How to talk to a climate change denier, and then what?

[Ron J]

And despite the 150 year trend, you're going to say this shows global warming is a hoax?

Is there global warming if the global temperature has not increased in 15 years? The chart on post 72 does not go back that many years before 1980, but the anomaly from the zero line was mostly negative on that chart prior to 1980.

 

[Ron J]

But the irony is, you are inferring that global warming means year on year warming, everywhere, the sheer fact your argument is based on headlines/specific locations, AND that you hark on about a 15 year period as if it proves global warming is a fallacy? Do you not see that you have created your own argument?!

The term 'global warming' is just a simplistic way of saying, that on average the world will get warmer if you chuck more CO2 into it. And sadly the world has got warmer since the 1880s, which is when we started producing more CO2 emissions. There are countless graphs showing a fairly stable temperature/CO2 pattern since 1000AD, and BOOM, up it goes with the Industrial Revolution.

As for the Ice caps, and even glaciers, they are showing a marked retreat. There is no denying this, some glaciers in the Alps just don't exist anymore, and they were there in the 1990s, they are even still on maps. But when you go there, just expect to see barren rock. Many of the older Inuit communities report massive issues with hunting, and ice flows in the past century, so I don't think you are looking at the bigger picture, or even looking at it objectively... Anyone can pick on one or two examples of predictions that haven't come true, but that doesn't mean something isn't wrong!

Global warming is global, hence the name. The global temperature has to increase in order to be warming.

Headlines, specific locations. Like the Russian heat wave or the U.S. heatwave which are promoted by global warming alarmists as proof of global warming? "This is what climate change looks like." Climate change also looks like advancing glaciers, as happened in the Little Ice Age.

The world will get warmer if you chuck more CO2 into it. That is rather simplistic. The climate is complex, the sum of its many parts.

The ice caps are showing a marked retreat. "Just weeks after a record North Pole melt, Antarctica is surrounded by more sea ice than ever before recorded." Record winter sea ice around Antarctica.
Who is it that is not thinking objectively? I am not the one projecting the past onto the future.
Someone who takes the 2005 hurricane season and projects that hurricanes are going to be more and stronger is doing that. No CAT 3 or above has hit the U.S. in 2778 days. That is a record number of days without a major hurricane hitting the U.S., beating the old record by far.

The big picture is that no one can assume what the temperature is going to be in the future.

 

[Pete Tar]

Co2 has hit 400ppm.
Why do you think this is unlikely to have any effect on climate, despite it's studied confirmation as a greenhouse gas, ie, one that traps heat?
What studies or science backs this up?

I'm still totally unclear as to your objection to the warming graph. It shows a clear temperature increase past a previous norm, within the last 15 years, something you denied was happening. It's 2013. If we take 1990 as a starting point for the trend, that's 23 years.
Simply, the right side (more recent years) is higher than the left side (more distant years). This means warmer. And it is not a projection, it is collected data.
Is it because each consecutive year was not incrementally warmer than the previous in each case, so this means no 'warming' is taking place?

 

[Met Watch]

Co2 has hit 400ppm.
Why do you think this is unlikely to have any effect on climate, despite it's studied confirmation as a greenhouse gas, ie, one that traps heat?
What studies or science backs this up?

I'm still totally unclear as to your objection to the warming graph. It shows a clear temperature increase past a previous norm, within the last 15 years, something you denied was happening. It's 2013. If we take 1990 as a starting point for the trend, that's 23 years.
Simply, the right side (more recent years) is higher than the left side (more distant years). This means warmer. And it is not a projection, it is collected data.
Is it because each consecutive year was not incrementally warmer than the previous in each case, so this means no 'warming' is taking place?

It's not getting warmer because he trimmed the graph down to a point where the trend line goes from positive over the long term to down over a short term period. It's basically like seeing a stock price drop over 15 days, so you assume it's going to continue going down, despite the fact that the overall trend still shows a marked increase in price.

 

[Ron J]

Co2 has hit 400ppm.
Why do you think this is unlikely to have any effect on climate, despite it's studied confirmation as a greenhouse gas, ie, one that traps heat?
What studies or science backs this up?

I'm still totally unclear as to your objection to the warming graph. It shows a clear temperature increase past a previous norm, within the last 15 years, something you denied was happening. It's 2013. If we take 1990 as a starting point for the trend, that's 23 years.
Simply, the right side (more recent years) is higher than the left side (more distant years). This means warmer. And it is not a projection, it is collected data.
Is it because each consecutive year was not incrementally warmer than the previous in each case, so this means no 'warming' is taking place?

I am unclear how a chart of lower tropospheric temperature which shows no global warming over the last 15 years, is supposed to show clear temperature increase. There has been no warming over the last 15 years.

If we take 1998 for the start of the trend, when temperature peaked, it shows no warming from there forward.

Just what is a previous norm? Is the medieval warming period the previous norm? Or the Little Ice Age the previous norm? The norm over the last 15 years is that there has been no global warming.

400PPM which is more than what it was 15 years ago and yet no further warming.

 

[Ron J]

It's not getting warmer because he trimmed the graph down to a point where the trend line goes from positive over the long term to down over a short term period. It's basically like seeing a stock price drop over 15 days, so you assume it's going to continue going down, despite the fact that the overall trend still shows a marked increase in price.

Is APPL still going up in price? The overall trend did show an increase in price, then it fell from 700 to 400. The disclaimer is that past performance is not indicative of future results.

The same should be applied to climate and temperature.

 

[Pete Tar]

I am unclear how a chart of lower tropospheric temperature which shows no global warming over the last 15 years, is supposed to show clear temperature increase. There has been no warming over the last 15 years.

Wah? It says, "Global Land and Ocean temperature Anomalies". What graph are you referring to?
Are these better?







http://data.giss.nasa.gov/gistemp/graphs_v3/
How can you continue to say that there's been no warming in 15 years? It boggles my mind.

400PPM which is more than what it was 15 years ago and yet no further warming.

400ppm 15 years ago? What graph are you looking at?
It clearly shows the peak at 2010+, not 1997.

The world's longest measure of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere has reached 400 parts per million (PPM) for the first time in three million years.

Content from External Source

Please provide your data that shows 400ppm 15 years ago.

 

[Boston]

I've got climate studies down, if anyone has any specific questions I'd be happy to take a stab at it.

 

[Pete]

Is APPL still going up in price? The overall trend did show an increase in price, then it fell from 700 to 400. The disclaimer is that past performance is not indicative of future results.

The same should be applied to climate and temperature.

Its much quicker for a glacier to melt than to form. So I can comfortably say that over the next 500 years (at least!) the glaciers that have melted/disappeared in mountain ranges across the world will not be coming back unless we have a massive cooling, and sadly bar a disaster, this is rather unlikely at 400ppm CO2.

 

[Pete Tar]

Then there's this...
http://www.guardian.co.uk/environme.../may/16/climate-change-scienceofclimatechange

In 2004, Naomi Oreskes performed a survey of 928 peer-reviewed climate papers published between 1993 and 2003, finding none that rejected the human cause of global warming. We decided that it was time to expand upon Oreskes' work by performing a keyword search of peer-reviewed scientific journal publications for the terms 'global warming' and 'global climate change' between the years 1991 and 2011.

...
Based on our abstract ratings, we found that just over 4,000 papers took a position on the cause of global warming, 97.1% of which endorsed human-caused global warming. In the scientist self-ratings, nearly 1,400 papers were rated as taking a position, 97.2% of which endorsed human-caused global warming. Many papers captured in our literature search simply investigated an issue related to climate change without taking a position on its cause.

Our survey found that the consensus has grown slowly over time, and reached about 98% as of 2011. Our results are also consistent with several previous surveys finding a 97% consensus amongst climate experts on the human cause of global warming.

Content from External Source

But the process of science itself is surely just a left-wing hoax.

 

[Joe]

Then there's this...
http://www.guardian.co.uk/environme.../may/16/climate-change-scienceofclimatechange

In 2004, Naomi Oreskes performed a survey of 928 peer-reviewed climate papers published between 1993 and 2003, finding none that rejected the human cause of global warming. We decided that it was time to expand upon Oreskes' work by performing a keyword search of peer-reviewed scientific journal publications for the terms 'global warming' and 'global climate change' between the years 1991 and 2011.

...
Based on our abstract ratings, we found that just over 4,000 papers took a position on the cause of global warming, 97.1% of which endorsed human-caused global warming. In the scientist self-ratings, nearly 1,400 papers were rated as taking a position, 97.2% of which endorsed human-caused global warming. Many papers captured in our literature search simply investigated an issue related to climate change without taking a position on its cause.

Our survey found that the consensus has grown slowly over time, and reached about 98% as of 2011. Our results are also consistent with several previous surveys finding a 97% consensus amongst climate experts on the human cause of global warming.

Content from External Source

But the process of science itself is surely just a left-wing hoax.

Who paid for all those peer reviewed studies ? taxpayers ! Who profits ? The same ones that will benefit off of a carbon trading scheme or Scam . Global Warming is a Nuclear war . Not 1 degree centigrade in 100 years .

 

[Pete Tar]

Holy shit.

You are slandering all those scientists as faking their data now?
How do you know taxpayers paid for all of those scientists? No single private or non-governmental scientist was part of that peer-review process?
And if it's peer-reviewed, that tends to mean the data, maths and conclusions are checked by others and not found to be in error. Whether that is taxpayer funded or not is incredibly irrelevant in terms of its factual scientific value.

Who profits from not having carbon controls? There's no financial gain to be had in that is there?

 

[Pete Tar]

However, vested interests have long realized this and engaged in a campaign to misinform the public about the scientific consensus. For example, a memo from communications strategist Frank Luntz leaked in 2002 advised Republicans,

"Should the public come to believe that the scientific issues are settled, their views about global warming will change accordingly. Therefore, you need to continue to make the lack of scientific certainty a primary issue in the debate"
​

This campaign has been successful. A 2012 poll from US Pew Research Center found less than half of Americans thought scientists agreed humans were causing global warming. The media has assisted in this public misconception, with most climate stories "balanced" with a "skeptic" perspective. However, this results in making the 2–3% seem like 50%. In trying to achieve "balance", the media has actually created a very unbalanced perception of reality. As a result, people believe scientists are still split about what's causing global warming, and therefore there is not nearly enough public support or motivation to solve the problem.

Content from External Source

 

[Joe]

Holy shit.

You are slandering all those scientists as faking their data now?
How do you know taxpayers paid for all of those scientists? No single private or non-governmental scientist was part of that peer-review process?
And if it's peer-reviewed, that tends to mean the data, maths and conclusions are checked by others and not found to be in error. Whether that is taxpayer funded or not is incredibly irrelevant in terms of its factual scientific value.

Who profits from not having carbon controls? There's no financial gain to be had in that is there?

who is hurt from carbon taxes ? big Oil ? Or the little guy ? with gasoline nearing 4 bucks a gallon which Im sure is cheap to you guys in the UK slows down the economy of our country .The scientist should be looking at better sources of clean energy instead of wasting their time chasing a pipe dream like they understand our complex climate .Not wind or Solar . Thanks to persistent contrails Solar is worthless .

 

[Boston]

Who paid for all those peer reviewed studies ? taxpayers ! Who profits ? The same ones that will benefit off of a carbon trading scheme or Scam . Global Warming is a Nuclear war . Not 1 degree centigrade in 100 years .

The grant process is blind of any conclusions yet to be drawn by any suggested work. Which essentially means that the work isn't even begun until whatever scientists involved have at least some idea of how to pay for all that cold pizza and bad beer it takes to muddle their way through any study, in the field or library. Its an entirely spurious argument to suggest that these guys are going to somehow be making big bucks off their research. I'm guessing you've never met any of the scientists who are working on climate shift studies. Most still live like starving college kids and often survive not off whatever grants they might win, but off side projects they pick up off the notices board found in each departments hallway. Its not exactly a glamorous lifestyle

Also can you show any data to support your claim that of "not one degree centigrade in 100 years" because even the recent Berkley study ( funded in part by the Kotch brothers and the research team stacked with deniers ) found significant warming ( more actually than the other three comprehensive studies that looked into this issue ) since 1800. So we have four out of four studies that all found pretty much exactly the warming predicted waaaaaaaaaay back in 1890 ish by Arrhenious ( pretty sure I spelled that wrong ) when he did his famous estimate of the results of doubling CO2 within the atmosphere. IE this isn't exactly new science.

If you can produce data to the contrary, you'll be a millionaire

 

[Pete Tar]

...I'm guessing you've never met any of the scientists who are working on climate shift studies. Most still live like starving college kids and often survive not off whatever grants they might win, but off side projects they pick up off the notices board found in each departments hallway. Its not exactly a glamorous lifestyle

..

The next comment will be, 'well even more incentive for them to take money for faking data'.

 

[Boston]

Anyone who thinks these guys are making money off of the tragedy of climate change, hasn't met or hung out with any of them and doesn't understand the grant process very well.

As far as the carbon tax is concerned, It was proposed by politicians to benefit politicians, its no better than another tax imposed on a public helpless to halt the corporate oligarchy's efforts to squeeze as much blood as possible from them. Personally I don't believe it would do anything to stop or slow the meteoric rise atmospheric in CO2 levels.

There are solutions, but another tax that ends up being paid by the people rather than the corporations, isn't it.

 

[David Fraser]

So fiscal penalties don't affect behaviour?

 

[Boston]

In terms of taxes which the corporations have historically passed on to the customer, no. What skin of the corporations nose is it to have a tax imposed on all competitors across the board. Makes no difference at all, they just pass the tax on to the customer, end of expense to the corporation.

I absolutely do not support any additional taxes nor do I believe the carbon tax would make so much as a dent in the 7% or so growth rate of carbon emissions

Its not a penalty if its something you can pass along to the customer

 

[David Fraser]

But does not the behaviour of the consumer then change with cost? Surely consumption changes need to happen from the bottom upwards?

 

[Boston]

The carbon tax once filtered down to the individual consumer would add a negligible cost to the product. Imagine an airline having to pay even $1000 per flight for exceeding its carbon limit. How many people flying aboard that plane ? Now divide that number into the 1k and consider the original cost of the ticket of several hundred dollars. Might work out to something less than the baggage handling fee. No ones going to even blink.

consider a cruise ship, now there's a CO2 source eh. 6000 pasengers all paying maybe $700 for a week to ten days in the Caribbean, maybe the ship gets slapped with a $10,000 dollar fine, for every ten day trip, so whats that work out to be $1.65 a passenger ;-) doesn't even add up to the cost of one extra olive in those martini's.

There's no chance a carbon tax has of altering behavior unless it was sooooooo outrageous it begins to hurt, at which point its a matter of what the corporate oligarchy that runs this place is willing to allow the tax to be. If its something that actually hurts there bottom line then no, your never going to get it past. But if its a "compromise" IE they pay a carbon tax but only a minimal one that can be passed off to the public without effecting public participation, then OK we can go ahead and have our feel good. The only people who benefit from a carbon tax is those who collect it, graft, insider trading, contract allocation perks. Its a scam by the politicians to take advantage of the public's ignorance. It will do nothing whatsoever to slow climate shift. If anything it will delay meaningful change.

I couldn't be more opposed to a carbon tax

 

[David Fraser]

You could not be more wrong especially when weighed against cap and trade. If we take energy carbon tax encourages the move from coal and stimulate enegry efficiency. Set the carbon price floor at a rate that will gradually increase over a few years and invest in home energy efficiency and production, as well as support those that may temporarily fall into fuel poverty and you have a viable system for carbon reduction. The use of price indicators has already had success in the UK with the Climate Change Levy.

 

[Boston]

There is no cap and trade

There is no effort to move from a fossil fuels based economy in any meaningful manor.

I've yet to see one shred of data that supports your statement. If you have some and can show it, I'd be more than happy to be wrong. I'd rather be wrong and there be some effective solution being enacted today, than sit on my ego and watch the world go down the drain.

But the idea that there will be some balloon penalty for carbon emissions approved and agreed to by the corporate oligarchy is simply unrealistic. Unless you can bring China and India on board, and they are staunchly resistant to any carbon tax, your not addressing the problem. Even Russia wants nothing to do with a carbon tax, hell they think warming will be good for them, and it probably will at least in its initial stages. But in the end the exponential acceleration of climate change will overwhelm all our political institutions ability to keep up with the decision making process required to effectively deal with this issue. The political powers that be are simply incapable of the foresight required. Hell the entire republican party's platform is one of climate denial, and I'm pretty sure the democrats only support it to suck up the alienated republican voters.

In the end you'd have to show some pretty convincing data to suggest that an effective "tax" could be levied against the corporate entities specifically without passing it on to the public that might force there alteration of business as usual. If you have such data I'd love to see it, as it is, there's no chance of passing a tax that will effectively force change, in an atmosphere where the status quo fears change as much as the corporate oligarchy fears change today.

 

[Pete Tar]

What about a strategy that instead of penalising the use of undesirable technology, rewarded and encouraged the use of less polluting energy production? That's just as powerful a force in economic rationalism.
Don't increase the expense of existent structures, but subsidise emerging ones, that would generate share-market wealth as they grew. Basic profit self-interest would lead the resources into the environmentally beneficial option.
The opportunity for investing in new technology that will grow to replace the old is an investors dream.
The problem is, until a crucial majority tipping point is reached, the new is more expensive than the old. But this would be temporary if we can think in longer blocks of time - 20 year plans and such forth.

 

[David Fraser]

There is no cap and trade

There is no effort to move from a fossil fuels based economy in any meaningful manor.

I've yet to see one shred of data that supports your statement. If you have some and can show it, I'd be more than happy to be wrong. I'd rather be wrong and there be some effective solution being enacted today, than sit on my ego and watch the world go down the drain.

But the idea that there will be some balloon penalty for carbon emissions approved and agreed to by the corporate oligarchy is simply unrealistic. Unless you can bring China and India on board, and they are staunchly resistant to any carbon tax, your not addressing the problem. Even Russia wants nothing to do with a carbon tax, hell they think warming will be good for them, and it probably will at least in its initial stages. But in the end the exponential acceleration of climate change will overwhelm all our political institutions ability to keep up with the decision making process required to effectively deal with this issue. The political powers that be are simply incapable of the foresight required. Hell the entire republican party's platform is one of climate denial, and I'm pretty sure the democrats only support it to suck up the alienated republican voters.

In the end you'd have to show some pretty convincing data to suggest that an effective "tax" could be levied against the corporate entities specifically without passing it on to the public that might force there alteration of business as usual. If you have such data I'd love to see it, as it is, there's no chance of passing a tax that will effectively force change, in an atmosphere where the status quo fears change as much as the corporate oligarchy fears change today.

Well I guess us in the UK are totally fucked then seeing as we have the highest progressive carbon taxes in the world at the moment. http://www.environmentalistonline.com/article/2013-04-26/uk-leading-the-way-on-carbon-taxes It is about £15.75 a tonne at present and set to rise. However the present government is catching up insentives at consumer level with the Green Deal as well as offsetting of benefits to protect the vunerable.
Green Deal replaces a grant scheme for insulation and heating grants, and encompasses payments for the vunerable for heating during cold weather and funded by Carbon Tax https://www.gov.uk/green-deal-energy-saving-measures/how-the-green-deal-works

There is a complicated system of benefits and taxation to offset public impact to some extent. http://www.jrf.org.uk/sites/files/jrf/carbon-taxation-income-full.pdf

From personal experience I have seen the polluter pays principle work and to be a driver for change and development of novel strategies. A number of years ago I worked on a project implementing an EU directive Urban Waste Treatment Directive. Essentially all water had to be treated before disposal at sea and the cost of new plants and treatment was passed on to the consumers by the water companies. The public were protected by a rise so the brunt was taken by business especially SME's. I worked within the fish processing industry to help companies implement water and waste minimisation schemes. This was widely embraced and even got to a level where I was able to put in place water recycling systems. In the long run the SME's I worked with reduced consumption and/or effluent and costs.

The use of carbon taxes is having a similar effect especially in the energy sector. There is a shift happening although that could do with more investment from government to make our "green" targets. It would appear that a similar system is working in Australia

http://www.news.com.au/national-new...-new-report-says/story-fncynjr2-1226631177867

 

[Joe]

[h=1]Climate slowdown means extreme rates of warming 'not as likely' http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-22567023 Hoax[/h]

 

[scombrid]

Thanks to persistent contrails Solar is worthless .

I really hope that was a joke.

Or do you have data that actually suggest that contrail cirrus are sufficient to cause a significant reduction in potential electricity production from solar energy?

 

[Joe]

I really hope that was a joke.

Or do you have data that actually suggest that contrail cirrus are sufficient to cause a significant reduction in potential electricity production from solar energy?

No thats no Joke . Why would it be ? Clouds block the Sun why wouldnt man made clouds ?

Contrails are a concern in climate studies as increased jet aircraft traffic may result in an increase in cloud cover. It has been estimated that in certain heavy air-traffic corridors, cloud cover has increased by as much as 20%. An increase in cloud amount changes the region's radiation balance. For example, solar energy reaching the surface may be reduced, resulting in surface cooling

Content from External Source

http://cimss.ssec.wisc.edu/wxwise/contrail.html

 

[HappyMonday]

Thanks to persistent contrails Solar is worthless .

Priceless!

 

[Joe]

Or maybe its the Contrails causing the So called warming ? Science Id wish theyd make up their minds ?

The new research finds that in addition to shrinking the temperature range, contrails contribute to high-level cloudiness, which can contribute to warming the atmosphere.

A next step is trying to predict where and when contrails will occur so, when needed, planes could be rerouted around those areas to head off further aggravating the contrail impact on climate. Carleton noted that this is similar to the short-term rerouting of planes that already happens with severe storms.​

​

​

​

“These contrail outbreaks are, broadly speaking, similar in size to big summer storm events,” he said.​

​

​

​

The work is supported by funding from the National Science Foundation.

Content from External Source

http://news.psu.edu/story/265650/20...ls-contribute-heat-trapping-high-level-clouds

 

[Joe]

Priceless!

It has been estimated that in certain heavy air-traffic corridors, cloud cover has increased by as much as 20%.

Content from External Source

Ok maybe not worthless but 20% is quite a lot /

 

[Boston]

Climate slowdown means extreme rates of warming 'not as likely' http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-22567023 Hoax

Go check the cyclical nature of decadal temp fluctuations over the last say 1000 years and notice the influence of Milankovitch cycles within the system, we should have cooled somewhat this last decade, instead, we merely didn't increase "as fast" The simple reality is the the "only" possible result of excess CO2 in the atmosphere is warming. Or do the laws of physics suddenly not apply, basic optical physics applies regardless of any short term variation due to a multitude of extraneous influences. Add CO2 and you increase temp. We are adding about 7% to our energy usage, annually. There is only one possible conclusion, and that was predicted well over a hundred years ago.

 

[Boston]

Dave, can you document a reduction in CO2 output consistent with the expected result of the measures being implemented.

 

[Joe]

Go check the cyclical nature of decadal temp fluctuations over the last say 1000 years and notice the influence of Milankovitch cycles within the system, we should have cooled somewhat this last decade, instead, we merely didn't increase "as fast" The simple reality is the the "only" possible result of excess CO2 in the atmosphere is warming. Or do the laws of physics suddenly not apply, basic optical physics applies regardless of any short term variation due to a multitude of extraneous influences. Add CO2 and you increase temp. We are adding about 7% to our energy usage, annually. There is only one possible conclusion, and that was predicted well over a hundred years ago.

So maybe we are saving our selves from a Mini Ice Age ? Which would harm us more then warming . I thought the Co2 came after the warming ?

 

[Boston]

Go look up "fern" level variability in ice data recovery and get back to us. Hint, its something like 0 to 7000 years, and its ever changing depending on local conditions.

Oh regardless of where we were in the cycle we've raised temps by about +1.7°C since about 1800. A meteoric rise by any standard and far surpassing any global change in the paleo climate record.

 

[scombrid]

No thats no Joke . Why would it be ?

I would think it to be a joke statement because the "shading" from contrails is not sufficient to have a measurable impact on power generation from solar.

Clouds block the Sun why wouldnt man made clouds

All clouds are not created equal when it comes to transparency. The 20% increase in cloud cover in heavy flight corridors does not translate into a 20% reduction in insolation. Contrail cirrus are a lot more transparent than a big puffy cumulus cloud or a heavy nimbostratus... So your statement that contrails have rendered solar power "worthless" looked to me like a joke or hyperbole.

Contrails are a concern in climate studies as increased jet aircraft traffic may result in an increase in cloud cover. It has been estimated that in certain heavy air-traffic corridors, cloud cover has increased by as much as 20%. An increase in cloud amount changes the region's radiation balance. For example, solar energy reaching the surface may be reduced, resulting in surface cooling

Content from External Source

http://cimss.ssec.wisc.edu/wxwise/contrail.html

Why did you cut that off before "Contrail clouds also reduce the terrestrial energy losses of the planet, resulting in a warming

Oh, you left it out so you could post:

Or maybe its the Contrails causing the So called warming ? Science Id wish theyd make up their minds ?
Content from external source:

The new research finds that in addition to shrinking the temperature range, contrails contribute to high-level cloudiness, which can contribute to warming the atmosphere.

A next step is trying to predict where and when contrails will occur so, when needed, planes could be rerouted around those areas to head off further aggravating the contrail impact on climate. Carleton noted that this is similar to the short-term rerouting of planes that already happens with severe storms.​

“These contrail outbreaks are, broadly speaking, similar in size to big summer storm events,” he said.​

The work is supported by funding from the National Science Foundation.


http://news.psu.edu/story/265650/201...h-level-clouds​

Make up their minds about what? Climatologists have been trying to model clouds and their attendent affect on incoming and outgoing radiation throughout the process of trying to study climate and what contributes to the temperature balance in the atmosphere?

Why are you acting like they've just now noticed that contrail cirrus affect incoming and outgoing radiation?

 

[Boston]

Not that its a scientific review or anything but this BBC documentary isn't to far off the mark when it comes to global dimming


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=p8RyNSzQDaU

 

[Joe]

I would think it to be a joke statement because the "shading" from contrails is not sufficient to have a measurable impact on power generation from solar.



All clouds are not created equal when it comes to transparency. The 20% increase in cloud cover in heavy flight corridors does not translate into a 20% reduction in insolation. Contrail cirrus are a lot more transparent than a big puffy cumulus cloud or a heavy nimbostratus... So your statement that contrails have rendered solar power "worthless" looked to me like a joke or hyperbole.



Why did you cut that off before "Contrail clouds also reduce the terrestrial energy losses of the planet, resulting in a warming

Oh, you left it out so you could post:




Make up their minds about what? Climatologists have been trying to model clouds and their attendent affect on incoming and outgoing radiation throughout the process of trying to study climate and what contributes to the temperature balance in the atmosphere?

Why are you acting like they've just now noticed that contrail cirrus affect incoming and outgoing radiation?

well I have a solar panel and a Fluke multimeter . Next day of persistant contrails I will do a test and post it for you . We will see the results .

 

[Ron J]

Wah? It says, "Global Land and Ocean temperature Anomalies". What graph are you referring to?
Are these better?







http://data.giss.nasa.gov/gistemp/graphs_v3/
How can you continue to say that there's been no warming in 15 years? It boggles my mind.


400ppm 15 years ago? What graph are you looking at?
It clearly shows the peak at 2010+, not 1997.

The world's longest measure of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere has reached 400 parts per million (PPM) for the first time in three million years.

Content from External Source

Please provide your data that shows 400ppm 15 years ago.

Lower tropospheric temperature

And how about this chart

http://wattsupwiththat.files.wordpress.com/2012/12/ipcc_ar5_draft_fig1-4_without.png

Note the observed temperature peak in 1998.


I believe i said that carbon dioxide is greater than 15 years ago and the there has been no global waming in the last 15 years.

 

[Pete Tar]

...


I believe i said that carbon dioxide is greater than 15 years ago and the there has been no global waming in the last 15 years.

Ah yes you did, my reading mistake.