California's Climate-Change Experiment

Jan 1, 2013 | Posted by: roboblogger | Full story: Real Clear Politics

STARTING ON JAN. 1, California will begin the nation's most ambitious experiment yet in fighting climate change, and it will do it more or less alone.

Comments
21 - 40 of 90 Comments Last updated Feb 13, 2013

Since: Jan 13

Fairfax, VA

#21 Jan 18, 2013
PART I of II.
tina anne wrote:
<quoted text>
Proof one, two, and four actually disprove your points and prove that climate change is natural.
No, because the Milankovitch cycle we are in – means we should be cooling not warming.
tina anne wrote:
<quoted text>
Three is based on a single study that was later found to have serious errors.
It was not found to have serious errors. Which is why you have a BLANK SLATE for giving any details.
tina anne wrote:
<quoted text>
That was also the year the first study disproving AGW came out.
No study has disproved AGW. There is not one world renown, respected (not even a petroleum based) science organization that rejects global warming. Not one! There is not one well respected science magazine or science journal that rejects it. They might cover a skeptic, but they will make it clear it is not the editors' position.
You must be listening PURELY to anti-science right wing ideological sites.
tina anne wrote:
<quoted text>
Notice that they talk about sun activity all the way back in 850 AD.
Yes. The Chinese and Japanese kept sunspot records going back that far is why. Next?
In addition to sunspot records, his paper clearly says he used Be10 and C14 isotopes can be used as proxies for solar activity.
tina anne wrote:
<quoted text>
Not much was being recorded about the sun at the time. In fact some of the study was based on Dr Mann's data which was later discovered to have errors as well.
Wow, do you only read right wing soundbites, or what.
Steve Mcintyre challenged the statistical results of Mann’s hockey stick as not having enough diversity – which I agreed was a proper challenge by the way.

He's backed off now. Mann still resoundedly won the debate after:

--The Nationaly Academy of Sciences (NAS)--which was asked by Congress to do a formal review of Mann’s work, said they concurred it was accurate. It based its conclusion largely on the fact other types of proxy studies (and not tree rings) were finding same hockey stick shape as Mann’s work.

and I can give a citation.
Here is there graph the NAS used to conclude, Mann’s accuracy was likely very high in the last 400 years, and the previous 600 years was likely accurate as well, but with less certainty.

http://books.nap.edu/openbook.php...

Here is New Scientist covering it:
http://www.newscientist.com/article/dn11646

Therefore Mann has been officially recognized as having one ofbest data set for the last 1000 years for the temperature side by the NAS and the scientific community.
Usoskin correlated it with proxies for solar activity [I’m assuming you know why sunspots is a proxy too].

And you missed the boat– i.e., you messed up!! Usoskin came up with a conclusion you should be applauding from the last 1000 years up to 1975 – that solar radiation WAS the largest contributor to the change in temperature.

Before you get too excited. You have to explain why this sun/temperature correlation broke down in 1975.

And remember we have had weather station data going back to 1880. So that’s where you would fail.

So this has nothing to do with Michael Mann. You seem to go purely by slogans. Shame on you.
tina anne wrote:
<quoted text>
Five and six deal with CO2 and they discovered where much of the CO2 was coming from and it turns out it was locked in permafrost. Which concured with the fact that every time the temperature rose the CO2 levels rose. Which also means the CO2 is an effect and not a cause.
Really, then what would cause the declines – wouldn’t CO2 still be locked in permafrost? You know the ice cores sediments keep growing.

Got a peer reviewed SCIENCE citation for that? and do I need to add-- I don’t mean a “guest” on Rush Limbaugh, or equivalent.

Since: Jan 13

Fairfax, VA

#22 Jan 18, 2013
PART II of II
tina anne wrote:
<quoted text>
Notice how they claim that Venus is hotter than Mercury. What they did was measure the dark side of Mercury which is cooler. Mercury is locked into position by the sun's gravity and only one side ever faces the sun. That side is covered with molten rock while the dark side remains cooler. This is of course because Mercury has no atmosphere to allow the heat to move while Venus does.
I looked it up and you are wrong. Notice this website is 100% about space, and not global warming.

Source:
http://www.space.com/18645-mercury-temperatur...

Mercury “has an average temperature of 332 degrees Fahrenheit (167 degrees Celsius) The day side of the planet reaches temperatures of up to 801 F (427 degrees C). In contrast, the chilly night side can get as cold as minus 279 F (minus 173 C).
...
The hottest planet, incidentally, is Venus, the second body from the sun. Venus has a thick atmosphere that blankets the planet, keeping its temperature at an average of 864 F (462 C).”

Tell me, did you make this up, or have another bad source. You’re not doing very well, in my view. This is so easy to look up, after all. Do you ever READ a science source?
tina anne wrote:
<quoted text>
Also, ask yourself where did Venus get all that CO2 mentioned. It isn't like man colonized it a million years ago. Venus has a little volvano problem which isn't the only gas that Venus has.

You prove again you are not well read. The question should be how all the CO2 got locked up in the Earth

http://cde.nwc.edu/SCI2108/course_documents/e...
Maybe then, you’d better appreciate what damage we are doing by unlocking all these reservoirs.
[QUOTE who="tina anne"]<quoted text>

[QUOTE who="tina anne"]<quoted text>
Then there is the density of the atmosphere which of course also generates heat.
Do you know we have higher pressure under our ocean -- and it's still very cold down there, there is no heat generation from just the pressure. N

ow if you enough mass to ignite like the sun, we have a different situation. LOL. Is Jupitor hot?

Ask me for details if you can't find it about our pressure in the oceans. Assuming you really care of course.
tina anne wrote:
<quoted text>
It turns out your proof was long ago debunked here by far better people than you or I. I first logged on to Topix back in 2006 and there were people arguing the same thing and found the flaws in this back then. Maybe you should do a little more research.
You apparently have never pulled up a current science source, but from all the misinformation you list, clearly you HAVE spent some time on right wing anti-science websites.
By the way, I have been debating this on Amazon since about that same time. All the old skeptics ran off after being debunked so often. I have clearly debunked your claims, if you didn’t notice.

And I can clearly drill down into any one of the areas in FAR more detail, if you wish to go there.
you’ve lost bad, dear.

Regards, Wallop

Since: Jan 13

Fairfax, VA

#23 Jan 18, 2013
PHD wrote:
My the tina gave another spanking to the fairy lame and th walloped 10. Good job tina.
Try again...

You are clearly an irrelevant little boy, Six is it?

Peeing in His Diaper? HA HA

I think I'll just start ignoring you...
PHD

Overton, TX

#24 Jan 19, 2013
Wallop10 wrote:
<quoted text>
Try again...
You are clearly an irrelevant little boy, Six is it?
Peeing in His Diaper? HA HA
I think I'll just start ignoring you...
Part three. It really really doesn’t matter what you think because you don't. All you have is cut and paste useless babble scientific science fiction. Now change your depends, looks like you have some sort of irritation on you bottom. Everybody ignores you they just respond because your free entertainment.

Since: Jan 13

Fairfax, VA

#25 Jan 19, 2013
PHD wrote:
<quoted text>Part three. It really really doesn’t matter what you think because you don't. All you have is cut and paste useless babble scientific science fiction..
Fitting for this "little" troll. He said on another post that ALL science is science fiction.

What a nutcase.
PHD

Overton, TX

#26 Jan 20, 2013
Wallop10 wrote:
<quoted text>
Fitting for this ME "BIG" troll. I said on another post that ALL science is science fiction.
What a nutcase I am would you agree?
Yes you are and yes we agree.

Since: Jan 13

Fairfax, VA

#27 Jan 20, 2013
PHD wrote:
<quoted text>Yes you are and yes we agree.
LOL. You can't even properly read insults against you.

No surprises.

That means you probably don't notice conservatives appear to be voting against your insanity too. HA HA

“dening those who deny nature. ”

Since: Jun 07

Norfolk va

#28 Jan 21, 2013
Fair Game wrote:
<quoted text>
There is carbon in the permafrost, but it has only just begun to melt- it will be a positive feedback to AGW.
The rise in CO2 of course is due to the half a trillion tons that humans have added to the atmosphere by burning fossil fuels.
The fact that you still believe in AGW after all this time really is a peek into your mind. After all, AGW stopped being a theory in 2008.

The rise in CO2 has always followed the rise in temperature which is the reason why they started looking at perafrost as a possible source. Also, if you check your half a trillion tons number you would discover that it is nothing more than a semi educated guess based on some really shaky numbers. For example, they have no real clue on how much coal was burned in the last century because many places were not keeping records of how much coal they mined and sold.
SpaceBlues

Houston, TX

#29 Jan 21, 2013
The Koch Bros-funded [BEST] study is published finally to conclude that … "solar forcing does not appear to contribute to the observed global warming of the past 250 years; the entire change can be modeled by a sum of volcanism and a single anthropogenic [human-made] proxy."

http://thinkprogress.org/wp-content/uploads/2 ...

It wasn't the sun, stupid.
SpaceBlues

Houston, TX

#30 Jan 21, 2013

Since: Jan 13

Fairfax, VA

#31 Jan 21, 2013
tina anne wrote:
<quoted text>
The fact that you still believe in AGW after all this time really is a peek into your mind. After all, AGW stopped being a theory in 2008.
The rise in CO2 has always followed the rise in temperature which is the reason why they started looking at perafrost as a possible source. Also, if you check your half a trillion tons number you would discover that it is nothing more than a semi educated guess based on some really shaky numbers. For example, they have no real clue on how much coal was burned in the last century because many places were not keeping records of how much coal they mined and sold.
Wow. Are you in a right wing fantasy bubble, or what.

Did you miss all the articles posted here.
Did you miss all the SCIENCE mainstream, the world renown science agencies, and the peer review respect science journals ALL say different?

All I can say is... wow! Even most conservatives know what's out there, even if they disagree with it.

you are BEYOND clueless.

And of course, if you REALLY think you have some evidence to prove me wrong... please don't hesitate, my dear.

But I won't hold my breadth.

Since: Jan 13

Fairfax, VA

#32 Jan 21, 2013
SpaceBlues wrote:
The Koch Bros-funded [BEST] study is published finally to conclude that … "solar forcing does not appear to contribute to the observed global warming of the past 250 years; the entire change can be modeled by a sum of volcanism and a single anthropogenic [human-made] proxy."
http://thinkprogress.org/wp-content/uploads/2 ...
It wasn't the sun, stupid.
Ah, must be Richard Muller's review of the weather station data.

Yup, looks a lot like NASA's curve.

Well after being their hopeful hero, the right wing now thinks Muller is a commie. LOL.

LOL.

Since: Jan 13

Fairfax, VA

#33 Jan 21, 2013
tina anne wrote:
<quoted text>
The fact that you still believe in AGW after all this time really is a peek into your mind. After all, AGW stopped being a theory in 2008.
Gee, Tina. You need to tell NASA quick. LOL!!

Climate change: How do we know?

The Earth's climate has changed throughout history. Just in the last 650,000 years there have been seven cycles of glacial advance and retreat, with the abrupt end of the last ice age about 7,000 years ago marking the beginning of the modern climate era — and of human civilization. Most of these climate changes are attributed to very small variations in Earth’s orbit that change the amount of solar energy our planet receives.

The current warming trend is of particular significance because most of it is very likely human-induced and proceeding at a rate that is unprecedented in the past 1,300 years.

Earth-orbiting satellites and other tech advances have enabled scientists to see the big picture, collecting many different types of information about our planet and its climate on a global scale. Studying these climate data collected over many years reveal the signals of a changing climate.

Facts about Earth's climate are not in dispute

The heat-trapping nature of carbon dioxide and other gases was demonstrated in the mid-19th century.Their ability to affect the transfer of infrared energy through the atmosphere is the scientific basis of many JPL-designed instruments, such as AIRS. Increased levels of greenhouse gases must cause the Earth to warm in response.

Ice cores drawn from Greenland, Antarctica, and tropical mountain glaciers show that the Earth’s climate responds to changes in solar output, in the Earth’s orbit, and in greenhouse gas levels. They also show that in the past, large changes in climate have happened very quickly, geologically-speaking: in tens of years, not in millions or even thousands.

The evidence for rapid climate change is:

• Sea level rise
Global sea level rose about 17 centimeters (6.7 inches) in the last century. The rate in the last decade, however, is nearly double that of the last century.

• Global temperature rise
All 3 major global surface temperature reconstructions show that Earth has warmed since 1880. Most of this warming has occurred since the 1970s, with the 20 warmest years having occurred since 1981 and with all 10 of the warmest years occurring in the past 12 years. Even though the 2000s witnessed a solar output decline resulting in an unusually deep solar minimum in 2007-2009, surface temperatures continue to increase.

• Warming oceans
The oceans have absorbed much of this increased heat, with the top 700 meters (about 2,300 feet) of ocean showing warming of 0.302 degrees Fahrenheit since 1969.

• Shrinking ice sheets
The Greenland and Antarctic ice sheets have decreased in mass. Data from NASA's Gravity Recovery and Climate Experiment show Greenland lost 150 to 250 cubic kilometers (36 to 60 cubic miles) of ice per year between 2002 and 2006, while Antarctica lost about 152 cubic kilometers (36 cubic miles) of ice between 2002 and 2005.

• Declining Arctic sea ice
Both the extent and thickness of Arctic sea ice has declined rapidly over the last several decades.

• Glacial retreat
Glaciers are retreating almost everywhere around the world—including in the Alps, Himalayas, Andes, Rockies, Alaska and Africa.

• Extreme events
The number of record high temperature events in the United States has been increasing, while the number of record low temperature events has been decreasing, since 1950.

• Ocean acidification
Since the beginning of the Industrial Revolution, the acidity of surface ocean waters has increased by about 30 percent. This increase is the result of humans emitting more carbon dioxide into the atmosphere and hence more being absorbed into the oceans. The amount of carbon dioxide absorbed by the upper layer of the oceans is increasing by about 2 billion tons/year.

http://climate.nasa.gov/evidence

Since: Jan 13

Fairfax, VA

#34 Jan 21, 2013
tina anne wrote:
<quoted text>
The fact that you still believe in AGW after all this time really is a peek into your mind. After all, AGW stopped being a theory in 2008.
Gee, Tina. You need to tell NASA quick.LOL.

Climate change: How do we know?

The Earth's climate has changed throughout history. Just in the last 650,000 years there have been seven cycles of glacial advance and retreat, with the abrupt end of the last ice age about 7,000 years ago marking the beginning of the modern climate era — and of human civilization. Most of these climate changes are attributed to very small variations in Earth’s orbit that change the amount of solar energy our planet receives.

The current warming trend is of particular significance because most of it is very likely human-induced and proceeding at a rate that is unprecedented in the past 1,300 years.

Earth-orbiting satellites and other tech advances have enabled scientists to see the big picture, collecting many different types of information about our planet and its climate on a global scale. Studying these climate data collected over many years reveal the signals of a changing climate.

Facts about Earth's climate are not in dispute

The heat-trapping nature of carbon dioxide and other gases was demonstrated in the mid-19th century.Their ability to affect the transfer of infrared energy through the atmosphere is the scientific basis of many JPL-designed instruments, such as AIRS. Increased levels of greenhouse gases must cause the Earth to warm in response.

Ice cores drawn from Greenland, Antarctica, and tropical mountain glaciers show that the Earth’s climate responds to changes in solar output, in the Earth’s orbit, and in greenhouse gas levels. They also show that in the past, large changes in climate have happened very quickly, geologically-speaking: in tens of years, not in millions or even thousands.

The evidence for rapid climate change is:

• Sea level rise
Global sea level rose about 17 centimeters (6.7 inches) in the last century. The rate in the last decade, however, is nearly double that of the last century.

• Global temperature rise
All 3 major global surface temperature reconstructions show that Earth has warmed since 1880. Most of this warming has occurred since the 1970s, with the 20 warmest years having occurred since 1981 and with all 10 of the warmest years occurring in the past 12 years. Even though the 2000s witnessed a solar output decline resulting in an unusually deep solar minimum in 2007-2009, surface temperatures continue to increase.

• Warming oceans
The oceans have absorbed much of this increased heat, with the top 700 meters (about 2,300 feet) of ocean showing warming of 0.302 degrees Fahrenheit since 1969.

• Shrinking ice sheets
The Greenland and Antarctic ice sheets have decreased in mass. Data from NASA's Gravity Recovery and Climate Experiment show Greenland lost 150 to 250 cubic kilometers (36 to 60 cubic miles) of ice per year between 2002 and 2006, while Antarctica lost about 152 cubic kilometers (36 cubic miles) of ice between 2002 and 2005.

• Declining Arctic sea ice
Both the extent and thickness of Arctic sea ice has declined rapidly over the last several decades.

• Glacial retreat
Glaciers are retreating almost everywhere around the world—including in the Alps, Himalayas, Andes, Rockies, Alaska and Africa.

• Extreme events
The number of record high temperature events in the United States has been increasing, while the number of record low temperature events has been decreasing, since 1950.

• Ocean acidification
Since the beginning of the Industrial Revolution, the acidity of surface ocean waters has increased by about 30 percent. This increase is the result of humans emitting more carbon dioxide into the atmosphere and hence more being absorbed into the oceans. The amount of carbon dioxide absorbed by the upper layer of the oceans is increasing by about 2 billion tons/year.

http://climate.nasa.gov/evidence

Since: Jan 13

Fairfax, VA

#35 Jan 21, 2013
tina anne wrote:
<quoted text>
The fact that you still believe in AGW after all this time really is a peek into your mind. After all, AGW stopped being a theory in 2008.
Quick Tina Anne, go tell NASA, they seem to think global warming is VERY real and is giving the evidence for it.

http://climate.nasa.gov/evidence

Going to tell us they just THINK they wrote this?

LOL.
PHD

Overton, TX

#36 Jan 21, 2013
Wallop10 wrote:
<quoted text>
Quick Tina Anne,I will go tell NASA, they seem to think global warming is VERY WRONG and is giving the evidence for it.
I'M Going to tell them they just THINK they wrote this?
LOL.
Yes you do that. Useless scientific science fiction.

“dening those who deny nature. ”

Since: Jun 07

Norfolk va

#37 Jan 23, 2013
Wallop10 wrote:
<quoted text>
Wow. Are you in a right wing fantasy bubble, or what.
Did you miss all the articles posted here.
Did you miss all the SCIENCE mainstream, the world renown science agencies, and the peer review respect science journals ALL say different?
All I can say is... wow! Even most conservatives know what's out there, even if they disagree with it.
you are BEYOND clueless.
And of course, if you REALLY think you have some evidence to prove me wrong... please don't hesitate, my dear.
But I won't hold my breadth.
Yo must of missed how many peer reviewed journals say it is not. As for world renown science agencies, what are they renown for. Right now the IPCC is renown for it's AR4 and the host of errors therein. The CRU is now renown for clmategate.

I have presented the evidence in the past while you only seem to have presented fiction. One such is the AAAS which turned out to be a lobbying group. Would you accept the word of teh Kock Brothers? Yet you offer the mirror image, activist groups, Sceince Academies that are nothing more than government sponsered spin and have a documented history of such.

Of course the real tell is when people like yourself refer to something as "RW". This proves that this is about politics and not science. Science is neither left or right. Politics does not affect the speed of light or the atomic weight of lead. Those remain no matter what the political climate.

As for evidence, look to the past. Look back a few hundred years and examine the records. Then you will discover that this is a reoccuring political fad that will be replaced with it's counterpart in a couple of decades.

“dening those who deny nature. ”

Since: Jun 07

Norfolk va

#38 Jan 23, 2013
Wallop10 wrote:
<quoted text>
Gee, Tina. You need to tell NASA quick. LOL!!
Climate change: How do we know?
The Earth's climate has changed throughout history. Just in the last 650,000 years there have been seven cycles of glacial advance and retreat, with the abrupt end of the last ice age about 7,000 years ago marking the beginning of the modern climate era — and of human civilization. Most of these climate changes are attributed to very small variations in Earth’s orbit that change the amount of solar energy our planet receives.
The current warming trend is of particular significance because most of it is very likely human-induced and proceeding at a rate that is unprecedented in the past 1,300 years.
Earth-orbiting satellites and other tech advances have enabled scientists to see the big picture, collecting many different types of information about our planet and its climate on a global scale. Studying these climate data collected over many years reveal the signals of a changing climate.
Facts about Earth's climate are not in dispute
The heat-trapping nature of carbon dioxide and other gases was demonstrated in the mid-19th century.Their ability to affect the transfer of infrared energy through the atmosphere is the scientific basis of many JPL-designed instruments, such as AIRS. Increased levels of greenhouse gases must cause the Earth to warm in response.
You mean tell Hansen. As for the sea level rise. Funny thing is you look at photos from the Civil War of forts in bays there isnt a noticable change in ocean levels. Same goes with forts that were around for the war of 1812, which was two centuries ago. If there had been such a rise in water levels then the difference between those photos and today would be very noticable. After all, you are not talking a few millimeters but a half a foot or over fifteen centimeters.

As for the rest, yes the earth is warming and has been according to data they have reconstructed since the end of the last ice age. I doubt there were cavemen heating their caves with tons of coal. The glaciers which are the last remains of that ice age have also been in retreat since the end of that ice age with exception of the little ice age a few centuries ago.

It seems like your scientist also missed all those other interglcieral periods. Where the earth not only warmed up but was warmer than now. That the Cambrian period which had higher CO2 levels than now actually was a very vibrant place with a population explosion in animals.

It is also interesting that you only seem to know one web site at NASA. It shows a sad lack of vision to not seek out another.

http://personalliberty.com/2011/07/29/nasa-da...

http://www.newsmax.com/Newsfront/NASA-Global-...
http://real-agenda.com/2011/07/28/nasa-satell...

http://wattsupwiththat.com/2012/08/12/nasas-j...

http://millergd.blogspot.com/2011/07/nasa-pro...
PHD

Overton, TX

#39 Jan 23, 2013
Peer reviewed: A club of its my opinion on predictions forecasts scientific science fiction to draw more tax dollars.

“dening those who deny nature. ”

Since: Jun 07

Norfolk va

#40 Jan 23, 2013
PHD wrote:
Peer reviewed: A club of its my opinion on predictions forecasts scientific science fiction to draw more tax dollars.
Peer review is sometimes nothing more than one fool claiming that another fool is right.

Tell me when this thread is updated: (Registration is not required)

Add to my Tracker Send me an email

Add your comments below

Characters left: 4000

Please note by submitting this form you acknowledge that you have read the Terms of Service and the comment you are posting is in compliance with such terms. Be polite. Inappropriate posts may be removed by the moderator. Send us your feedback.

Global Warming Discussions

Title Updated Last By Comments
Western Antarctica warming confirmed (Dec '12) 56 min dont drink the ko... 14
Global warming 'undeniable,' scientists say (Jul '10) 2 hr SpaceBlues 32,447
As The Global Warming 'Pause' Continues Scienti... 2 hr SpaceBlues 7
Kittens: The New Mascot Of Global Warming 3 hr FatLadyMe 4
Once slow-moving threat, global warming speeds ... (Dec '08) 4 hr truth-facts 46,292
Carrollton Free Press Standard Letters to the E... 4 hr SpaceBlues 16
Expert: We must act fast on warming (Sep '08) 5 hr SpaceBlues 27,013
•••
Enter and win $5000
•••

Global Warming People Search

Addresses and phone numbers for FREE

•••