[Delwin]

Zipperfish Zipperfish:

It's not a battle. The vast majority of people accept anthropogenic claimte change. Even some of teh skeptics. I think the skeptics know that there is nothing we can do about it. We have no replacement for oil, oil is probably keeping 2 billion people alive on the planet right now and we--as individuals or species--cannot control the future like we think we can. Bottom line: Global warming is real, but we hve no ability to do anything about it.

I agree with most of what you have to say but I dont really understand your conclusion. If you can agree that we are resposible for climate change, and you agree that this is a result of our CO2 emissions, they you must certainly agree that lowering emissions will slow this effect down. Moreover, if you can concede that there although there is CO2 in the atmosphere, there are natural consumers of the gas, then it stands to reason that if our emissions become lower than the plants that consume this, then we can maintain a balance. Are you arguing that because our rates are out of control right now we are doomed? Not quite sure how you reached this hypothesis.

[N_Fiddledog]

Zipperfish Zipperfish:

Called it. Three years ago. Man, I hate being right all the time.

Doesn't say global warming has gone away, just that they overestimated the sensitivity factor. If they had have just stuck wth the radiative balance equation and ignored trying to calculate the feedback effects, they would have been a lot more accurate for a lot less work.

You're a legend in your own mind all right Zip.

I have to be snarky here, because I remember it, oh so different.

From about 5 or 6 years ago, I remember going to the skeptic sites, and them telling me the problem with the whole climate scam was the models had to have positive feedbacks fed into them to get the climate to disaster levels. I remember battling my brains out here on this issue. I could have sworn you were leading the charge against me. I know I left for a couple years, then came back, and was surprised to discover you had accepted the idea that climate feed backs were perhaps exaggerated positive.

See, cause I remember taking major flack for posting videos like this one showing why positive feed backs were a problem. In fact I did post this video, and I could swear you weren't a fan.



If that wasn't you I apologize, but I could have sworn it was. To be fair, I do remember you accepting Lindzen's possibility of the negative feedback of heat loss into space about the time I was leaving last time. You did seem to be warming to the idea of influence from negative feed backs about that time.

[N_Fiddledog]

Oh and Zip if you honestly do believe the positive feed backs are exaggerated, you can ditch the disaster talk. 1 degree per doubling won't melt Greenland or the Western Antarctic. The sea level rise were seeing so far isn't anything like a problem. Bio mass is increasing. We'll do fine.

[jeff744]

Part of the issue too is that we still don't have an accurate measure on how much of our emissions the earth can take in an convert green. The more emissions, the more the algae and the like grow to absorb it. The real impact isn't on the weather, it's on the lakes and the like which are being swarmed with algae due to excessive pollution feeding their booms.

[Delwin]

Now the deniers have become minimizers? I wasn't aware of that.

[jeff744]

Delwin Delwin:

Now the deniers have become minimizers? I wasn't aware of that.

Hard to win when common sense says we are having some impact through our emissions, the question of how much of an impact is still completely up to debate. I have heard people claim we are 100% responsible for it too. All we really know is it is a number between 0.000(insert crapload more 0s)1 and 99.999999999 (crapload more 9s).

[Delwin]

Well I suppose it's progress when several years ago, they were saying we had no impact at all. :/

[jeff744]

Delwin Delwin:

Well I suppose it's progress when several years ago, they were saying we had no impact at all. :/

Hard to argue when basically everyone has been forced to admit the climate is getting more violent and increasingly irregular. The issue is that there is a massive debate between how much is us being at fault and how much is the earth doing what it has always done.

[N_Fiddledog]

Delwin Delwin:

Now the deniers have become minimizers? I wasn't aware of that.

Skeptics have had a problem with exaggerated projections of positive feed backs since this debate began - since before climate psychos like Gore and Suzuki were claiming there was no debate. Click the little youtube insignia on the bottom right of that video above. You'll see it's from 2008.

[N_Fiddledog]

jeff744 jeff744:

Delwin Delwin:

Well I suppose it's progress when several years ago, they were saying we had no impact at all. :/

Hard to argue when basically everyone has been forced to admit the climate is getting more violent and increasingly irregular. The issue is that there is a massive debate between how much is us being at fault and how much is the earth doing what it has always done.

Everyone is forced to admit that? Really? Wanna bet? What do you want to start with? Hurricanes, droughts, floods, tornadoes. You start. We'll compare data. Things are no worse than they've been in the past - either by individual weather events, or long term trends. Hey I remember hearing about an actual west coast hurricane (what's that called again? a Typhoon, right?) in Vancouver and Seattle during the sixties. We're still waiting for another one. Wha happened? Not enough warming?

[jeff744]

N_Fiddledog N_Fiddledog:

jeff744 jeff744:

Delwin Delwin:

Well I suppose it's progress when several years ago, they were saying we had no impact at all. :/

Hard to argue when basically everyone has been forced to admit the climate is getting more violent and increasingly irregular. The issue is that there is a massive debate between how much is us being at fault and how much is the earth doing what it has always done.

Everyone is forced to admit that? Really? Wanna bet? What do you want to start with? Hurricanes, droughts, floods, tornadoes. You start. We'll compare data. Things are no worse than they've been in the best - either by individual weather events, or long term trends. Hey I remember hearing about an actual west coast hurricane - what's that called again - in Vancouver and Seattle during the sixties. We're still waiting for another one. Wha happened? Not enough warming?

You just proved the fact you believe in climate change by bringing up events which don't happen anymore.

[N_Fiddledog]

Of course I believe in Climate Change. That's what climate does. It changes.

Now ask me if I believe the West Antarctic, and Greenland is inextricably doomed to melt and flood the world, because CO2 is causing a chain reaction in water molecules which will force temperatures to rise 3 degrees or more per doubling of CO2, therefore International measures of control, and higher taxes all along the board are necessary to avert the imagined disaster.

I don't, but if it ever does look like that might actually be happening - which it doesn't - I'm willing to change my mind.

[jeff744]

N_Fiddledog N_Fiddledog:

Of course I believe in Climate Change. That's what climate does. It changes.

Which is exactly what I was saying, everyone has been forced to admit there is climate change, the argument has only changed to the scale of human involvement. Only uneducated claim we have no impact at all, just like how only the uneducated claim we are the sole cause.

[Delwin]

Fiddledog, do you believe the average global temperatures are rising as a result of our actions?

[ShepherdsDog]

that is the biggest point of contention. How much are we actually exacerbating the rate of change