGW is real (and these statements precede the Obama adminstration).

[zapta]

You still have shown no evidence to back up your claims and have still not addressed why you think the APS and every other major scientific organization have publicly stated that AGW is real (and these statements precede the Obama adminstration).

mtdoc, the main issue is not if man made CO2 emission causes measurable temperature increase. The main issue is what are the implications and if the predictions of the ocean covering cities, reduced food production and significant increase in extreme storms due to increase CO2 emissions my man are true. So far these projections do not agree with the data despite an increase in CO2 emission and the sure benefits of cheap energy on demand and the possible benefits of increased vegetation which is supported by data are ignored. This is a very biased view of reality. Calling this practice science is a disservice to science.

Anyway, I don't think that we will get here for a conclusion so will have to wait a few more years and see of the predictions materialize or not. Things should get clearer over time.

[apis]

Hi, as someone yet to be convinced by either side of the debate, where do I go for answers? I agree a lot of "climate change" stuff is alarmist, but I also think there is a lot of propaganda from the reactionary fossil-fuel monopolies...

I understand why some might feel confused because the media is full of nonsense science and alarmism, that is true, but that is because journalists don't know science and often get things hopelessly mixed up (and alarmism sells newspapers).

The most complete overview of the science is here: https://www.ipcc.ch/report/ar5/ The IPCC reports are written collaboratively by all the worlds leading climate scientist and are vetted by all the worlds governments (all the members of the United Nations).

If you don't wan't to read that much and just want some authoritative confirmation there's also this list on wikipedia: Statements by scientific organizations of national or international standing.

One shouldn't believe everything one reads on wikipedia of course, but there should be references one can follow and verify the statements. Here's a one by the AAAS for example:

The scientific evidence is clear: global climate change caused by human activities is occurring now, and it is a growing threat to society....The pace of change and the evidence of harm have increased markedly over the last five years. The time to control greenhouse gas emissions is now.

http://www.aaas.org/sites/default/files/migrate/uploads/aaas_climate_statement1.pdf

As for the very vocal climate change contrarians: I have spent too many weeks trying to find any sort of data/science that support their claims and have come up empty handed (well not quite true, there was lots and lots of headache inducing bullshit and politically motivated pseudo-science of course.) Anything from "there is no such thing as the greenhouse effect" to "global warming is great because plants love CO2".

[miguelvp]

The problem is that statements like this:

As for the very vocal climate change contrarians: I have spent too many weeks trying to find any sort of data/science that support their claims and have come up empty handed (well not quite true, there was lots and lots of headache inducing bullshit and politically motivated pseudo-science of course.) Anything from "there is no such thing as the greenhouse effect" to "global warming is great because plants love CO2".

are just not objective and cause doubt to the listener.

The way your whole comment sounds to me is:

blah blah blah blah, accredited.

blah blah blah blah, bullshit.

So what I see is biased, because there is not attempt to discredit other than name calling and alarmist statements.

I'm not saying I'm happy that we might reach 600ppm sooner than later, but the whole finger pointing is just not too helpful to clear things out.

But am I worried? not really since CO2 concentrations indoors surpass that already by a long shot and we spend more time indoors than outdoors.

What can I say, I guess I'll wait for my anti alarmist check that the big corporations send me for defending them

Kidding aside because no one is going to send me a check for anything, I have the comfort to know that nature does self regulate.

[apis]

The problem is that statements like this:
[...]
are just not objective and cause doubt to the listener.

Monksod was asking for data so I provided some links.

I'm not trying to convince anyone really, just being honest about my views. I have formed my opinion after spending way to much time on this, and I know that what I believe doesn't really matter to anyone so the best I can do is provide others with references that I think are credible so that they can convince themselves. One can only lead a horse to water, not make it drink.

As for the final comment, I wanted to point out that I indeed have taken the time to research what many sceptics websites were saying but I never found anything that held up to scrutiny (and that annoys me because they are dishonest). So I can't really post any links in their favour. It's up to anyone on the sceptic side to show evidence for whatever they believe in.

Kidding aside because no one is going to send me a check for anything, I have the comfort to know that nature does self regulate.

Nature will self regulate but not with any regard for human life. The earth has been a very different place in the past and there is no reason to believe things won't change again.

[TerraHertz]

Back in the 70s there was a phase where scientists were greatly concerned human industrial activity might kick the Earth into a permanently locked-in state they named 'snowball Earth'. At the time I believed it, and was dutifully worried. That scare faded away when it became clear the Earth (at that time) was actually warming.

Then much later the 'Anthropogenic Global Warming' (AGW, meaning 'humans making the planet hotter') concerns become widely discussed. I believed that too, accepted the reasoning, and was dutifully worried.

Then around 2008 I came across this chart.



Source:
http://www.geocraft.com/WVFossils/Carboniferous_climate.html
http://www.geocraft.com/WVFossils/PageMill_Images/image277.gif
Climate and the Carboniferous Period
CO2 is responsible for climate change? Really?
"There has historically been much more CO2 in our atmosphere than exists today. For example, during the Jurassic Period (200 mya), average CO2 concentrations were about 1800 ppm or about 4.7 times higher than today. The highest concentrations of CO2 during all of the Paleozoic Era occurred during the Cambrian Period, nearly 7000 ppm -- about 18 times higher than today."

Links in the chart:
  Temperature after C.R. Scotese   http://www.scotese.com/climate.htm
  CO2 after R.A. Berner, 2001 (GEOCARB III) http://www.geocraft.com/WVFossils/Reference_Docs/Geocarb_III-Berner.pdf

I posted the chart image not because I care if you believe it. In fact you shouldn't. I didn't initially. But it should make you go looking for information, and asking some questions about what you think you know.

That's what happened to me. It was obvious the details in that chart were logically incompatible with the entire thesis of AGW. Either the chart was wrong (mistaken or lies), or AGW was mistaken. Or lies. In fact, if there was any factual basis in that chart at all, then the entire AGW wagon had to be a load of concocted lies. That's an inescapable conclusion. Any so-called scientist making claims that current temperature and CO2 variations are dangerous, should have checked the background of Earth's past temp and CO2 levels. This is just not optional.

So who was lying? It was necessary to find out. I don't like being lied to.

I started digging. A while later I'd come to the conclusion 'AGW' was in fact a deliberately concocted fabrication, being pushed for a rather nasty ideological agenda by the originators, and picked up for research money and conformism by the rest of a large crowd. Then the CRU emails leak broke. Revealing the core originators of the AGW thesis at the Climate Research Unit, University of East Anglia, in their actual, blatent conspiracy to corrupt science by falsifying data and repress dissenting researchers. With their motives quite clearly revealed too.

Finding them discussing how they were going to 'hide the medieval warm period' (a very minor, recent blip that doesn't even show up on that chart of long term much wilder swings) was an eye opener.

Anyway, the history is too convoluted to discuss meaningfully here. I posted links earlier in this thread, including a time-ordered series of news and science papers links going back years. And then a few posts later on the same page (2) someone asked "Where can I find information?" Sigh.

In the meantime, for those of you on either side of this issue, here are some questions you should be able to answer, if you actually know this topic. As opposed to just taking a side due of bandwaggon effect, selection bias, system justification, or whatever. It's interesting there doesn't seem to be a 'refusal to accept that large scale conspiracies actually do occur, especially when there's both ideology and billions of dollars involved' in the Wiki list of cognitive biases: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_cognitive_biases

• What is the present day amount of CO2 in the Earth's atmosphere, in Parts Per Million (ppm)?
• What is that in percent?
• What was the CO2 proportion in ppm in the year 1800 and 1900, ie around the beginning of the Industrial Revolution?
   Wow, it's rising fast eh? "Like it never did before, unprecedented disaster", right? Keep going...
• What was the AVERAGE level of CO2 in the atmosphere, over Earth's geological history?
• What was the highest and lowest level, during the eras since life appeared on Earth?
• How do the CO2 levels at 1900 and 2015 compare to geological minimim, maximum and average?
      In doing this research you'll probably have found an 'Earth's CO2 history' graph. You may have some questions arising from that graph, in the context of the theory of Anthropogenic Global Warming. Patience...
• What is the minimum atmospheric CO2 level at which plants can survive? (Along with Sunlight CO2 is their essential food; you knew that right?)
• How do plants respond to variations of CO2 levels above their survival mimimum? Why? (Hint: Stomata)
• What is the range of atmospheric CO2 over which air-breathing animals (including humans) are comfortable? You'll see values in percent; convert the maximim figure to ppm for comparison with the values of previous questions.
• Does the relative closeness of current CO2 levels to the plant minimum survival level, and that it's only ever been that close once before and for brief periods in Earth's history, say anything to you?
• What were the Medieval Warm Period, the Little Ice Ages, and Maunder Minimums?
• How stable is our Sun's activity? How do we know?
• Are there any long term cyclic variations in the Sun's output? (Hint: the Sun has other outputs than just light and heat.)
• To what extent are causes of the Sun's output level changes and their influences on Earth understood?
    Oh boy, that's a deep hole isn't it? I hope you met the gas giant twins in there, negotiated the Heliosphere and cosmic rays maze, and survived your hair-raising chat with Mr Electric Universe.
• In the Earth's history of Ice Ages and warmings between them, at what stage are we now?
    (And so what would you expect the global average temperature to be doing?)
• CO2, water vapor, and various other gasses all have spectrums of absorbtion of light (including in the UV and IR bands.) It's a complex technical topic, but we can simplify: from your own personal daily life experience, can you think of one thing that plays a major role in changing the inflow/outflow of heat from the Earth via the atmosphere?
  
  Hint: what most affects how quickly things cool down at night?
  
  Key question: What are the relative magnitudes of that thermal regulation effect, vs the effect from CO2?

I could keep going, into what global intergovernmental group decided mankind needed a damned scary story to get them to agree to all sorts of things, what year they decided this, and some typical quotes. How that cascaded into the situation we have today.
Or how the actual temp rise observed during the early part of the 20th century was 'amplified' by deliberately false manipulation of both old and recent data records. One instance being the infamous 'hockey stick' graph (from CRU btw.) And then the real rise began to taper off and went flat, for so long (18 years now) that the data distortions required to hide the 'pause' became so extreme they get caught out by anyone actually checking the data. And how this situation became such a problem for the warmists that they had to change the scare story name to 'man-made climate change', since the 'warming' part of AGW probably couldn't be pretended much longer.

[miguelvp]

Kidding aside because no one is going to send me a check for anything, I have the comfort to know that nature does self regulate.

Nature will self regulate but not with any regard for human life. The earth has been a very different place in the past and there is no reason to believe things won't change again.

I didn't say anything to the contrary, yup no regards for human life, decimate, half or exterminate, nature will go on.

One thing I know is that I live indoors most of my life with higher averages than 600ppm of CO2 and that's been the case for a lot of generations.

Again, I'm all for the let's not find out, but the arguments from both sides are not to discredit but reduced to name calling and that's not productive at all for anyone.

What we need are facts not just speculation. If we choose badly well, nature will step in and self correct itself, with our extermination? I doubt that.

Should we curve CO2 emissions? Of course we should. Should we curve overpopulation? of course we should. Can the planet keep on going at our current rate of growth? probably not. What's the answer? no one knows but it will come to us no matter what.

[miguelvp]

As for TerraHertz's comment, well, humans never been on those high level concentrations of CO2. So that is an unknown as well. But one thing is for sure. Life will prevail with or without us, and most likely with us.

[zapta]

It's up to anyone on the sceptic side to show evidence for whatever they believe in.

It's not a matter of believing 'in' anything. It's is not a religion. The question weather the prediction of floods, extreme storms and dwindling food sources and other catastrophes match reality. 

Now that the science is settled, we need to make sure that nature obeys it. For example, there is still too much grain production in the world, the US is still short on hurricanes, sea level rise is within historic values and New York is still above water. 









But I have no doubt the nature will catch up with science and the rise in ocean level will match the latest predictions

[apis]

But I have no doubt the nature will catch up with science and the rise in ocean level will match the latest predictions

As your graph shows the sea level is rising, and the projection according to the IPCC's fifth assessment report (that I linked to to before) is that the global average sea level will most likely rise by a little less than a foot the next 50 years. Problem is that it will continue like that... So science is right on track as far as I can tell?

I have no idea where you got that last graph from but that looks crazy!

[apis]

What we need are facts not just speculation. If we choose badly well, nature will step in and self correct itself, with our extermination? I doubt that.

Absolutely. But there are a lot of facts (data) and I linked to some of it. Now we just need to decide what to do about it.

[miguelvp]

What we need are facts not just speculation. If we choose badly well, nature will step in and self correct itself, with our extermination? I doubt that.

Absolutely. But there are a lot of facts (data) and I linked to some of it. Now we just need to decide what to do about it.

Data is not equal to facts, I've been on research and studies only look at the premise they conceive. That doesn't mean the premise is true and not all the relevant data was acquired.

Fact is that humans will be fine with over 600ppm of CO2 as well as the rest of mammals and plants there is no contradiction there at all.
Well maybe 20% will complain about odors indoors but not life threatening and that 20% will adapt or they'll have to live outdoors

Maybe someone should study how those concentrations will affect insects, but there are probably already studies of that and it seems they like that as well. Maybe too much.

But I'll look at your links for any study of CO2 levels and how it affects the planet's species, although I have the feeling they didn't cover that at all.

[TerraHertz]

A few minor googled items.

https://www.kane.co.uk/knowledge-centre/what-are-safe-levels-of-co-and-co2-in-rooms   

250-350ppm     Normal background concentration in outdoor ambient air
 350-1,000ppm     Concentrations typical of occupied indoor spaces with good air exchange
 1,000-2,000ppm     Complaints of drowsiness and poor air.
 2,000-5,000 ppm     Headaches, sleepiness and stagnant, stale, stuffy air. Poor concentration, loss of attention, increased heart rate and slight nausea may also be present.
 5,000     Workplace exposure limit (as 8-hour TWA) in most jurisdictions.
 >40,000 ppm     Exposure may lead to serious oxygen deprivation resulting in permanent brain damage, coma, even death.

400ppm  = 0.04%
2000ppm = 0.2%  (Roughly Earth's average through the Permian, Triassic, Jurassic, Cretaceous and Tertiary ages, ie the past 250 million years.)
5000ppm = 0.5%
Note that the observed effects in the text above for 1000-5000ppm CO2 in enclosed spaces probably has more to do with the drop in oxygen content you'd expect in those circumstances. The primary effect of increased blood CO2 is faster respiration, since the body uses blood CO2 sensing to control respiration rate. There is no blood oxygen sensing, but the effect of low oxygen in drowsiness and eventually loss of consciousness.

http://www.val-tronics.com/downloads/appnotes/NOTEA11.PDF

Carbon Dioxide in air (volume %)  Increased lung ventilation
0.1 to 1.0%  (1000 to 10,000 ppm) Slight and unnoticeable increase
2.0%                              50% increase
3.0%                              100% increase
5.0%                              300% increase, breathing becomes laborious
Ten percent (10%) in air can be endured for only a few minutes.  Twelve (12%) to fifteen (15%) percent soon
causes unconsciousness.  Twenty-five (25%) percent may cause death  in exposures of several hours. The
normal concentration of CO2 in fresh  air is 0.03% to 0.04% (300 to 400 ppm).

I know from my own caving experience, 2% to 3% CO2 is really noticable. Below 1% (10,000ppm) you wouldn't even know, so long as Oxygen stays up over 19%.

google: greenhouse farming ideal co2 level
http://www.novabiomatique.com/hydroponics-systems/plant-555-gardening-with-co2-explained.cfm
Gardening with CO2 explained

How much CO2?
It is well known that a CO2 level in the garden's air between 700 and 900 ppm improves crop development and yield. Most plants grown for their beautiful flowers or foliage optimally develop at about 800 ppm. Roses are distinctive as they require about 1200 ppm in carbon dioxide concentration for best results. For many fruits and vegetables, the ideal CO2 level in the garden should be at least between 1000 and 1200 ppm.

google: increased co2 reduces plant need for water
http://www.co2science.org/subject/t/summaries/transpiration.php

These several results, as well as those obtained from many other studies, suggest that as the air's CO2 content continues to rise, earth's plants will likely display reductions in stomatal conductance, which should reduce their rates of transpirational water loss.  As a result, most plants should be able to better deal with periodic water shortages and warmer temperatures, possibly even expanding their ranges into areas where it was too dry for them to successfully live and reproduce in the recent past.

We're already seeing this effect. Lots of reports of long-established desert areas starting to green-up now. One amusing side effect: Mad Max Fury Road having to be shot in Namibia since the original 3 Mad Max movie locations in Australian desert were 'too green'.

Ha ha... I see there are now some Warmist studies attempting to show that reduced plant expiration of water vapor would be a bad thing, because... drier local climate. Except the ones I skimmed made the assumption total plant biomass would remain the same. Which is insane. and the kind of ridiculous thing you would only assume if you were groping for something bad to say about results of increasing CO2, and hoped no one would notice you being a jerk.

google: sea levels geological history
http://www.curry.eas.gatech.edu/Courses/6140/ency/Chapter10/Ency_Oceans/Sea_Level_Variations.pdf
300 meter variations and more, with many dramatic swings. Take that 70mm variation and stick it. If it's even real/accurate, see next URL. Also you do realize we're still emerging from the last ice age, right?  There are innumerable instances in all civilizations of sea ports ending up 50 meters and more under water or up on hillsides. People adapt. That our present civilization is so stupid that we build massive cities on 'at sea level' flat land is just a demonstration of short-sighted stupidity, not any kind of argument about climate change. Which will continue no matter what we do. As for New Orleans... good grief.

http://wattsupwiththat.com/2014/04/28/sea-level-rise-slows-while-satellite-temperature-pause-dominates-measurement-record/

Dr. Curry draws the following conclusions based upon these measured and perhaps interrelated outcomes by noting:
“Once again, the emerging best explanations for the ‘pause’ in global surface temperatures and the slow down in sea level rise bring into question the explanations for the rise in both in the last quarter of the 20th century. And makes the 21st century of sea level rise projections seem like unjustified arm waving.”

Also yet another fine example in the opening there of how warmists routinely 'adjust' data to fit their expectations.

Oh, and don't forget to check out 'post glaciation crustal rebound' for extra fun.

[tom66]

@TerraHertz, That chart is quite interesting - and if true, would be a little bit of a deal-breaker. However... I have some concerns.

The first problem I have is the source for the temperature data.  http://scotese.com/climate.htm   The method used to determine temperature is given: "We can determine the past climate of the Earth by mapping the distribution of ancient coals, desert deposits, tropical soils, salt deposits, glacial material, as well as the distribution of plants and animals that are sensitive to climate, such as alligators, palm trees & mangrove swamps."

This is all well and good, but I would question the methodology. By looking at the chart we can see long flat periods where the temperature rarely changes. This doesn't really meet with prior expectations, even over short periods of time the temperature may vary by a degree or two either way. Secondly, the data is proxy, i.e. not direct - like all previous temperature measurements - but it makes a LOAD of assumptions, more than something like ice core measurements or trapped carbon measurements. How do we know that previous life was not compatible with higher or lower temperatures? Are we assuming that alligators have not adapted to their environment over time? etc.etc.

The second problem I have with the chart is that there's absolutely no accounting for historical variations in solar output or atmospheric changes. For example the precambian atmosphere is widely believed to be low on oxygen but very high on CO2 and nitrogen. We don't know how much that might affect climate forcing, in fact extreme amounts of CO2 could actually lead to a cooling effect if the CO2 reflects more solar energy back. That's not an excuse to pump even more CO2 out though.
 
The third problem I have is that there's a better chart available. From NASA. It doesn't try and get a proxy measurement for the past 600Mya -- such a measurement would have such uncertainty as to be basically useless. And it wouldn't be relevant to our current climate. We know, with reasonable certainty, that the atmosphere for the last 500,000 years has been roughly similar to the current atmosphere. This can be measured using ice core samples. The Sun is also fairly constant - solar output variations cannot account for such wild changes.

https://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/paleo/globalwarming/temperature-change.html

[zapta]

Even if I were to accept that, which I don't, you still have to account for other pollution. Releasing CO2 tends to be by combustion, which produces other waste that is harmful to human health and the environment more generally.

Do you have any justification for that, because without it your argument is largely irrelevant. Even if CO2 isn't a problem, the other stuff is and needs to be dealt with in basically the same way.

Well, we live longer than ever so it can't be that bad. Cheap energy on demand is good for life.

[Stonent]

[apis]

Well, we live longer than ever so it can't be that bad. Cheap energy on demand is good for life.

Right now, but what will the world look like in 200 years, or 500 if we continue like this? There is enormous thermal inertia in the earth system, if one is to prevent dangerous climate changes in the future we have to act now.

[Zero999]

What about the next ice age? In the past ice ages have had a huge negative impact on humanity. Will we have another ice age if CO₂ emissions continue to warm the planet? If not then how is this a bad thing or will the increase in temperature be worse?

[G7PSK]

The global warming lobby got its original kick start from Margaret Thatcher when as prime minister she wanted to bring the miners to heel and what better way than demonising coal, she then later began to have doubts about what she had started.

   http://www.telegraph.co.uk/comment/columnists/christopherbooker/7823477/Was-Margaret-Thatcher-the-first-climate-sceptic.html

[tom66]

I have never heard this theory and it makes very little sense to me. Thatcher wanted coal to continue (without subsidy as she was a conservative and believed in the free market); but she hated the unions. Demonising coal would distract from the problem.

[apis]

What about the next ice age? In the past ice ages have had a huge negative impact on humanity. Will we have another ice age if CO₂ emissions continue to warm the planet? If not then how is this a bad thing or will the increase in temperature be worse?

Another ice age would also be really bad. The thing is, even if we stop emissions completely today there is already enough co2 in the atmosphere that there won't be another ice age. But we are not stoping emissions or even slowing down, the rate of greenhouse gas emissions is accelerating...

http://www.bbc.com/news/science-environment-16439807

[tom66]

It probably is time to research how to reverse damage caused. How practical is building the world's largest CO2 scrubber? The Apollo 13 astronauts did it...

[apis]

There have actually been some pretty desperate things suggested already, among others adding SO2 to the atmosphere. SO2 would cause cooling in the same way as large volcanic eruptions. But nobody likes that because it will have side effects, most of which are unknown and probably not pleasant either. But it may be better than uncontrolled warming if it comes to that?

[Zero999]

There have actually been some pretty desperate things suggested already, among others adding SO2 to the atmosphere. SO2 would cause cooling in the same way as large volcanic eruptions. But nobody likes that because it will have side effects, most of which are unknown and probably not pleasant either. But it may be better than uncontrolled warming if it comes to that?

A very bad idea. It would cause acid rain. Damage to trees, crops and worsen ocean acidification.

[apis]

Exactly, and probably have other unforeseen negative effects as well. Better to cut down on greenhouse gas emissions.

[G7PSK]

I have never heard this theory and it makes very little sense to me. Thatcher wanted coal to continue (without subsidy as she was a conservative and believed in the free market); but she hated the unions. Demonising coal would distract from the problem.

She decided that it would be easiest to get rid of the miners union by getting rid of the coal industry and running power plants on gas, she has been quoted as saying that if anyone can find a scientific reason not to use coal she would ensure that they got all the research funds they could want. I am not saying this from a political point of view as I supported Mrs Thatcher and still think that on the whole she was good for the country and without her we would still be subsidizing coal and cars that broke down and rusted away before you got round the M25.

[Sigmoid]

If we had as much as a 5% fluctuation in solar "output", I'm quite sure the only ones left alive on Earth would be water bears and bacteria.

Anyway, AGW has been proven over and over again. It's really, really simple. We can measure CO2 content, we can measure Methane content, we know where these gases come from, and we understand what they do in the atmosphere.

Even if the solar minimum would result in a cooling of Northern climate as it has during the "dark ages", agriculture is immensely more equipped to deal with such an event and keep producing. What we are NOT equipped to deal with is desertification, lack of fresh water and a rise of ocean levels.

Both have the potential to cause food shortage, but the latter is worse and less manageable.

[Stonent]

Even if I were to accept that, which I don't, you still have to account for other pollution. Releasing CO2 tends to be by combustion, which produces other waste that is harmful to human health and the environment more generally.

Do you have any justification for that, because without it your argument is largely irrelevant. Even if CO2 isn't a problem, the other stuff is and needs to be dealt with in basically the same way.

Well, we live longer than ever so it can't be that bad. Cheap energy on demand is good for life.

Just think what cheap energy could to for the poorest parts of the world.  I'm talking about the commercials with children drinking from the same water that cattle are being bathed in and such.

[tom66]

Not much without the infrastructure to transport it and use it.

What the poorest people in the world need is lighting, heating, cooking power. That is best provided using solar/wind and battery technology, or local diesel power, as wires and pylons built across long stretches of land are, a) likely to be robbed for copper/aluminium content and b) very expensive to build over long plains of land, and not likely to return much revenue, given the low energy usage.

[zapta]

Anyway, AGW has been proven over and over again. It's really, really simple. We can measure CO2 content, we can measure Methane content, we know where these gases come from, and we understand what they do in the atmosphere.

Sigmoid, when you say 'AGW has been proven', are you referring to a measurable CO2 increase due to human activities or the predictions of cities covered with waters, dwindling food supply and significant increase in catastrophic storms?