Should local climate effects be used as evidence of global climate change?

It's the same evidence as sea ice increasing in the Antarctic and that is to say no evidence at all. The climate is so complicated anyone who thinks they can model it have been proven wrong repeatedly.

You can show the earth is warming but you can never reliably predict the future of the climate.

 

No - because global warming theory doesn't suggest things like that wouldn't happen. In fact, it does the opposite. While GW theory is based on the idea of overall temperature increases, it also predicts more extreme temperatures - both high and low. I'm making up numbers, but imagine something like winters being 2 degrees colder and summers being 3 degrees warmer. The net effect is an increase in average temperatures, but it also means more extreme cold too.

That said, you also can't take individual examples and use them as evidence of GW theory either. It could just be a freak winter. You have to look at extended trends over time.

 

Last year's IPCC report showing 17 years of no warming ought to debunk global warming just fine. It's stunning that anyone still thinks that man's actions have anything to do with global warming. There simply is no objective argument for this junk science. As I have stated previously, global warming is a movement to stunt Asian economies' economic and protect Europe from Russia. Domestically, it's an attempt to raise taxes and redistribute income. It has nothing to do with science, and everything to do with geopolitical power.

 

Sorry, that's not true regarding no objective argument. It's one thing to argue "is man causing the warming trend," it's quite another thing to ignore the warming trend.

The trend is not linearly every year, or even every "17 years." (I see your measurement is from the latest spike in the graph below,,,nice!) There are spikes and lows. But the trend moves upward over the last 100 yrs. Again, this doesn't mean man is causing it, but it does show a clear trend

And the undeniable fact is man, without a doubt, is uncovering and releasing sequestered carbon like no other species has ever done.

 

Oh, and the other thing to note in the graph is the spike in warming during WWII, when mechanized armies trampled the world, while factories pumped out war machines. Coincidence?

 

So many problems with that, I don't know where to start. The first place to start is that there are over 20 climate change drivers, CO2 being merely one. Climate models focused solely on C02 have been very very poor at hindcasting or forecasting temperatures. Secondly, CO2 changes in the atmosphere follow, not lead, temperature increases, turning the causation thesis into a falsehood. Thirdly, if your thesis was true, then if man is pumping out more C02 than ever, then why have temperatures not risen over 17 years? There are too many logical errors in your position.

Why did this movement originate in politics? Ask yourself that. The answer has already been provided. Slow China's growth. Protect resource-poor Europe from resource-rich Russia. Raise taxes to balance unwieldy budget deficits in the US and redistribute income. This movement is a geopolitical weapon that the developed economies are using to wage war against the developing economies.

 

Sorry to break protocol, but Illuminati please enlighten this man. He knows too much.

 

I'm glad everyone has now agreed that using anecdotal weather like Katrina and Sandy as direct proof of climate change is the sign of a moron.

 

Wikipedia quotes last year's report as saying:

[rquoter]
Human influence has been detected in warming of the atmosphere and the ocean, in changes in the global water cycle, in reductions in snow and ice, in global mean sea level rise, and in changes in some climate extremes. This evidence for human influence has grown since AR4. It is extremely likely (95-100%) that human influence has been the dominant cause of the observed warming since the mid-20th century.
[/rquoter]

Any ideas as to this discrepancy between your interpretation of the report's findings and what the report itself concluded? You think its a conspiracy aimed at curbing China/Russia? Sounds a little "out there", though admittedly I'm not as informed as I should be on this issue.

 

Well that make no sense because requiring cars to become more fuel efficient hurts the middle and lower class more than the upper class.

Ford could make a 60mpg Taurus tomorrow if they used advanced carbon/magnesium/aluminum construction, direct injection etc.

Raising taxes on petrol has a similar outcome. This is more about fear and stupidity like everything else.

 

CO2 is the ONLY one that involves releasing a prehistoric, sequestered GHG.

Your argument is just misguided. Anyone who says water vapor is the #1 GHG as an argument against Carbon does not understand the issue with Carbon, and why Carbon is special. It is special, because all other major GHGs are in equilibrium with the planet's history.

We are not uncovering water that is otherwise trapped in the planet. We are uncovering trapped carbon that otherwise would not be released to the atmosphere. We are the only species that has ever dug holes into the ground to release Carbon, or anything.

Look at it this way,,,we are burning fuel from 100s of millions of year ago. The planet has never dealt with extra fuel burning like that before by a species.

My science is not flawed. Your political position doesn't seem to care.

 

Your statements are pretty flawed and wrong.

 

97% of peer reviewed studies published between 1991 and 2011 concluded that humans were responsible for climate change. Doesn't sound like junk science to me.

 

nope. nopah. nadda.

Is that an appropriate response to yours? I'm a big advocate of bigtexxx when he says...that's no response. bring it!

Look, I'm not some dork who listens to news and searches things on the internet. If you have not noticed, I do not argue in D&D, pretty much at all. Because, I feel many of you are more knowledgeable than me on most the subjects.

But, in this case, not true. This is what my company does.

Do you know what a Materiality Assessment is? Do you know what an LCA is? EPD? HPD?

We have 40+ PhDs on staff and over 50 Global 500 client companies with PhDs on staff, too. We analyze academic papers on this subject and consult with business on how to best interpret the data and use it for their financial bottomline. But most importantly, my software generates data that no other company or university can generate in this world, because companies trust us to give us all their data to help them analyze their product development ideas. We have 20yrs of industry data on environmental impacts....more than the 20+ GHGs that some dude above tried to lecture me about.

I can tell you our clients' motives, but that's another thread. The point is: we are a global leader in interpreting this data in an objective manner. That's how we make our money.

You are mistaken if you think our data is flawed. And my statements about releasing sequestered carbon are not flawed.

Do you want to explain to me what data you have to prove all the PhDs at my company and all our Global 500 clients wrong.

Let's start with Mercedes Benz take on this subject.

 

LOL, do YOU have a doctorate?

A few facts you wiffed on.

Wrong.

Funfact: Methane is sequestered away trapped under the ocean among other places. CO2 is created during combustion, released from volcanos etc.

But there are tons of gases. WTF do you mean by prehistoric anyways?

Wrong. Not sure what equilibrium means in this context, but whatever the meaning, it's false.

Funfact:Carbon (you should specify carbor or CO2 in your posts) is special because it is the basis of life,

Carbon Dioxide is special for climate change because we create it in large quantities when we burn fossil fuels.

Sure we are, where do you think water wells drill to?

what do you think happens when we build a city and dump water on the concrete, or create dams, spray crops with water in California instead of letting the river go into the ocean. Water vapor enters the atmosphere.

 

somehow we live in a world where it makes sense to prioritize, above all else, making sure that our progeny don't pay more paper bills then they have to, rather than leaving them with a world flush with resources and biodiversity.

You can not believe in global warming: fine. Be anti-scientific. Don't think in terms of aggregated data. Nibble at popular media interpretations of journal articles and the like.

The simple fact remains that no matter how you dice it, the current way of using incredibly valuable carbon resources is unsustainable, for our generation, and future generations.

What will probably save our asses is largely publicly funded research---exploited privately, of course.

 

This is all correct.

 

Volcanoes burn like by BBQ smoker, on Fossil Fuels. I did not know that. Are you saying all fires have carbon in them?

r e a l l y

Look, dude. Don't try. You are way over you head with me on this subject.

Plus, that sequestered Methane is not being released. But it is our fear. If that gets release, we're all dead.

Volcanoes don't really burn much Carbon, unless they are cutting through new Mantle heated thermal plumes. Most (like 90%) are due to continental-drift subduction zones that have no more Carbon fossil fuels in them vs the Mantle that is being pushed back into the earth.

So, Ummm, no. Volcanoes to not release new Carbon or Water outside of the natural equilibrium to sequester the equal amount back.

I don't think you know what the word sequestered means.

The word equilibrium means the release of water vapor into the air and it's absorption back is a constant. To call it the biggest GHG misses the point. It's not increasing, like Carbon is.

Carbon is being release at larger volumes than the Earth can convert (via photosynthesis) back into oxygen.

Apparently you like to bloviate non-sequiturs. Nothing you said here means anything.

I actually worded my comment to coax this comment out of you. We are NOT releasing new water vapor into to the air by tapping into the water table with 100 foot pipes.

Ah, I don't know how to explain this to you, what the word sequestered mean. Water table water is not sequestered water. When the Russians drill holes into the Antartic to stupid prehistoric water, that's tapping into sequestered water.

Volcanoes don't have a net gain in anything they do, unless they are new volcanoes that are hot spots. If you know anything about continental drift and how equal amount of the mantle is going back into the depths as much as new mantle is rising up...you'd understand.

It's not new water. It's water already here. It's volume does not increase whether we convert it to heating or drink it.

You need to step away from your keyboard before I embarrass you.