Global Warming...New Report...and it ain't happy news

okie,

Solar cycles is a red herring presented by Bernard. Bernard LIED when he said that the IPCC didn't include it at all. The IPCC says pretty clearly that it is part of the warming but can't account for all of it.

Simple question for you okie. Does the science literature on global warming take the solar cycle into account? The correct answer is "yes." Pretending they don't take it into account only shows you don't follow the science.

Arguing "The tree huggers do not want to look at solar cycles" is a strawman. It is complete BS on your part. Go read the thread before you make such idiotic claims.

This is another case of you being unreliable okie. You love to make up strawmen and argue that the other side says something that they didn't.

0 Replies

parados wrote:

Simple question for you okie. Does the science literature on global warming take the solar cycle into account? The correct answer is "yes." Pretending they don't take it into account only shows you don't follow the science.

Arguing "The tree huggers do not want to look at solar cycles" is a strawman. It is complete BS on your part. Go read the thread before you make such idiotic claims.

Parados,
You are right saying science do take into account the influence of the Sun even if the IPCC's Summary for PolicyMakers makes as if AGHGs are the only culprit in Global Warming (true, the SPM is politics, not the science). Maybe the 4th assessment report due to be released in 2007 will correct this omission, even if I have reasons to doubt it.

But I'm afraid you're wrong denying that environmentalists DO omit to talk about solar influences.
Go on Greenpeace site or on the Stop Climate Chaos (!) coalition and tell us where you find they mention the sun when talking about GW ?

As I'm sure more people read these mainstream "tree huggers" explanations about GW than the IPCC's, maybe you should go and tell them to be less certain about the exact role of AGHG and to take into account the sun's role in their "information" center. Not quite sure their marketing & fund raising departements would consider your reality check though.

0 Replies

parados wrote:

okie,

Simple question for you okie. Does the science literature on global warming take the solar cycle into account? The correct answer is "yes." Pretending they don't take it into account only shows you don't follow the science.

Arguing "The tree huggers do not want to look at solar cycles" is a strawman. It is complete BS on your part. Go read the thread before you make such idiotic claims.

This is another case of you being unreliable okie. You love to make up strawmen and argue that the other side says something that they didn't.

Minitax confirms the obvious part of what I said, Parados. To correct you Parados, I never said all scientists ignore the solar cycle. To repeat and clarify, I think most scientists acknowledge it, but some of the scientists take it more seriously than others, and as I said, I think it will become of greater interest and acknowledgement by the scientific community, even though the group I call tree huggers tend to ignore it, at least so far.

To expand on it, some scientists have attempted to quantify the portion of global warming due to solar cycles. As a person that studied science, although not climatology, I think that exercise is presumptuous to think it can actually be mathematically quantified with any degree of confidence. I think to see a correlation is big in and of itself, and it could be responsible for 100%, 80%, or 50% of the warming for all we know.

0 Replies

Or 5%, or 0%.

The funny thing about the anti-environmentalists (such as yourself, Okie) is that you ascribe a political motivation to everyone who believes we should take care of our planet.

I think we should be reducing emissions drastically, not just because it may cause climate change, but because I don't like getting a big lungful of crap every time I breathe in. I don't like the idea of my kids getting large doses of mercury and other toxins in their food and water.

That isn't a political position. The vast majority of the scientific debate revolves around whether or not the environment is warming or changing or whatever, but I have yet to see a defense to the idea held by many environmentalists that spewing pollution into our water and air is an inherently unhealthy way for Humans to be acting, and self-destructive.

I even think there can be simple solutions to the problem; for example, in the case of water pollution, why not force industrial plants to take in water downstream from where they release emissions into the water? They would clean up their act right quick, would be my guess, and there can't possibly be an objection on their part.

Cycloptichorn

0 Replies

Foxfyre wrote:

Do you think we're all nuts to think anybody is capable of credible long range forecasts, either short term or long term?

We have a popular saying here : "the best economist is someone who can brilliantly explain NOW how and why his past predictions failed".
Translation to climatology: "the best climatologist is someone who can brilliantly explain in the future how and why his predictions fail".
The advantage with climatology over meteorology is that failed predictions suit better to short memories we all all affected with. Just like with stock market:
when an short term investment go sour, you say it's an middle term investment.
When a middle term investment go sour, you say it's a long term investment.
When a long term investment go sour... everyone has forgotten you went bust.

0 Replies

Cycloptichorn wrote:

That isn't a political position. The vast majority of the scientific debate revolves around whether or not the environment is warming or changing or whatever, but I have yet to see a defense to the idea held by many environmentalists that spewing pollution into our water and air is an inherently unhealthy way for Humans to be acting, and self-destructive.

Your political position is understandable. But things are such that realism is necessary. A basic axiom of toxicology is that you must weigh risk versus benefit. Cars spew bad things. But it contributes to your current standard of living. Most africans have no pollution by cars, but not sure they like it rather than cars.
BTW: all big cities in developped nations have their air pollution decrease, sometimes dramatically for exemple for lead, over the last decades. It's a dirty little secret well kept by the Government to better demonize cars. In France for example, we can publicly have access to data of atmospheric pollutants concentrations only earlier this year whereas the Swiss or the Canadians have them long ago. You should consult the atmospheric pollution profile over several years of your town.

0 Replies

Cycloptichorn wrote:

I even think there can be simple solutions to the problem; for example, in the case of water pollution, why not force industrial plants to take in water downstream from where they release emissions into the water? They would clean up their act right quick, would be my guess, and there can't possibly be an objection on their part.

Or cleaning would be so expensive they go out of business, or they would externalize their production, move it to another town or another country with more water or less strict rules...

0 Replies

Quote:

Or cleaning would be so expensive they go out of business, or they would externalize their production, move it to another town or another country with more water or less strict rules...

The classic argument of pro-business, anti-environment types.

Why would it make business prohibitvely expensive? Have there been case studies showing that this is true? If businesses are not forced to pay for the cost of doing business cleanly, who pays to clean up the pollution? Society, in the form of higher taxes? Or noone, and the pollution just gets worse and worse?

You are Appealing to Extremes. Noone will go out of business if they are forced to do business cleanly.

Cycloptichorn

0 Replies

miniTAX wrote:

Cycloptichorn wrote:

That isn't a political position. The vast majority of the scientific debate revolves around whether or not the environment is warming or changing or whatever, but I have yet to see a defense to the idea held by many environmentalists that spewing pollution into our water and air is an inherently unhealthy way for Humans to be acting, and self-destructive.

Your political position is understandable. But things are such that realism is necessary. A basic axiom of toxicology is that you must weigh risk versus benefit. Cars spew bad things. But it contributes to your current standard of living. Most africans have no pollution by cars, but not sure they like it rather than cars.
BTW: all big cities in developped nations have their air pollution decrease, sometimes dramatically for exemple for lead, over the last decades. It's a dirty little secret well kept by the Government to better demonize cars. In France for example, we can publicly have access to data of atmospheric pollutants concentrations only earlier this year whereas the Swiss or the Canadians have them long ago. You should consult the atmospheric pollution profile over several years of your town.

I am from Houston, TX, and am well aware of the effects of air pollution; Houston has one of the largest concentrations of refineries and factories in the world. So I am also aware of the importance of jobs and business. Have you considered that the reason pollutants have dropped in many cities is the advent of environmental regulations on factories and refineries?

Also, this doesn't have to be an either/or game. There is no reason why solutions in the middle can't be found. I'm not saying that we have to do away with all pollution immediately (an impossible idea) but that we should work to curb pollution before it gets worse. If this costs money, in profits for business, so be it! I would rather live someplace clean than in a dirty pit, even if there are more jobs in the pit.

Cycloptichorn

0 Replies

miniTAX wrote:

parados wrote:
Simple question for you okie. Does the science literature on global warming take the solar cycle into account? The correct answer is "yes." Pretending they don't take it into account only shows you don't follow the science.

Arguing "The tree huggers do not want to look at solar cycles" is a strawman. It is complete BS on your part. Go read the thread before you make such idiotic claims.

Parados,
You are right saying science do take into account the influence of the Sun even if the IPCC's Summary for PolicyMakers makes as if AGHGs are the only culprit in Global Warming (true, the SPM is politics, not the science). Maybe the 4th assessment report due to be released in 2007 will correct this omission, even if I have reasons to doubt it.

But I'm afraid you're wrong denying that environmentalists DO omit to talk about solar influences.
Go on Greenpeace site or on the Stop Climate Chaos (!) coalition and tell us where you find they mention the sun when talking about GW ?

As I'm sure more people read these mainstream "tree huggers" explanations about GW than the IPCC's, maybe you should go and tell them to be less certain about the exact role of AGHG and to take into account the sun's role in their "information" center. Not quite sure their marketing & fund raising departements would consider your reality check though.

LOL.. so much for living in reality there miniBernard...

Quote:

Natural factors have made small
contributions to radiative forcing over the
past century.
The radiative forcing due to changes in solar irradiance for
the period since 1750 is estimated to be about +0.3 Wm−2,
most of which occurred during the first half of the 20th
century.

IPCC Summary for PolicyMakers
Page 9, column 1

There is no omission of solar forcings in the IPCC Summary. It mentions it several times. Would you care to make any other statements that are outside reality?

0 Replies

Oh yes, and Greenpeace links to the IPCC report on the page you gave. The same IPCC report that talks about Solar forcings. The same report you don't seem to know a thing about. If Greenpeace links to it how can they be ignoring it?

Nothing like a little dose of reality here. You have now made 2 statements that on their face are not very factual Mini..

0 Replies

Pathetic Parados is LYING again. He wrote:

Solar cycles is a red herring presented by Bernard. Bernard LIED when he said that the IPCC didn't include it at all. The IPCC says pretty clearly that it is part of the warming but can't account for all of it.

I will find my quote on this thread about Solar Cycles which will show that I QUOTED DIRECTLY FROM THE IPCC ABOUT SOLAR CYCLES.

PATHETIC PARADOS IS WRONG AGAIN-

Now, This is what I wrote about Solar Cycles several times_

It has been known for a long time that there is a correlation between solar activity and temperature. PROBABLY, ACCORDING TO THE IPCC, SOLAR BRIGHTNESS HAS INCREASED ABOUT 0.4 PERCENT OVER THE PAST 200-300 YEARS. CAUSING AN INCREASE OF 0.4C AND THE TREND OVER THE LAST DECACEDES IS EQUIVALENT TO ANOTHER 0.4C to 2100.

SOURCE FOR ABOVE---

IPCC-1996a:117

0 Replies

Of course, Pathetic Pusillanimous Parados SHOWED HIS MASSIVE IGNORANCE ABOUT GLOBAL WARMING BY REFUSING TO REPLY TO THIS PIECE OF EVIDENCE.

In case his eyes are going bad, I will replicate it. In the meantime, those interested in the evidence can read it_-

Roy Spencer, Noted Climatologist reported that his calculation of Satellite Temperatures, after recalibration because of drift of the satellites in orbit causing satellite temperatures to be slightly in error, that the claim made by in the Journal Science is in error.Dr Spencer reports that the Article claims that the new atmospheric warming was now corrected to show a 0.19C per decade( meaning of course, a 0.95C warming by 2056).

Dr. Spencer's own calculations show this to be in error, He claims that the new atmospheric warming is only 0.12C per decade. This would mean a warming of 0.60C by 2056 or slightly more than one half of one degree Centigrade by 2056.

(As Dr. Lomborg pointed out in his important book, The Skeptical Environmentalist--quote--WE SHOULD NOT SPEND VAST AMOUNTS OF MONEY TO CUT A TINY SLICE OF THE GLOBAL TEMPERATURE INCREASE WHEN THIS CONSTITUTES A POOR USE OF RESOURCES AND WHEN WE COULD PROBABLY USE THESE FUNDS FAR MORE EFFECTIVELY IN THE DEVELOPING WORLD)
*********************************************************
I will put it as I would put it to a child, Mr. Parados.

a. You see, child, the man named Roy Spencer showed that the bad men who used the number 19 were wrong. The number is really 12. You do remember learning in the second grade that 19 is seven more than 12?

*************************************************************

Is that written in terms you can understand, Mr.Parados, or should I try to put it in Kindergarten terms?

0 Replies

parados wrote:

Oh yes, and Greenpeace links to the IPCC report on the page you gave. The same IPCC report that talks about Solar forcings. The same report you don't seem to know a thing about. If Greenpeace links to it how can they be ignoring it?

Nothing like a little dose of reality here. You have now made 2 statements that on their face are not very factual Mini..

I did'nt state anything NOT factual Parados.

The Summary for Policymaker quote you gave said that solar forcing occurs mostly before the first half of 20th century , added to the fact that most anthropogenic CO2 is emitted in the last decades, added to the hockey stick shape showing a sharp rise in temperature in the 2000's convey the (false) idea that the only driver of climate is CO2. And that's precisely what I said.

And seriously, do you really think a simple link to IPCC's thousands pages of documents on the site of Greenpeace demonstrated they want to inform people of solar influence ??? I think this link is here just to give their page some form of credibility.

But I have the feeling that no matter what I could write, you'll find every possible reason to have a fight. You've reach a point where facts don't matter, only rhetorics counts, so I'll stop right now. Just need to know we have unreconcilable positions. Needless to wage another futile war, even if it's just vocal.
Maybe see you on another topic. :wink:

0 Replies

Bernard, you incredible arrogant twit, stop calling names, and stop talking down and revealing your own complete misunderstanding in the process. Spencer showed no such thing, as you would realize if you ever actually read anything without your preconceptions in mind. His previous calculations had been shown to have made what was described as "a simple algebraic error" by both Spencer and the RSS people who called him on it. The article you cite is Spencer's recalculation of the UAH results with the correction he had to make, and it ups his previous result by a third, not a "minor correction". He never refutes anything about the RSS model, but says, if I remember correctly, only something like "reasonable people can honestly differ". Which is about all he can say, considering that the RSS people are the ones who are the experts on satellite dynamics, not him--he's a climatologist, which is why the results differ, and the RSS figure is now more widely accepted than his.

0 Replies

Cycloptichorn wrote:

Also, this doesn't have to be an either/or game. There is no reason why solutions in the middle can't be found. I'm not saying that we have to do away with all pollution immediately (an impossible idea) but that we should work to curb pollution before it gets worse. If this costs money, in profits for business, so be it! I would rather live someplace clean than in a dirty pit, even if there are more jobs in the pit.
Cycloptichorn

We agree. Anyway, that's the way things are going. Here in Europe, big town's air is cleaner year after year, even if more cars are on the road, simply because motors are cleaner and better filtered, facturies must obey to stricter emission standards, home heating use cleaner fuels. It's the same for major american big cities. These are irrefutable facts, often hidden to the general public for political motives. A recent survey in France showed that more than 95% of people are convinced their cities' atmosphere is more and more polluted !
I don't say all's fine, but considering what's happening in poor countries where the environment is devastated just to feed people, I'd say things are going better, not worse and I'm much more worried for my kids's education, security, employment, drug safe schools and friends than for their environment.

P.S. BTW, you tend to classify CO2 as a pollutant. It's not.

0 Replies

Cycloptichorn wrote:

Also, this doesn't have to be an either/or game. There is no reason why solutions in the middle can't be found.

In this spirit, it is worth noting the results of Yale's William Nordhaus, arguably the most frequently cited economist on this topic. He's the one who found, based on the IPCC scenarios, that Kyoto is more trouble than it's worth. BernardR accepts him and has occasionally cited him as an authority for his position. Nordhaus has calculated the carbon tax rate that best balances the benefits of curbing global warming against the cost of the tax. A draft of his book chapter is webbed (PDF). I submit his results as a reasonable baseline for compromises.

Now what are Nordhaus's results? If you go to page 7-34 (page 34 of the PDF document), figure 7-3 shows you the trajectory of the optimal tax over time in 1999 dollars per ton of carbon. It starts at $7 in 2010, rises to $20 in 2035, and on to almost $70 in 2105. Translated into gasoline prices, that would be about 18 cent/gallon in 2010, 54 cent per gallon in 2035, and almost $1.89 in 2105.

How does this compare with current tax policies? In the US, the federal gas tax is about 20 cents/gallon. States charge between 10 and 30 cents on top of that. (Source: Wikipedia) As I understand it, gasoline taxes in the US are designed to pay for the cost of building and maintaining roads. Because there is no extra markup for environmental purposes, your CO2 tax on gasoline is zero in terms of Nordhaus's model.

On the other hand, there is a significant environmental markup on European taxes. According to Germany's Wikipedia, our taxes are currently $2.92/gallon for gasoline and $2.11 for Diesel. (Admittedly, our economy is ailing. But it isn't collapsing, and the mineral oil tax isn't the reason it's ailing.) Assuming that European road cost about as much to build as American roads, Germany is overtaxing its drivers by at $1-$2 per gallon, as do other European nations. Meanwhile, America is undertaxing them by $0.18/gallon.

Measured against the cost-benefit optimum Nordhaus and coworkers found, gas tax policies on both continents are non-optimal. But if Europe's current policies are still reasonably responsible, the United States' certainly are, too.

0 Replies

As of 2002 federal and state taxes were:

http://www.energy.ca.gov/gasoline/images/gas_taxes_by_state_2002.jpg

I think the Federal tax may be up 1 cent since 2002.

Source: http://www.energy.ca.gov/gasoline/statistics/gas_taxes_by_state_2002.html

There is a link to compare these rates with those from 1998 or 1999.

0 Replies

Cycloptichorn wrote:

Also, this doesn't have to be an either/or game. There is no reason why solutions in the middle can't be found. I'm not saying that we have to do away with all pollution immediately (an impossible idea) but that we should work to curb pollution before it gets worse. If this costs money, in profits for business, so be it! I would rather live someplace clean than in a dirty pit, even if there are more jobs in the pit.

Cycloptichorn

Cyclops, I agree with you in the spirit of what you say, but only to a point. I think the difference of opinion arises from where the moderate and reasonable policy should be. I think we as humans are living longer and healthier now than we have in the past, before most of this so-called terrible pollution has occurred. And I contend that the worst health hazards are those that we voluntarily do to ourselves, most importantly smoking, drinking, bad diets, and lack of exercise. I don't know if you want to go there right now, that is a subject unto itself, but I think it can be amply demonstrated that just those 4 things I listed are far worse than any pollution hazards we may suffer. And as I said, aren't we living longer now?

To clarify, I think the tree huggers are way out in left field on many issues, while at the same time I have issues that I think might need more done in terms of oversight, research, and regulation, as relates to public health, and that is in the area of food production. I am particularly disturbed by mass production of beef, pork, and chicken, and think we need to find out more about the effects of hormones and antibiotics on the public. In the area of cars, burning of fossil fuels, etc., I think Al Gore for example is out of his mind for suggesting the internal combustion engine is the greatest threat to mankind, as he did in his book, Earth in the Balance. I think the Global Warming scare is way overblown, as is obvious by my participation here on this board.

Minitax explained it very well by reminding us there are tradeoffs. We could go back to the caves, but that option is not so appealing. I would remind you that the Indians were lucky to live into their 40s when White Man came to this continent. Instead of complaining about pollution and all the rest and expecting doomsday any day because of global warming or whatever, I fail to see why you can't simply be more optimistic, because after all look at how well we are living and how much better things are than they have been. Be happy and optimistic. Its much easier.

0 Replies

There is also the issue of whether higher taxes and different government policies will actually translate into an improved environment. The regulations requiring scrubbers on noxious fumes/smoke emitted from factories was definitely a good thing. Regulations reducing CO2 emissions from automobiles has yet to be proved to produce significantly improved conditions.

0 Replies

Global Warming...New Report...and it ain't happy news

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know