IWETHEY v. 0.3.0 | TODO
1,095 registered users | 0 active users | 0 LpH | Statistics
Login | Create New User
IWETHEY Banner

Welcome to IWETHEY!

New 95% chance that Man is to blame for global warming
say scientists:


The evidence that human activity is causing global warming is much stronger than previously stated and is found in all parts of the world, according to a study that attempts to refute claims from sceptics.

The "fingerprints" of human influence on the climate can be detected not only in rising temperatures but also in the saltiness of the oceans, rising humidity, changes in rainfall and the shrinking of Arctic Sea ice at the rate of 600,000 sq km a decade.

The study, by senior scientists from the Met Office Hadley Centre, Edinburgh University, Melbourne University and Victoria University in Canada, concluded that there was an "increasingly remote possibility" that the sceptics were right that human activities were having no discernible impact. There was a less than 5 per cent likelihood that natural variations in climate were responsible for the changes.

The study said that the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) had understated mankind's overall contribution to climate change. The IPCC had said in 2007 that there was no evidence of warming in the Antarctic. However, the panel said that the latest observations showed that man-made emissions were having an impact on even the remotest continent.



source: http://www.timesonli...rticle7050341.ece




"Chicago to my mind was the only place to be. ... I above all liked the city because it was filled with people all a-bustle, and the clatter of hooves and carriages, and with delivery wagons and drays and peddlers and the boom and clank of freight trains. And when those black clouds came sailing in from the west, pouring thunderstorms upon us so that you couldn't hear the cries or curses of humankind, I liked that best of all. Chicago could stand up to the worst God had to offer. I understood why it was built--a place for trade, of course, with railroads and ships and so on, but mostly to give all of us a magnitude of defiance that is not provided by one house on the plains. And the plains is where those storms come from."

-- E.L. Doctorow
New heard on NPR about ten years ago...
Some coal industry front group (the usual, you know, "Puppies and Kittens for American Prosperity and Sensible Energy Policy") lost track of one of their "internal use only" documents detailing their talking points and fallback positions, and it fell into some reporter's hands. As I recall, the sequence went something like this:

1. There is no global warming (hereafter "GW").

2. If there is GW, there's no evidence that it's man-made.

3. If GW is man-made, the coal industry's got nothing to do with it.

4. Whether or not coal is implicated, GW can't be stopped or slowed.

5. If GW can be stopped or slowed, any such measures would cost too much.

6. Besides, what evidence is there that GW is necessarily a bad thing? Carbon dioxide is good for plants! Carbon dioxide means a greener world!

cordially,
New 7. Ergo, Vegans of the world Unite!
Methodically ascend to CIEIO positions, kill off the herds of methane-expelling, eColi spreading, human toxin carrying cattle -- as your nascent offspring, by sheer numbers -- restore meat to its proper nutritional status: garnish (as in the healthiest cultures yet studied.)

Then on to coal: the rise of wool clothing production and decline of thermostat settings in the well-insulated hovels ... of the former-Affluenza-besotted 'Powers'.)

Sounds like a Plan to me. Or we could eat coal.
New Re: 95% chance that Man is to blame for global warming
from your link
The study found that since 1980, the average global temperature had increased by about 0.5C and that the Earth was continuing to warm at the rate of about 0.16C a decade.
a thirty year period and we have gained 1/2 a degree that is statistically within no dicernable change
This trend is reflected in measurements from the oceans. Warmer temperatures had led to more evaporation from the surface, most noticeably in the sub-tropical Atlantic, said Dr Stott. As a result, the sea was getting saltier.
so less water in the ocean, not rising sea levels. Again there is 7% more carbon in the atmosphere since 1971 so a portion of that perhaps as high as 3% could be mans release. so we need to clean up our emissions. When carbon hits 550 ppm approximately in 200 years without doing anything the northern tree line will be 25 to 30 miles further north and will act as a carbon sink. to cycle it back down because by then peak oil will have been long past and coal itself will be extremely scarce
If we torture the data long enough, it will confess. (Ronald Coase, Nobel Prize for Economic Sciences, 1991)
New Eh?
Box writes:

a thirty year period and we have gained 1/2 a degree that is statistically within no dicernable change


Eh?

Half a degree in 30 years is significant. (Don't confuse this with Phil Jones' comments about the 95% confidence interval on changes since 1995.) Even if you don't agree with the "hockey stick" graph, you can't argue with this: http://en.wikipedia....rature_Record.svg

No discernible change? Just one example: http://dayoday.blogs...-in-20-years.html

Box writes:

Again there is 7% more carbon in the atmosphere since 1971 so a portion of that perhaps as high as 3% could be mans release. so we need to clean up our emissions. When carbon hits 550 ppm approximately in 200 years without doing anything the northern tree line will be 25 to 30 miles further north and will act as a carbon sink. to cycle it back down because by then peak oil will have been long past and coal itself will be extremely scarce


Must be nice to be so confident about what you think you know. :-/

ftp://ftp.cmdl.noaa....2_annmean_mlo.txt

Annual averages at Mauna Loa:
1971: 326.3 ppm
2009: 387.4 ppm

That's a 18.7% increase.

The rate of increase will continue to slowly increase if things do not change (due to increased total emissions by growing populations and growing economies in developing countries). Increased warming will lead to increased methane emissions which will lead to more warming, etc. CO2 levels will continue to rise even if emissions are cut dramatically in the next 20 years - there's a lag:

http://www-wds.world...d/PDF/wps4352.pdf

The ultimate objective of the UNFCCC is to stabilize GHG concentrations in the atmosphere to avoid climate change (UNFCCC, 1992). Due to scientific uncertainties in the climatic system the concentrations level to be stabilized has not been unambiguously determined yet (Metz and van Vuuren 2006). However, there is a general understanding among the scientific community that atmospheric concentrations of CO2 may need to be contained below 450 ppm to avoid the “dangerous interference” mentioned in the UNFCCC text (Kopp 2004). If non-CO2 GHGs are also included, the concentrationss level would be 550 ppm CO2eq. Non-CO2 GHGs would have significant impacts on global warming because of their much higher rediative forcing (or global warming potential) compared to CO2 (IPCC 2007). Moreover, their inclusion provides flexibility to reduce the costs of stabilizing the GHG concentrations (e.g., Weyant et al. 2006).

However, non-CO2 GHGs are often excluded from most existing studies because of lack of data (Sarofim et al 2004). This study too does not include non-CO2 GHGs because neither historical nor forecasts of these gases are available to the details needed here.

To stabilize atmospheric CO2 concentrations at 450 ppm level, global CO2 emissions must decline before 2030 (Grubb et al 2006; Stern 2006). The Fourth Assessment Report of IPCC concludes that to stabilize CO2 concentrations between 400 --- 440 ppm level, global CO2 emissions should start declining by 2020; to stabilize CO2 concentrations between 440 --- 485 ppm level, global CO2 emissions should start declining by 2030 (IPCC 2007). To achieve this level of stabilization, stringent mitigation targets and wider participation, including non-Annex I countries, might be required.

In this study, we have developed two scenarios for the near-term (i.e., until 2030) targets for CO2 emissions reductions in line with long term stabilization of CO2 concentrations at 450 ppm level. While developing these scenarios we followed two principles. First, Annex I countries’ historical emissions are primarily responsible for the hitherto build up of GHG concentrations in the atmosphere. Secondly, non-Annex I countries share in the total CO2 emissions is continuously increasing and will surpass to that of Annex I countries within a few years. By 2030, non-Annex countries would contribute 55 percent of the global CO2 emissions (EIA, 2007b). It is unlikely to get global emissions declining before 2030 unless non-Annex I countries’ total emissions start declining. We therefore consider two scenarios for non-Annex I countries’ total emissions15 : stabilization of their total CO2 emissions at the (i) 2020 level and (ii) 2030 level16. In the case of Annex I countries, their emissions paths are assumed to follow the targets as specified below in both scenarios:

[...]


It's a big problem, Box...

Cheers,
Scott.
New You don't understand
boxley has a deep investment in the notion that global warming is a crock of shit. The stance appeals to his contrarian self-image, as well as to his notion that he's an independent thinker who casts a wide net and considers all the evidence (the rest of us have seen, since he's been kind enough in many instances to cite it, the calibre of the "evidence" he relies upon. The words "world" "net" "daily" should suffice: as well rely on "Jack T. Chick" tracts for analysis of Catholic doctrine as take pointers from WND for anything having to do with our common reality). You will find that no authority, no data you could possibly advance will penetrate an ironclad certainty that, like a virus cunningly disguised in an armored coat of counterfeit proteins, masquerades as skepticism.

In short: he is not to be reasoned with on this subject. Understand that your posts are for the benefit of the rest of us, and not for the Unboxed Universe. Would that the UU could maintain its own atmosphere!

cordially,

(sparse postings of late have been consequence of The Thing That's Going Around—a nasty respiratory ailment, sickest I've been since the turn of the century—that seized me about a month ago, kept me bedridden for a week* and is still keeping me in occasional coughing fits, although for the past several days I have begun to feel almost human)

*Even BDS, my oddly indulgent employer, would likely have set the beancounters on my sorry ass had I not dragged said ass to work in time to meet a couple of intractable deadlines in February. It is well that I have two large rooms to myself without any colleagues to infect.
New sorry to see you sick
having had the worst fecking cold in the last two weeks I sympathise. Where have I postulated that the earth is nor warming? I object to the religious fervor of some who insist we only have 3 months or 12 months to ship all gdp from the US to the swiss bank accounts of third world 3rd world leaders or New York will be underwater in less than 10 years.

Looking at some of the purported coding of the hadley establishment I see some very sorry assed logic.

Downloaded the source code from noaa who believes in open source I am currently looking over the fortran code and it appears fine except in a couple of modules where all temps are multiplied by 1.5 I need to brush up on my fortran to clearly understand why. Too early to call wrong.

Looked at some actual source data that is available from government sources. Carbon is increasing and the temps have risen 1/2 degree in the last 30 years, minimum climate cycle to evaluate. so by 2070 60 years from now the global temps may match the medieval warming period or almost as high.

What does that give us? The geologic records are available as a precedent. If you have relatives in California advise them to fill warehouses with bottled water starting 2020 you will expect to have 98% less water in 2070.

Carbon takeup by the oceans is matching pace with the excess but SCIENCE doesnt know how long or what the breakpoint is.

In conclusion, you green fucks on the west cost stopped building nukes on earthquake fault lines, keep yer fossil fuel burning leccy sources and bitch all the way to a waterless future

regards,
box

If we torture the data long enough, it will confess. (Ronald Coase, Nobel Prize for Economic Sciences, 1991)
New Re: sorry to see you sick
Fortran code is open sourced? That's a new one on me.




"Chicago to my mind was the only place to be. ... I above all liked the city because it was filled with people all a-bustle, and the clatter of hooves and carriages, and with delivery wagons and drays and peddlers and the boom and clank of freight trains. And when those black clouds came sailing in from the west, pouring thunderstorms upon us so that you couldn't hear the cries or curses of humankind, I liked that best of all. Chicago could stand up to the worst God had to offer. I understood why it was built--a place for trade, of course, with railroads and ships and so on, but mostly to give all of us a magnitude of defiance that is not provided by one house on the plains. And the plains is where those storms come from."

-- E.L. Doctorow
New the code, not the compiler
If we torture the data long enough, it will confess. (Ronald Coase, Nobel Prize for Economic Sciences, 1991)
New Skepticism is good, and necessary.
It's good that Box challenges the popular presentation of the science. Skepticism is good. It would be better, though, if he would find better sources to use as evidence to support his view that Hansen and others are wrong. Yeah, WND is, um, ... :-)

As he says, though, get well soon!

Cheers,
Scott.
(Who often seems to get sickly when the seasons change, and who whose nose notices that Spring is coming.)
New Re: Skepticism is good, and necessary.
Real skepticism good. Phony skepticism (certitude in skepticism's raiment) not so much. Dogmatic skepticism even less so. Would you be as indulgent of boxley if he weighed in as frequently on behalf of Young Earth creationists as he does on behalf of global warming denialists? If not, why not? After all, Darwinism is merely a "theory," hey? Surely we ought to give equal weight to the opinions—pardon me, to the findings—of the Biblical literalists, don't you think? And if not, why be so indulgent with Master Oxley?

cordially,
New I think he's not a lost cause.
He is willing to accept some evidence, unlike the creationists. And, as he says, he accepts the evidence but disagrees with (IMO strawman) policy arguments that he thinks the IPCC and others are pushing. I appreciate the challenge he offers.

Why? Well I see some of myself in some of his arguments. I was briefly taken in by McI & McK and their criticism of the "hockey stick" graph; and I remember being a fan of Neal Bortz as a kid. For a while. :-/

It's good to be forced to support propositions. Sites that only have similar posters are boring. :-)

But, yeah, he needs better sources. ;-)

Cheers,
Scott.
New noaa isnt a good source and wikipedia is? tough crowd
If we torture the data long enough, it will confess. (Ronald Coase, Nobel Prize for Economic Sciences, 1991)
New sorry no wikiagwing allowed
when wikipedia has a full time editor pushing agw and culling anything to the contrary please use other sources
well I tend to mean out a carbon flask collection site parked next to an active volcano
if you notice I posited a 550 ppm in 200 years higher than the targeted numbers but meets the inclusive ghg mentioned in your cite. Giving us 50 years to cleanup how and what we burn starting now isnt a HUGE problem. Very solvable in the time frame. Nuke plants would cover most of that by then. Pity all the greenies grew up on 50's and 60s grade B horror mutation movies. We could have had them by now.
If we torture the data long enough, it will confess. (Ronald Coase, Nobel Prize for Economic Sciences, 1991)
New Hmmm.
That Wikipedia link is to a graph. Here's the source, if Wikipedia scares you. http://www.ncdc.noaa...emp-anom-larg.jpg It's from NOAA - http://www.ncdc.noaa...monthly/index.php

CO2 isn't like cigarette butts pollution. It sticks around and has long term effects with long lags.

If nothing is done, the atmospheric CO2 level is predicted to reach 500-550 ppm in 2050 (40 years, not 200 years). But it won't stop there, it'll rise to 700-900 ppm by 2100 - http://www.climatesc...-1a-final-ch4.pdf (p.8 of the 52 page .pdf)

As the previous link pointed out, to stop the atmospheric CO2 level from rising, significant cuts in emissions are required. In addition, the temperature keeps rising long after the CO2 level stops rising - http://www.pnas.org/...12721106.abstract

This paper shows that the climate change that takes place due to increases in carbon dioxide concentration is largely irreversible for 1,000 years after emissions stop. Following cessation of emissions, removal of atmospheric carbon dioxide decreases radiative forcing, but is largely compensated by slower loss of heat to the ocean, so that atmospheric temperatures do not drop significantly for at least 1,000 years. Among illustrative irreversible impacts that should be expected if atmospheric carbon dioxide concentrations increase from current levels near 385 parts per million by volume (ppmv) to a peak of 450–600 ppmv over the coming century are irreversible dry-season rainfall reductions in several regions comparable to those of the “dust bowl” era and inexorable sea level rise. Thermal expansion of the warming ocean provides a conservative lower limit to irreversible global average sea level rise of at least 0.4–1.0 m if 21st century CO2 concentrations exceed 600 ppmv and 0.6–1.9 m for peak CO2 concentrations exceeding ≈1,000 ppmv. Additional contributions from glaciers and ice sheet contributions to future sea level rise are uncertain but may equal or exceed several meters over the next millennium or longer.


The message isn't "it's hopeless, so why bother", but rather "it's an important problem that we need to start to seriously address sooner rather than later."

Nuclear power isn't a solution to transportation, where most of the oil goes (it's the 2nd largest source of the US's CO2 emissions and only slightly less than coal burnt for electricity - http://www.epa.gov/c...ns/co2_human.html )...

HTH.

Cheers,
Scott.
New if c02 has risen by 65 ppm in the last 40 years
and to reach 550 we need another 182 at the current rate that adds up to 120 years so 2130 is where it hits, but we are working on mitigation as we speak. Patents are being issued, companies going public in the next 5 years that will be busily sequestering c02 so I think it will take a lot longer to get to 550 than 2130
If we torture the data long enough, it will confess. (Ronald Coase, Nobel Prize for Economic Sciences, 1991)
New And why are those companies doing that work?
--

Drew
New because they are AGW folks and want to make a dollar as well
why does anyone do any work? To get paid
If we torture the data long enough, it will confess. (Ronald Coase, Nobel Prize for Economic Sciences, 1991)
New Let's see if I've got this straight
1. There is no global warming (hereafter "GW").

2. If there is GW, there's no evidence that it's man-made.

3. If GW is man-made, the coal industry's got nothing to do with it.

4. Whether or not coal is implicated, GW can't be stopped or slowed.

5. If GW can be stopped or slowed, any such measures would cost too much.

6. Besides, what evidence is there that GW is necessarily a bad thing? Carbon dioxide is good for plants! Carbon dioxide means a greener world!

And now ...

7. In any case, the problem -- not that there is one -- is already being addressed by companies sequestering carbon. So we don't need government programs to pay anyone to do anything. (Please don't notice that those companies sequestering carbon are doing it because of existing government programs.)
--

Drew
New beating the straw man with the red herring again?
I did not post any of your assertions 1-6

7 is a bogus premise made upon a false assertion

payment for carbon sequestering is fine. Payment to algore and swiss banks for 3rd world dictators is not. The second was/is the copenhagen plan
If we torture the data long enough, it will confess. (Ronald Coase, Nobel Prize for Economic Sciences, 1991)
New Cap and trade is trying to appease Republicans
If someone proposes that the government pay directly for a specific solution to a problem, "free market" supporters argue that central planning doesn't work. Cap and trade has always been a bastardized mess designed to "allow the market to find the best solution".

If someone proposed a way to directly pay companies to reduce emissions and/or increase sequestration, it would get shot down on a strict party-line vote.
--

Drew
New Herein you see the issue
"Payment to algore"

If Gore is for it, Box is against it. Science doesn't enter into it at all.
New if gore wants money for it Im against it science be damned
If we torture the data long enough, it will confess. (Ronald Coase, Nobel Prize for Economic Sciences, 1991)
New Point made.
     95% chance that Man is to blame for global warming - (lincoln) - (23)
         heard on NPR about ten years ago... - (rcareaga) - (1)
             7. Ergo, Vegans of the world Unite! - (Ashton)
         Re: 95% chance that Man is to blame for global warming - (boxley) - (20)
             Eh? - (Another Scott) - (19)
                 You don't understand - (rcareaga) - (7)
                     sorry to see you sick - (boxley) - (2)
                         Re: sorry to see you sick - (lincoln) - (1)
                             the code, not the compiler -NT - (boxley)
                     Skepticism is good, and necessary. - (Another Scott) - (3)
                         Re: Skepticism is good, and necessary. - (rcareaga) - (2)
                             I think he's not a lost cause. - (Another Scott) - (1)
                                 noaa isnt a good source and wikipedia is? tough crowd -NT - (boxley)
                 sorry no wikiagwing allowed - (boxley) - (10)
                     Hmmm. - (Another Scott) - (9)
                         if c02 has risen by 65 ppm in the last 40 years - (boxley) - (8)
                             And why are those companies doing that work? -NT - (drook) - (7)
                                 because they are AGW folks and want to make a dollar as well - (boxley) - (6)
                                     Let's see if I've got this straight - (drook) - (5)
                                         beating the straw man with the red herring again? - (boxley) - (4)
                                             Cap and trade is trying to appease Republicans - (drook)
                                             Herein you see the issue - (Silverlock) - (2)
                                                 if gore wants money for it Im against it science be damned -NT - (boxley) - (1)
                                                     Point made. -NT - (Silverlock)

Coo coo ca-choo!
81 ms