Is Global Warming Unstoppable?

(off topic) I cant believe Efusco closed the man based global warming thread. Did everyone protest? I was banned for a week with no warning as well. What a joke.

 

It's not ok to make arguments using blogposts as reference.

It's ok to share anything for general interest.

 

Realclimate responded (to CRU remails) in a way I found constructive, and has posted a link list for raw data, processed data, climate models, and so forth:

RealClimate: Data Sources

It may be a complete list of what is now online for free. There are many other data available for purchase, such as the (US) NWS cooperative observers.

Actually, I think there are sites wharehousing glacial and polar ice data, not on the RC list, other than the GLIMS mentioned there.

This probably won't empower one to independtly determine whether GW is unstoppable (thread title) but we have heard the question more than once about dta availability.

 

Protest? I CHEERED! :thumb:arty::bounce::dance: The thread had been played out maybe 100 pages before. It's not like anything new has actually come from the denialists, and shouting matches are pointless. They just spout the same malarkey about their "beliefs" until folks give up and put the addicts on ignore. About 2/3 of their arguments contradict one another, often in the same thread. Yet they see no problem with that.

In one sentence they will say there is no warming. :bored: In the next they will say it is cooling. :suspicious: In the one after that they will say all of the data is fudged to show warming and there is a global conspiracy of evil scientists. :tinfoil3: (Yes, this has happened many times throughout history..."scientists" rule the world, that's why they have all the money, the girls, the fast cars, the mansions, and use $100 bills as toilet paper.) Next comes the "there is warming but it is just a natural cycle." :doh:

So the only question left whenever another denial post/thread comes up is which side of their mouth are they lying out of today? As a group they've got a well established history as being fast and loose with the truth. But it is the addiction that is producing the lies, so pity them and put them on ignore.

There are plenty of aspects of temperature data and forcings worthy of debate, but there are some simple litmus tests for identifying a denialist troll, any one of which is sufficient to put them on ignore, because there will be no reasoning with them if they hold any of the following beliefs:
1. They deny CO2 is rising.
2. They deny CO2 is rising because of man's activities.
3. They deny CO2 is a greenhouse gas.
4. They deny that CO2 (or life in general) could have any impact on climate.
5. They deny that any data can be trusted unless it is produced by a fellow denialist.

There are many legitimate arguments to be made about the degree of various forcings and cycles, including CO2, aerosols, cosmic rays, solar activity, orbital dynamics, etc. However, the directions of such forcings are really not in dispute.

There are many legitimate arguments to be made about where we might be in any of the known/suspected/possible/likely natural cycles as well. Unfortunately for the denialist arguments the *only* one that really helps their cause is that cycles (with associated forcings) have put us at the peak of a multidecadal (or longer) warming trend. While possible, there are several other equally likely possibilities: that we are in a neutral part of the natural cycle, or that we are on the cold part of a natural cycle or cycles. Both of these would be horrific in their consequences. Yet, they are unable to even consider such a possibility.

FWIW, my money is on the solar forcing impact being underpredicted in current models. That is an argument many denialists like to make, but they fail to recognize that it actually destroys their current rational, rather than reinforces it. We have been in a solar minimum. Assuming that we don't suffer a decade or longer minimum, new global average temperature records are right around the corner. There was a coronal mass ejection on the far side of the Sun yesterday and sunspot activity has been increasing over the past several months. http://www.spaceweather.com/images2009/04dec09/cme_c3_big.gif?PHPSESSID=qusnsqcl5g7f61t6mhgdjflu65

 

Here is a great graph for the delusionist trolls.

 

That's right. Who drew this graph? 5 years worth of data with a Y axis that goes from 365 to 375.

 

And a day later, an no one is prepared to answer my previous post (#116) about who stands to gain, by the "vast global warming conspiracy? Interesting.

 

I for one never claimed there was a vast conspiracy, but if there is one, certainly there are a lot of folks who would gain, including climate research groups who get taxpayer funding, environmental groups who fund raise using a global warming rallying cry, investor groups like those run by Algore, and energy companies, banks & investment houses, etc. that will get into the carbon trading game.

This last group are even featured in the climategate emails where they are being solicited to fund the Tyndal Center for Climate Research:

================
From: Mike Hulme <[email protected]>
To: [email protected]
Subject: Re: industrial and commercial contacts
Date: Mon Jan 10 17:01:32 2000

Simon,

I have talked with Tim O'Riordan and others here today and Tim has a wealth of contacts he is prepared to help with. Four specific ones from Tim are:

- Charlotte Grezo, BP Fuel Options (possibly on the Assessment Panel. She is also on the ESRC Research Priorities Board), but someone Tim can easily talk with. There are others in BP Tim knows too.
- Richard Sykes, Head of Environment Division at Shell International ...

...>I am sending a draft of the generic version of the letter eliciting
>support and the 2 page summary to Mike to look over. Then this can be
>used as a basis for letter writing by the Tyndall contact (the person
>in brackets).
>
>Mr Alan Wood CEO Siemens plc [Nick Jenkins]
>Mr Mike Hughes CE Midlands Electricity (Visiting Prof at UMIST) [Nick
>Jenkins]
>Mr Keith Taylor, Chairman and CEO of Esso UK (John
>Shepherd]
>Mr Brian Duckworth, Managing Director, Severn-Trent Water
>[Mike Hulme]
>Dr Jeremy Leggett, Director, Solar Century [Mike Hulme]
>Mr Brian Ford, Director of Quality, United Utilities plc [Simon
>Shackley]
>Dr Andrew Dlugolecki, CGU [Jean Palutikof]
>Dr Ted Ellis, VP Building Products, Pilkington plc [Simon Shackley]
>Mr Mervyn Pedalty, CEO, Cooperative Bank plc [Simon Shackley]

========================

 

Tim,

Do you really believe that "environmental groups, research groups" etc have anywhere near the wealth/power/influence to gain/loose compared to big oil/big coal/big utility/big transport/big agra?

What was XOXs one quarter (thats quarter!profit a couple of quarters ago? Something in the neighbourhood of $4 billion if memory serves. What is the annual budget of the top 100 University science budgets? I have no idea, but I bet it aint $16 billion.

Add in the rest of big oil/coal etc and you have hundreds of $billions ANNUALLY in profits, and they don't want to change. Any one heard of "the clean coal alliance" or what ever oxymoronic name they have for themselves? If you believe they are about "clean coal" I have some water front property in Arizona to sell you. They are about perpetuating the continued use of coal, AND they exist to cloud the issue(s). As I have said before,, too many here are buying the BS.

Icarus

 

Hey, I was amused that radioprius1 admitted the graph was created just for him: "a great graph for the delusionist trolls." It's a step in the right direction. :thumb:

 

There is so much *cough* ignorance exhibited here it's staggereing. But I'm not surprised.

I'll address the profit that 'evil' corporations make by using XOM (that's exxon mobile for those of you unfamiliar with the symbol.)

Corporations are businesses. They strive to make profit. Without profits, they fail. Exxon is a huge corporation and makes a lot of profit - billions. A small company will usually make less. The total amount of profit is basically meaningless when one considers profit margin. Let's look at a few companies that have profit margins larger than XOM, Mkay?

Average profit margins. Microsoft 28%, eBay 21%, Google 19%, McDonalds 18%, Coca Cola 18% etc., etc., ....Exxon Mobil 9%. In fact there are over 50 large companies that have a bigger profit margin than XOM.

Do you hear anyone complaining about these other companies? It's easy to drag the heads of companies like XOM before these government committees for an annual tongue-lashing over obscene profits and wish to institute 'windfall profits' taxes. Why? Because the average pinhead believes that oil companies are evil and is simultaneously an economic moron.

"Gentlemen, to all of you, I hope I can give you a bit of a reality check. Working people struggle with high gas prices, and your sacrifice, gentlemen, appears to be nothing."
Barbara Boxer, (D. CA.)​

The heads of oil companies may own 1% of the srock in that enterprise. The rest is owned by people like Alric and Icarus - just common folk who appreciate a steady income. It is also owned by retirement funds, murual funds and so on.

In addition to paying corporate taxes, oil companies have to pay the government for the right to drill, explore, etc. From 2003 to 2007 Exxon's earning's increased by 89%! Wow, you say. Their income tax increased 'only' 170%! TOTAL TAXES XOM paid in 2008 - $116 BILLION! - TWICE their profit margin.

So, the poor ole government ain't got no power, but the evil oil companies are robbing everyone. That's the Icarus' viewpoint.

There are many billions spent on climate alarmism annually. Maybe a few million spent to fund reserch, real research, by skeptics.

Newsweek Fails Basic Arithmetic
Newsweek reporter Eve Conant was given the documentation showing that proponents of man-made global warming have been funded to the tune of $50 BILLION in the last decade or so, but the Magazine chose instead to focus on how skeptics have reportedly received a paltry $19 MILLION from ExxonMobil over the last two decades. Paleoclimate scientist Bob Carter, who has testified before the Senate Environment & Public Works committee, explained how much money has been spent researching and promoting climate fears and so-called solutions. “In one of the more expensive ironies of history, the expenditure of more than $US50 billion on research into global warming since 1990 has failed to demonstrate any human-caused climate trend, let alone a dangerous one,” Carter wrote on June 18, 2007. (See: “High Price for Load of Hot Air”)

Phil Jones, one of the CRUMINALS, recieved more money at ONE institurion over this period of time than XOM laid out TOTAL.

P.S. Al Gore, friend of Ken Lay, is a liar and a morally bankrupt disgrace.
http://www.nationalreview.com/comment/comment-horner042302.asp

 

Read many graphs?

It's almost 7 years and 365 to 390.

 

And yet, RealClimate is your online blog bible even after it is proven to be a mouthpiece for the small clique of scientists shown to be perverting the scientific method. True Believer.

 

So, YOU'RE the one who went way overboard and caused efusco to close the thread.

 

I was curious what Fibb222 said to get banned. Efusco is usually pretty cool. I've been a complete jerk to him before and he stays pretty dang calm.

 

Interesting that you consider the time lapse from 10:58 am until 10 something pm of the same day to be a 'day later'. Might explain some of your confusion.

Also interesting that you expect instant response to questions you could answer yourself with a tad of research. Maybe someone can 'explain Google to Mr. Ickes.
[ame="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Global_warming_conspiracy_theory"]Global warming conspiracy theory - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia[/ame]

It is but one theory, there are others, more expansive. I spared you the horror of having to read this on a conservative site by citing Wiki.

 

Sure do appreciate the time you spend presenting the other side of the story here. I get so tired hearing the brainwashing from the media, et all.
Although I have noticed that often in very divisive arguments such as these, the truth often falls some where in the middle.
Anyway, thanks again.

 

The Washington Pravda Post and it's crack team of investigative journalists discover 'Climategate' only two weeks after everybody else
washingtonpost.com and manage to spend more time supporting AGW than trying to describe what the e-mails really indicate. Surprise!

Never once considering the possibility that someone within the CRU developed a conscience and anonymously posted the files, the WPP unfailingly places the word 'stolen' in front of every mention of the word 'E-mail'.

 

Thank YOU. While conceding you're right about the middle ground, when one is countering a faith-based extreme, extreme measures are often required to make a dent.

 

The middle between correct and incorrect is still incorrect.

You are right about the media though. I wouldn't call it brainwashing but it is the erroneous reporting of "false balance" that creates controversy. If everyone argued within the data and based on expert opinion, and yes, even if it is a disagreement, the conversation would be productive.

What we have now is two sides, expert opinion Vs whatever they make up.