Fixing Climate Change May Add No Costs, Report Says

[futurecurrents]

More on the recent fraud/fool of piehole's..... Richard Lindzen.



Quotes by Richard Lindzen
Climate MythWhat the Science Says
""We’ve already seen almost the equivalent of a doubling of CO2 (in radiative forcing) and that has produced very little warming""
25 July 2012 (Source)
This argument ignores the cooling effect of aerosols and the planet's thermal inertia.
"If I’m wrong, we’ll know it in 50 years and can do something."
30 April 2012 (Source)
A large amount of warming is delayed, and if we don’t act now we could pass tipping points.

"Only with positive feedbacks from water vapor and clouds does one get the large warmings that are associated with alarm. What the satellite data seems to show is that these positive feedbacks are model artifacts."
22 February 2012 (Source)
Evidence is building that net cloud feedback is likely positive and unlikely to be strongly negative.
"...one can see no warming since 1997."
22 February 2012 (Source)
Global temperature is still rising and 2010 was the hottest recorded.

"As Phil Jones acknowledged, there has been no statistically significant warming in 15 years."
22 February 2012 (Source)
Phil Jones was misquoted.
"You have to remember, this is an issue where what most scientists agree on has nothing to do with the alarm. I think the real problem is so many scientists have gone along with it without pointing out that what has been established reasonably well has nothing to do with the urgency that’s being promoted, which is largely a political matter."
6 April 2011 (Source)
A large amount of warming is delayed, and if we don’t act now we could pass tipping points.

"In the North Pole, you don’t have a [ice] cap, you have sea ice; it’s very variable. And as far as Greenland and Antarctica go, there’s no evidence of any significant change. I mean, you know, again your measurements aren’t that great, but any reports you hear are again focusing on tiny changes that would have no implication."
6 April 2011 (Source)
Arctic sea ice has shrunk by an area equal to Western Australia, and summer or multi-year sea ice might be all gone within a decade.

"The crucial thing is sensitivity: you know, what do you expect a doubling of CO2 to do? If it's only a degree, then you could go through at least two doublings and probably exhaust much of your fossil fuel before you would do anything that would bother anyone."
6 April 2011 (Source)
Net positive feedback is confirmed by many different lines of evidence.
"[Emissions cuts] would be a moral disaster, because it would mean that much of the world would preclude development and so they'd be more vulnerable to the disasters that occur regardless of man [...] Your vulnerability increases as your wealth decreases."
6 April 2011 (Source)
Those who contribute the least greenhouse gases will be most impacted by climate change.

"The evidence is pretty good that even if everyone [cut emissions] in the whole world it wouldn't make a lot of difference."
6 April 2011 (Source)
If every nation agrees to limit CO2 emissions, we can achieve significant cuts on a global scale.

"It's a heavy cost for no benefit, and it's no benefit for you, no benefit for your children, no benefit for your grandchildren, no benefit for your great-great-great-great-grandchildren. I mean, what's the point of that?"
6 April 2011 (Source)
The benefits of a price on carbon outweigh the costs several times over.

"For Australia to act now is, you know, a bit bizarre, and certainly cannot be justified by any impact it would have on Australia or anyone."
6 April 2011 (Source)
A large amount of warming is delayed, and if we don’t act now we could pass tipping points.

"I think even Flannery acknowledged that Australia doing this [a carbon tax] would have no discernible impact for virtually a millennium, even if Australia's output during that millennium was increasing exponentially."
6 April 2011 (Source)
CO2 limits won't cool the planet, but they can make the difference between continued accelerating global warming to catastrophic levels vs. slowing and eventually stopping the warming at hopefully safe levels
"If we doubled CO2, it's well accepted that you should get about 1 degree warming if nothing else happened. [...] But 1 degree is reckoned as not very significant. The question then is: is what we've seen so far suggesting that you have more than that, and the answer is no."
6 April 2011 (Source)
Net positive feedback is confirmed by many different lines of evidence.
"If we doubled CO2, it's well accepted that you should get about 1 degree warming if nothing else happened."
6 April 2011 (Source)
Net positive feedback is confirmed by many different lines of evidence.
"The models do say you should have seen 2-5 times more than you've already seen, you know, you have to then accept, if you believe the models, that you actually should have gotten far more warming than you've seen, but some mysterious process has cancelled part of it."
6 April 2011 (Source)
This argument ignores the cooling effect of aerosols and the planet's thermal inertia.
"If nothing else changed, adding the amount of CO2 that we've added thus far should account for maybe a quarter of what we've seen."
6 April 2011 (Source)
Theory, models and direct measurement confirm CO2 is currently the main driver of climate change.
"There's not too much disagreement that there has been a very small increase in temperature [...] This is pretty tiny; it's a fraction of a degree."
6 April 2011 (Source)
A few degrees of global warming has a huge impact on ice sheets, sea levels and other aspects of climate.

 

[futurecurrents]

In short, every "scientist" piehole has paraded out here in the last few months in his putrid posts are paid-for whores, frauds, and just plain fools that the other 97% of climate scientists basically just laugh at. One wonders why they are the only ones he references. Almost like he works for a conservative think tank.

 

[piezoe]

So you are basically saying that CO2 cannot be a greenhouse gas. Because if it was, rising levels would have to cause rising temps and you say it doesn't. Interesting, but absurd, position you are taking there.

Okay, since you seem to be confused with that chart, here's some other looks. Are you jem?

Remember piehole, CO2 is a greenhouse gas. Here's another chart you will have problems understanding.

Let me know if we need to review the basic science of greenhouse gasses.

Here are points I hope you will read and comprehend.

1) Correlation does not necessarily have anything to do with causation! I can take almost any two independent variables I choose, and by selecting only a portion of their analog records and plotting them using different y-axis scales for each, make them appear as though they are highly correlated.

2) technically, among other things, CO2 is a greenhouse gas. This is a necessary but not sufficient condition, for CO2 to have a significant greenhouse effect that is noticeable against all the other phenomena that affect the Earths surface temperature. It's an, as yet, impossible task to accurately separate out the magnitudes of the individual components of the Earths climate. That might be possible if there existed accurate models of the long term climate. None exist. What is being debated currently is whether a small change of ~100 molecules of CO2 in a million air molecules will have a noticeable affect on the Earths surface temperature. Most scientists would intuitively respond, "it's impossible to detect such an effect against the background of all the other temperature influences. The models that assume an effect have been developed by incorporating various feedback mechanisms. The "science" being used here is horribly flawed. This is now beginning to be recognized by the majority of well trained scientists, including myself, Lindzen, Woodcock, Salby, and many many others, all of whom have international reputations in their respective fields.

3) Lindzen was a lead author for the IPCC. Why would you trust your opinion over his? I certainly wouldn't do that. Though I am a well-trained scientist with years of research experience and an international reputation in my field, I would certainly defer to Lindzen's opinion over my own, as I am neither a meteorologist nor atmospheric physicist. I originally made the mistake of trusting Hansen's judgement (Gore's was never an issue) but he has by now been shown to have been wrong. It is not unusual for scientists who become administrators to lose touch with current developments and for their science to become a bit "shaky" over time. I suppose that is Hansen's case. No matter, as a scientist you must satisfactorily address every observation that runs counter to your hypotheses, and Hansen hasn't done that. He has become personally invested, just as you have, in the outcome of current climate research. That's destroyed his objectivity, just as it has destroyed yours. When you leave science behind and start calling those who disagree with you assholes or idiots, you've lost your objectivity, and your science can no longer be trusted. It's OK to say my position is silly in your opinion, or even to call me an idiot, but when you leave it at that and continue to repeat the same argument without addressing the flaws in it that others see, your argument loses credibility.

4) You have repeatedly fallen back on opinion poles to make your case for CO2 driven global warming. You have also sited summary statements issued by various scientific bodies. These summaries, having been prepared or edited by administrators, can be quite misleading. They can obscure subtle details, and suggest something that isn't true. For example, if you asked meteorologists if they believe there has been global warming, the vast majority will say "yes", there has been, though some will say it's uncertain. One might carelessly conclude that the majority of the meteorologists believe the Hansen hypothesis is correct, but that's wrong. Only a minority of meteorologists believe we are in danger of catastrophic warming, and there is about a fifty/fifty split on how important anthro CO2 is with regard to warming. That is far from settled science. But you might not know this from the summary statement being issued by their professional organization. Keep an open mind. Follow the science, and remain vigilant whenever you see signs of emotional, or political involvement in what should be a purely scientific issue. Lindzen, in his J Physicians and Surgeons article in 2013, contrasted science as a means of inquiry versus science as source of authority. Sadly, it's the latter that we have got caught up in with regard to the Global warming. It is time we got back to science as a means of inquiry, and that's where you'll find Lindzen, and Salby, versus Hansen who is out on the streets protesting that we haven't taken him seriously enough. How can you expect scientists to go along with an hypothesis that is not supported by either observation or reason?

5) None of my arguments should be interpreted as having anything to do with the desirability of this environmental measure or that. I am making a plea to avoid basing policy on defective science! What I fear could happen now is that we get involved with CO2 abatement measures around the globe just as we enter a long period of naturally occurring global cooling. We could then be hearing how effective our measures have been, when nothing could be further from the scientific truth. The layman is far too easily deluded when science is used as a means of authority.

[For those with no scientific training, do not confuse the global warming issue with the ozone hole matter, as lay persons often do. They are unrelated different issues. The ozone business is scientifically sound, having being sorted out by the brilliantly conceived kinetic studies of Frank Rowland and Mario Molina, UC, Irvine. The global warming advocate position, on the other hand, is anything but sound. There is a startling contrast to be drawn here. In the case of Ozone Layer Depletion, the Corporate, and therefore political, interests were all aligned against the science, but science, as it must do, triumphed in the end. In the Present Global warming issue, corporate interests are mixed, i.e., those corporate interests who will profit from carbon credits trading and CO2 abatement are aligned against the science, and those who stand to lose profits are aligned with the science. Politicians are split between those aligned with and those against the science. (We could generalize by saying that democrats are aligned against and republicans with the science, but neither for the right reasons!) Curiously, none of the sides as yet understand where the real science lies. Once that's known by the vested interests, we should see a hardening of positions until it becomes untenable to remain on the losing side. This will play out in the next few years, let's hope. In the meantime, much time and money is going to be wasted.]

 

[piezoe]

I fell asleep while trying to edit the above post which is for FC's benefit. I warn you, it's boring. I also caught several misplaced commas and a couple errors (sited for cited). that I didn't correct because I was asleep before my time was up.

 

[gwb-trading]

I fell asleep while trying to edit the above post which is for FC's benefit. I warn you, it's boring. I also caught several misplaced commas and a couple errors (sited for cited). that I didn't correct because I was asleep before my time was up.

Why worry.... it's not like FC is really capable of reading and comprehending.

 

[futurecurrents]

1) no shit sherlock just more bullshit fluff from you. But what are the odds that exactly when man starts emitting large amounts of CO2 the atmospheric levels go up along with temperature. Do you have any logical thinking capabilities. Don't they teach you that at the think tank?

2) first two sentences ok yes CO2 is a greenhouse gas. Very good. Then you say we don't say how much effect it has. Well that didn't take long. You are once again absurdly wrong. We know how much forcing it does. Amazing that you don't know this. But seeing the fools and frauds you refer to for your science I can understand why.

For a greenhouse gas, such as carbon dioxide, radiative transfer codes that examine each spectral line for atmospheric conditions can be used to calculate the change ΔF as a function of changing concentration. These calculations can often be simplified into an algebraic formulation that is specific to that gas.

For instance, the simplified first-order approximation expression for carbon dioxide is:

where C is the CO2 concentration in parts per million by volume and C0 is the reference concentration.[5] The relationship between carbon dioxide and radiative forcing is logarithmic, and thus increased concentrations have a progressively smaller warming effect.


Furthermore, we can measure the changes in forcing of the various GHG's over time as these levels go up.

Your using number of molecules to diminish it doesn't change the fact that CO2 has gone up 40%.

"This is now beginning to be recognized by the majority of well trained scientists, including myself, Lindzen, Woodcock, Salby, and many many others, all of whom have international reputations in their respective fields."

LOL. So you agree that you belong with those other frauds and fools that the science community laughs at.
Too funny.



So which think tank are you working for piehole?

You sir are a fucking liar. That much is glaringly obvious. What do you think about that? A piece of shit whore liar is what you are.

I'm not even going to bother to debunk the rest of the pile of festering shit you dumped. The first few things suffice to show you are a fraud. You truly disgust me. If you were on the road I would go out of my way to run your sorry ass over.

Here are points I hope you will read and comprehend.

1) Correlation does not necessarily have anything to do with causation! I can take almost any two independent variables I choose, and by selecting only a portion of their analog records and plotting them using different y-axis scales for each, make them appear as though they are highly correlated.

2) technically, among other things, CO2 is a greenhouse gas. This is a necessary but not sufficient condition, for CO2 to have a significant greenhouse effect that is noticeable against all the other phenomena that affect the Earths surface temperature. It's an, as yet, impossible task to accurately separate out the magnitudes of the individual components of the Earths climate. That might be possible if there existed accurate models of the long term climate. None exist. What is being debated currently is whether a small change of ~100 molecules of CO2 in a million air molecules will have a noticeable affect on the Earths surface temperature. Most scientists would intuitively respond, "it's impossible to detect such an effect against the background of all the other temperature influences. The models that assume an effect have been developed by incorporating various feedback mechanisms. The "science" being used here is horribly flawed. This is now beginning to be recognized by the majority of well trained scientists, including myself, Lindzen, Woodcock, Salby, and many many others, all of whom have international reputations in their respective fields.

3) Lindzen was a lead author for the IPCC. Why would you trust your opinion over his? I certainly wouldn't do that. Though I am a well-trained scientist with years of research experience and an international reputation in my field, I would certainly defer to Lindzen's opinion over my own, as I am neither a meteorologist nor atmospheric physicist. I originally made the mistake of trusting Hansen's judgement (Gore's was never an issue) but he has by now been shown to have been wrong. It is not unusual for scientists who become administrators to lose touch with current developments and for their science to become a bit "shaky" over time. I suppose that is Hansen's case. No matter, as a scientist you must satisfactorily address every observation that runs counter to your hypotheses, and Hansen hasn't done that. He has become personally invested, just as you have, in the outcome of current climate research. That's destroyed his objectivity, just as it has destroyed yours. When you leave science behind and start calling those who disagree with you assholes or idiots, you've lost your objectivity, and your science can no longer be trusted. It's OK to say my position is silly in your opinion, or even to call me an idiot, but when you leave it at that and continue to repeat the same argument without addressing the flaws in it that others see, your argument loses credibility.

4) You have repeatedly fallen back on opinion poles to make your case for CO2 driven global warming. You have also sited summary statements issued by various scientific bodies. These summaries, having been prepared or edited by administrators, can be quite misleading. They can obscure subtle details, and suggest something that isn't true. For example, if you asked meteorologists if they believe there has been global warming, the vast majority will say "yes", there has been, though some will say it's uncertain. One might carelessly conclude that the majority of the meteorologists believe the Hansen hypothesis is correct, but that's wrong. Only a minority of meteorologists believe we are in danger of catastrophic warming, and there is about a fifty/fifty split on how important anthro CO2 is with regard to warming. That is far from settled science. But you might not know this from the summary statement being issued by their professional organization. Keep an open mind. Follow the science, and remain vigilant whenever you see signs of emotional, or political involvement in what should be a purely scientific issue. Lindzen, in his J Physicians and Surgeons article in 2013, contrasted science as a means of inquiry versus science as source of authority. Sadly, it's the latter that we have got caught up in with regard to the Global warming. It is time we got back to science as a means of inquiry, and that's where you'll find Lindzen, and Salby, versus Hansen who is out on the streets protesting that we haven't taken him seriously enough. How can you expect scientists to go along with an hypothesis that is not supported by either observation or reason?

5) None of my arguments should be interpreted as having anything to do with the desirability of this environmental measure or that. I am making a plea to avoid basing policy on defective science! What I fear could happen now is that we get involved with CO2 abatement measures around the globe just as we enter a long period of naturally occurring global cooling. We could then be hearing how effective our measures have been, when nothing could be further from the scientific truth. The layman is far too easily deluded when science is used as a means of authority.

[For those with no scientific training, do not confuse the global warming issue with the ozone hole matter, as lay persons often do. They are unrelated different issues. The ozone business is scientifically sound, having being sorted out by the brilliantly conceived kinetic studies of Frank Rowland and Mario Molina, UC, Irvine. The global warming advocate position, on the other hand, is anything but sound. There is a startling contrast to be drawn here. In the case of Ozone Layer Depletion, the Corporate, and therefore political, interests were all aligned against the science, but science, as it must do, triumphed in the end. In the Present Global warming issue, corporate interests are mixed, i.e., those corporate interests who will profit from carbon credits trading and CO2 abatement are aligned against the science, and those who stand to lose profits are aligned with the science. Politicians are split between those aligned with and those against the science. (We could generalize by saying that democrats are aligned against and republicans with the science, but neither for the right reasons!) Curiously, none of the sides as yet understand where the real science lies. Once that's known by the vested interests, we should see a hardening of positions until it becomes untenable to remain on the losing side. This will play out in the next few years, let's hope. In the meantime, much time and money is going to be wasted.]

 

[Lucrum]

 

[futurecurrents]

Lucrum, you really are a fucking moron.

 

[piezoe]

FC, you quoted an equation from theory that shows only what the radiative heating effect from a change in CO2 should be. In theory, this relationship shows that changes in CO2 produce a vanishingly small effect over any reasonably short period of time. Only over times of many decades would there be a noticeable effect, and that is assuming that delta F is the only important relationship affecting global temperature and that all other phenomena, both cooling and heating, remain static over time. That, naturally, is ludicrous.

I'd like to see you address the most difficult problem faced by those who want to directly observe an effect of rising CO2 on temperature. That is the problem of natural climate variation being overwhelmingly large compared to any possible effect of a small increase in CO2. (Keep in mind that the 40% figure you quote is immaterial.) You must instead consider the mole fraction change in CO2 against the total moles of all the gases in the atmosphere, including CO2, that affect global temperature. An effect of CO2 on global temperature is so far, given the current technology, not directly observable. It's like looking for a needle in a haystack. But whereas we have the technology to find the needle, we don't have it to find the effect of CO2 against the backdrop of all the other phenomena affecting global temperature. We are not even certain what all the phenomena are and which ones are important and which aren't. This is the dilemma faced by those claiming that CO2 is causing global climate change.

The only thing that has been accomplished by the climate alarmists to date is to measure temperature at thousands of points on the Earth, each point having huge variation with time, and then compare averages of those many, many measurements to conclude that the temperature has risen a few tenths of a degree over a century. (Which most, but not all, meteorologists agree with this.) And then, noting that CO2 went up by 40% (or ~100 molecules per million molecules of air), and knowing that CO2 is a greenhouse gas, assume that a few tenths of a degree rise over a century is due to CO2's increase. Considering all the many phenomena that we know are affecting our planets temperature, this, my friend, is not science! It is blatant hucksterism.

 

[piezoe]

By the way, the climate hucksters are now claiming that the reason their models failed to predict the current temperature rise hiatus is that the heat is hiding in the deep oceans. One of FC's charts shows this, but there is nothing unusual about it. Heat from the deep ocean is recognized by meteorologists as one of the sources contributing to natural climate change.