The NEW summer 2012 BANTER thread.

[Sundog]

I'm not sure where JB falls on the spectrum. IIRC, he's mentioned that he believes in some human contribution.

With climate change though, I think we'll eventually have a fairly good answer 20-30 years down the road.

He couldn't even read an temp anomaly chart. Either he purposefully tried to misrepresent that chart or he didn't know how to read it. This is but one of many examples of severely misinformed tweets/posts he has made. I guess it's kind of hard to make money in a warming world when your business is centered around hyping winter storms.

[NEXtreme]

Take issue with this as well. There were two sides to the debate about many things, and one turns out right and one turns out wrong.

In some cases there is more than one correct answer, such as in economics where competing views as to the proper way to stimulate the economy may both hold weight in similar proportions.

Climate change is not somethere where there are two sides. There either is or is not AGW. Period.

The conservative side has ALWAYS been resistant to change. Slavery, Women's suffrage, Civil Rights, Gay rights, Abortion, Universal Suffrage, social security and medicare...the list goes on. AGW will prove to be yet another time when conservatives resisted. Why? The conservatives stem from a core base back to colonial times of those who controlled the wealth in the country. AGW poses a threat to their idea of unbridled capitalism and industrialization without the need to protect the environment as the expense of the beloved profit margin...and those "conservatives" who are poor and refuse to believe in AGW have been blindly led to believe due to the dissemination of false information from FOXNEWS and other media who appeal to one sector of their beliefs, such as abortion, guns, anti-obama, and therefore they subscribe to all of their beliefs, aka, no AGW.

Wow...That's what you think conservatism is? What a silly post. Btw Liberals could not exist without conservtives to defend their freedom and support them economically in the first place... Can't wait till November... The writing is on the wall... It's O'bummer (100% success rate bankrupting green energy companies using soley taxer payer money) vs America ...you can't have both.

A butt kicking bigger then 2010 is in the makings and everybody knows it, including Bambi's media.

3 more months!

3 more months!

3 more months!

[Sundog]

Wow...That's what you think conservatism is? What a silly post. Btw Liberals could not exist without conservtives to defend their freedom and support them economically in the first place... Can't wait till November... The writing is on the wall... It's O'bummer (100% success rate bankrupting green energy companies using soley taxer payer money) vs America ...you can't have both.

A butt kicking bigger then 2010 is in the makings and everybody knows it, including Bambi's media.

3 more months!

3 more months!

3 more months!

You know blue states actually support red states when all federal income and redistribution is accounted for right? New York for example gets back less money than it sends to Washington.

Why do you support JB? Serious question. He has been proven wrong time and time again. It's quite embarrassing frankly.

[easternsnowman]

We conservatives look at the costs that global warming alarmists say is needed to stop it ( curbing greenhouse gases) and you're talking about limiting oil,gas and coal productions, while china and india do nothing. Essentially we put our country back to the horse and buggy days while knocking a few degrees off the temps....lol! We either find other ways to stop it or deal with it!

[Sundog]

We conservatives look at the costs that global warming alarmists say is needed to stop it ( curbing greenhouse gases) and you're talking about limiting oil,gas and coal productions, while china and india do nothing. Essentially we put our country back to the horse and buggy days while knocking a few degrees off the temps....lol! We either find other ways to stop it or deal with it!

Your problem is looking at global warmig alarmists for solutions.

Sadly China instead of us is leading the research and production in green technologies. At least we'll probably beat them in the medal count!

[TheTrials]

Global warming is mostly caused by the fact the earth is spinning closer to the sun then ever before. Pretty soon the earths orbit will be close to Venus.

[Sundog]

Global warming is mostly caused by the fact the earth is spinning closer to the sun then ever before. Pretty soon the earths orbit will be close to Venus.

Watch out for melting paintings.

[easternsnowman]

Your problem is looking at global warmig alarmists for solutions.

Sadly China instead of us is leading the research and production in green technologies. At least we'll probably beat them in the medal count!

I agree we need to go green,but in the meantime we still need to produce energy and also perhaps look for ways to cool off the atmosphere and oceans if that will work....just wondering.

[TheTrials]

green energy, LOL

[MJO812]

I'm melting

[NEXtreme]

Your problem is looking at global warmig alarmists for solutions.

Sadly China instead of us is leading the research and production in green technologies.

COMMUNIST China has no interest in becoming the world's leader in fighting pollution, well as long as it runs contrary to their profit margins. The fact of the matter is that the so called renewables such as solar and wind cannot compete in the open market against traditional forms of energy such as coal and gas, except in countries such as europe and canada which use cap and trade to heavily tax old forms of energy while giving huge subsidies to the green techs. Even then, because on inconsistencies in the generation of power from such sources, places like britain and the netherlands have actually increased the number of coal plants just to back up wind farms when the wind dies down, to prevent brownouts. This may change as technology advances, but the underlying point is this:

It is precisely because governments have pushed the issue of fighting "global warming" through developing these industries prematurely that the Chinese have been able to exercise their advantage in low cost labor and excess manufacturing capacity to gain market share.

Chinese manufacturers sell wind turbines and solar panels to Europe and America undercutting our domestic manufacturers while satisfying the agendas of our policymakers, not meeting any sort of private demand. Take a look at their projected domestic energy use, its almost all on coal and oil, while giving a wimpy 10% toward renewables, which again only came about as their government wished to spend capital to keep their companies strong while the recession has hurt europes ability to use public money to buy more renewables.

China's economy has definitely found a new market- Western stupidity. While we continue to regulate and push forward in our attempt to control the global climate- something that was never in our ability and never will be- they reap the rewards of us shooting ourselves in the foot. You want to see American green industry? lay off the Global warming rhetoric, and allow our industries to gain the technological advantage that will come in the coming decades through research while allowing the market determine which energy is most efficient, not liberal burecrats.

[Analog96]

Couple things that baffle me:

1) There are two labels given in the CC forum -- you're either an AGW supporter or a denialist. This shouldn't be the case; It's a huge spectrum. The term denialist to me implies that you believe in ZERO anthropogenic contribution. That's certainly not the stance I've taken (I think the natural forcings take the majority, but anthropogenic activity does contribute a certain percentage, whether it's 5%, 15%, 25%, 35%, ..I'm not sure).

2) The lack of humility from some on the AGW side (not all, a few in particular). When there are comments like, "there is no debate, the science is settled"..., "if you're against AGW, you don't believe in science, etc"..that's about as biased as you can get in my opinion. Earth's feedback systems are very difficult to understand and simulate w/ models. I think it's impossible to determine the level of warming (or cooling) the Earth will experience in the next century...all speculation. I'm willing to offer the possibility that I'm completely wrong -- maybe we are fated to 3-5C of warming in the next century, maybe human activities are responsible for 85% of the warming. I don't think so but I could be wrong. At the very least don't accuse the other side of spewing lies, falsehoods, fake science, whatever.

Climate change is very much a debate like politics. We don't have a 100% certain answer at this point. There are thousands of scientists who aren't AGW supporters or doomsday alarmists; I guess their degrees are worth as much as toilet paper.

The only way to truly tell exactly how much humans are contributing would be to remove all humans from Earth, then wait about 50 years. Since we can't do that, we'll never know exactly.

[TheTrials]

whatever happened to the ozone layer being depleted away, I heard that it repaired itseld.

[Sundog]

whatever happened to the ozone layer being depleted away, I heard that it repaired itseld.

Honestly I can't tell if you're being sarcastic or not. Last time it was painfully obvious. Your subtlety has greatly improved this go-around.

[TheTrials]

Honestly I can't tell if you're being sarcastic or not. Last time it was painfully obvious. Your subtlety has greatly improved this go-around.

that's the genious of it.

[Guest Pamela]

The conservative side has ALWAYS been resistant to change. Slavery, Women's suffrage, Civil Rights, Gay rights, Abortion, Universal Suffrage, social security and medicare...the list goes on. AGW will prove to be yet another time when conservatives resisted. Why? The conservatives stem from a core base back to colonial times of those who controlled the wealth in the country. AGW poses a threat to their idea of unbridled capitalism and industrialization without the need to protect the environment as the expense of the beloved profit margin...and those "conservatives" who are poor and refuse to believe in AGW have been blindly led to believe due to the dissemination of false information from FOXNEWS and other media who appeal to one sector of their beliefs, such as abortion, guns, anti-obama, and therefore they subscribe to all of their beliefs, aka, no AGW.

Oh my...

[Diego]

Take issue with this as well. There were two sides to the debate about many things, and one turns out right and one turns out wrong.

In some cases there is more than one correct answer, such as in economics where competing views as to the proper way to stimulate the economy may both hold weight in similar proportions.

Climate change is not somethere where there are two sides. There either is or is not AGW. Period.

Agreed. While the jury is still out, the evidence is damning and overwhelming and the facts are simple. Carbon dioxide levels have increased at alarming rates since the industrial revolution coinciding with substantially increased carbon dioxide emissions, which had never existed at these rates during the entire history of the planet. Correspondingly, world temperatures has increased considerably over the past 30 years, without identifiable natural alternative causes such as increased solar radiational output. Coincidence?

[Guest Pamela]

Agreed. While the jury is still out, the evidence is damning and overwhelming. The facts are simple. Carbon dioxide levels have increased at alarming rates since the industrial revolution coinciding with substantially increased carbon dioxide emissions, which had never existed at these rates during the entire history of the planet. Corresondingly, world temperatures has increased considerably over the past 30 years, without identifiable natural alternative causes such as increased solar radiational output. Coincidence?

The Industrial Revolution commenced in the 1700's or thereabouts...

[Sundog]

The Industrial Revolution commenced in the 1700's or thereabouts...

Indeed, however large scale fossil fuel use didn't begin until the 19th century, and that started with coal. Widespread oil use didn't begin until the middle part of that century.

[Diego]

The Industrial Revolution commenced in the 1700's or thereabouts...

But emissions of any significance did not begin until the mid-1800's, and subsequently, there was probably a lag time before a sufficient threshold level of carbon dioxide was reached resulting in the net warming which we've been experiencing.

[bluewave]

Sea level rise may be faster than expected according to the Euro.

[Guest Pamela]

Indeed, however large scale fossil fuel use didn't begin until the 19th century, and that started with coal. Widespread oil use didn't begin until the middle part of that century.

My own thoughts (before we get into a prolonged debate)...have global temps inched upwards since the Little Ice Age ended midway through the 19th century? Sure they have. I would attribute it partly to solar activity, i.e sunspots...another part to the enormous development the globe has undergone...by development, I mean the transformation of forests and fields into cities and suburbs...unspoiled wilderness paved over with asphalt...we know for a fact that temperatures are warmer in urban areas and cooling is slowed...obviously, the more square acreage you urbanize, the warmer it is likely to be...this is a rather straightforward proposition. As for increasing carbon emissions, yes, I would concede that it would be wrong to dismiss it as a potential factor in a warming world...but one should always likewise consider potential negative feedback scenarios....more CO2...more heat trapped...more cloudiness....more precipitation...more snow....more albedo / sunlight reflected...eventually leading to a cooling planet...

[Diego]

My own thoughts (before we get into a prolonged debate)...have global temps inched upwards since the Little Ice Age ended midway through the 19th century? Sure they have. I would attribute it partly to solar activity, i.e sunspots...another part to the enormous development the globe has undergone...by development, I mean the transformation of forests and fields into cities and suburbs...unspoiled wilderness paved over with asphalt...we know for a fact that temperatures are warmer in urban areas and cooling is slowed...obviously, the more square acreage you urbanize, the warmer it is likely to be...this is a rather straightforward proposition. As for increasing carbon emissions, yes, I would concede that it would be wrong to dismiss it as a potential factor in a warming world...but one should always likewise consider potential negative feedback scenarios....more CO2...more heat trapped...more cloudiness....more precipitation...more snow....more albedo / sunlight reflected...eventually leading to a cooling planet...

But it's precisely this feedback mechanism which if left unchecked, could lead to runaway global warning. Venus is a great model of this. Sure, the melting of the Greenland's polar ice cap could lead to a temporary cool down in portions of the northern hemisphere, because of the alteration of the flow of the Gulf Stream (the conveyor belt). And urbanization at best has only played a small role in this process, which is distinquishable from the huge destruction of forests in places such as the Amazon, the net effect of which would also increase CO2 levels. By the way, more cloudiness usually leads to a greater retention of heat, not less, and with more snow, there can only be more albedo if there is less, not more cloudiness.

[Guest Pamela]

By the way, more cloudiness usually leads to a greater retention of heat, not less, and with more snow, there can only be more albedo if there is less, not more cloudiness.

Yep but more snow would cool temperatures which would increase air pressure which would inhibit cloudiness and thus enhance albedo....

[Guest Pamela]

And urbanization at best has only played a small role in this process, .

That is really rather subjective and I really don't think you can state that with absolute certainty...

[SmokeEater]

Is banter the new climate change?

[Guest Pamela]

Is banter the new climate change?

I hear the train a comin'

It's rollin' 'round the bend,

And I ain't seen the sunshine,

Since, I don't know when,

I'm stuck in Folsom Prison,

And time keeps draggin' on,

But that train keeps a-rollin',

On down to San Antone.

[Diego]

Yep but more snow would cool temperatures which would increase air pressure which would inhibit cloudiness and thus enhance albedo....

That is really rather subjective and I really don't think you can state that with absolute certainty...

You have to look at the big picture. Sure, with more snow, there would be more albedo, but this would be limited only to certain areas of the northern hemisphere and would only be temporary. It would eventually be overcome by the continued rise in temps. in the rest of the world, and ultimately melt. And while it's definitly been documented that urbanization has led to increased temps. in major urban centers because of UHI, this doesn't account for the corresponding increases in temps. in the bulk of the non-urbanized portions of the world.

[Guest Pamela]

You have to look at the big picture. Sure, with more snow, there would be more albedo, but this would be limited only to certain areas of the northern hemisphere and would only be temporary.

Yep...but that is nothing new...Australia, South America and Africa are almost never snow covered...outside of the mountains.

name='Diego' timestamp='1344649169' post='1692515'][/b]

It would eventually be overcome by the continued rise in temps. in the rest of the world, and ultimately melt.

Inference and conjecture...

name='Diego' timestamp='1344649169' post='1692515'][/b]

And while it's definitly been documented that urbanization has led to increased temps. in major urban centers because of UHI, this doesn't account for the corresponding increases in temps. in the bulk of the non-urbanized portions of the world.

One need not be in the midst of a furnace to feel its heat; i.e. the concept of radiation.

[Sundog]

That is really rather subjective and I really don't think you can state that with absolute certainty...

Satellites have determined that urbanization, while definitely playing a role on the local climate, is not a major contributor to the global rise in temps. The same satellites have determined that even rural areas have seen increased temperatures.

An easy way to see this first hand with no tech help is by observing things like expanding growing seasons, later freezing and earlier thawing times of lakes and rivers and an expansion of species' ranges into new territories.