rhaig 0
Recommended Posts
rhaig 0
Quote>Desperate much, Bill?
About as desperate as you, apparently.
So how desperate are you anyway?
that sounds awfully attacking the poster, not the post.
who watches the watchmen?
--
Rob
Rob
billvon 3,118
.thumb.jpg.4bb795e2eaf21b8b300039a5e1ec7f92.jpg)
> the southern hemisphere data isn't there. The proxies aren't there.
There are a few proxies that are available for the southern hemisphere; coral growth patterns are one. They show localized rather than global warming. A map of several averaged proxies is shown below. (Since the data are more sparse the results are not as robust as the northern hemisphere proxies though.)
>Let's all admit - we don't know whether it was global.
Correct. By that measure, though, we don't even know there was a Medieval Warming Period.
There are a few proxies that are available for the southern hemisphere; coral growth patterns are one. They show localized rather than global warming. A map of several averaged proxies is shown below. (Since the data are more sparse the results are not as robust as the northern hemisphere proxies though.)
>Let's all admit - we don't know whether it was global.
Correct. By that measure, though, we don't even know there was a Medieval Warming Period.
billvon 3,118
>But what I have done has revealed lots of fabrications, assumptions and
>outright lies to support the global climate change as result of man theory.
Agreed. There have also been a remarkable number of well-funded groups working to fabricate and distort science to make it look like:
1) there is no such thing as climate change
2) there is such a thing but we didn't do it
3) maybe there is and we did do it, but it's a good thing
For a while most denier groups were concentrating on 2) but many have now returned to 1). It makes them somewhat less than credible.
In any case, it's a mistake to listen to extremists on either side of the debate. The world really isn't going to end tomorrow, and there's really no conspiracy theory among grad students to make Al Gore rich.
>outright lies to support the global climate change as result of man theory.
Agreed. There have also been a remarkable number of well-funded groups working to fabricate and distort science to make it look like:
1) there is no such thing as climate change
2) there is such a thing but we didn't do it
3) maybe there is and we did do it, but it's a good thing
For a while most denier groups were concentrating on 2) but many have now returned to 1). It makes them somewhat less than credible.
In any case, it's a mistake to listen to extremists on either side of the debate. The world really isn't going to end tomorrow, and there's really no conspiracy theory among grad students to make Al Gore rich.
D22369 0
so why are all the planets in the solar system showing elevated temperatures and how does our activities on this planet mess with the others?
Roy
Roy
They say I suffer from insanity.... But I actually enjoy it.
[Reply]
3) maybe there is and we did do it, but it's a good thing
3) maybe there is and we did do it, but it's a good thing
How dare somebody suggest that not all effects of global climate change would be catastrophic! If anybody does, such will be considered heresy and they will be fucked up.
Bill - are you suggesting that discussion of potential beneficial aspects should be barred from discussion in this political discussion? It seems that the research into global warming focuses on the potential effects. Do you suggest that any positive potential should be stricken from conversation?
My wife is hotter than your wife.
billvon 3,118
>How dare somebody suggest that not all effects of global climate
>change would be catastrophic!
?? No one suggested that. Are you answering a different post?
>Bill - are you suggesting that discussion of potential beneficial
>aspects should be barred from discussion in this political discussion?
What the heck are you talking about?
>change would be catastrophic!
?? No one suggested that. Are you answering a different post?
>Bill - are you suggesting that discussion of potential beneficial
>aspects should be barred from discussion in this political discussion?
What the heck are you talking about?
kallend 2,148
Quoteso why are all the planets in the solar system showing elevated temperatures and how does our activities on this planet mess with the others?
Roy
They aren't. Yet another deniers' myth.
www.skepticalscience.com/global-warming-other-planets-solar-system.htm
...
The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one.
The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one.
Bill:
You wrote:
For years you have suggested the various stages of climate change denial. I do not believe anybody out there is arguing that the climate is not changing. Fools believe that because the climate has ALWAYS changed. It has changed, is changing, and will change.
As far as the human effect, yeah. I believe we are having an effect that makes the general warming pattern have some anthropogenic character. However, I believe from what I've seen and read that the human effect is negligible - perhaps at most 1-2 degrees C between 1860 and 2100.
It is THIS point - "3) maybe there is and we did do it, but it's a good thing" - that is the biggie to me.
The entire debate over AGW - and over climate change PERIOD - centers around the predicted disasters and human catastrohes that will be associated with climate change. "The island of Tuvalu will be inundated with rising sea level in the next few decades." Meanwhile, the sea level there FELL between 1995 and 2005. The sea level there continues to fall with the latest studies. But we also see where an interdisciplinary approach may be necessary - Tuvalu is a low-lying tropical island with few natural resources and little fresh water. The 10k or so people who live there have stretched resources to the max.
By picking up the "we're at risk thanks to the first world" they hope to receive money or even be taken to Oz or New Zealand as refugees.
There are people putting out the risk of the melting of the ice sheets. "If Greenland's ice sheet melts then the sea level will raise the sea level 8 meters." Yes, the extent of the ice sheet is shrinking. But overall the ice sheet is in stasis because of the snowfall accumulation outside of the coastal areas. (Greenland is a fine example of how this stuff actually works. The far north of Greenland does not have an ice cap because it is so cold and dry that it cannot get snow to actually build one! Based on present knowledge, global warming may have the effect of actually creating an icecap there.)
There are predictions of disaster. "The ice is melting the ice is melting in Greenlans!" No, some coastal ice is melting and a roughly equal amount is accreting elsewhere. IF the ice sheet melts in Greenland, even under the most pessimistic predictions, it'll take at least 800 years (and our fossil fuels will have run out by about 500 years before then).
This is why I am a skeptic. There are the alarmists who point to disaster after distaster to befall us. Alarm.
Then there are the deniers who deny it all.
Where is the truth? Somewhere in between. I do not buy the doom and gloom. I do not buy the "all is well." I don't. But your post indicated to me that discussion of the possible benefits that could come from climate change is off the table.
I have a problem with that...
My wife is hotter than your wife.
You wrote:
QuoteThere have also been a remarkable number of well-funded groups working to fabricate and distort science to make it look like:
1) there is no such thing as climate change
2) there is such a thing but we didn't do it
3) maybe there is and we did do it, but it's a good thing
For years you have suggested the various stages of climate change denial. I do not believe anybody out there is arguing that the climate is not changing. Fools believe that because the climate has ALWAYS changed. It has changed, is changing, and will change.
As far as the human effect, yeah. I believe we are having an effect that makes the general warming pattern have some anthropogenic character. However, I believe from what I've seen and read that the human effect is negligible - perhaps at most 1-2 degrees C between 1860 and 2100.
It is THIS point - "3) maybe there is and we did do it, but it's a good thing" - that is the biggie to me.
The entire debate over AGW - and over climate change PERIOD - centers around the predicted disasters and human catastrohes that will be associated with climate change. "The island of Tuvalu will be inundated with rising sea level in the next few decades." Meanwhile, the sea level there FELL between 1995 and 2005. The sea level there continues to fall with the latest studies. But we also see where an interdisciplinary approach may be necessary - Tuvalu is a low-lying tropical island with few natural resources and little fresh water. The 10k or so people who live there have stretched resources to the max.
By picking up the "we're at risk thanks to the first world" they hope to receive money or even be taken to Oz or New Zealand as refugees.
There are people putting out the risk of the melting of the ice sheets. "If Greenland's ice sheet melts then the sea level will raise the sea level 8 meters." Yes, the extent of the ice sheet is shrinking. But overall the ice sheet is in stasis because of the snowfall accumulation outside of the coastal areas. (Greenland is a fine example of how this stuff actually works. The far north of Greenland does not have an ice cap because it is so cold and dry that it cannot get snow to actually build one! Based on present knowledge, global warming may have the effect of actually creating an icecap there.)
There are predictions of disaster. "The ice is melting the ice is melting in Greenlans!" No, some coastal ice is melting and a roughly equal amount is accreting elsewhere. IF the ice sheet melts in Greenland, even under the most pessimistic predictions, it'll take at least 800 years (and our fossil fuels will have run out by about 500 years before then).
This is why I am a skeptic. There are the alarmists who point to disaster after distaster to befall us. Alarm.
Then there are the deniers who deny it all.
Where is the truth? Somewhere in between. I do not buy the doom and gloom. I do not buy the "all is well." I don't. But your post indicated to me that discussion of the possible benefits that could come from climate change is off the table.
I have a problem with that...
My wife is hotter than your wife.
davjohns 1
+1
My research on the subject puts me in that same boat.
My research on the subject puts me in that same boat.
I know it just wouldnt be right to kill all the stupid people that we meet..
But do you think it would be appropriate to just remove all of the warning labels and let nature take its course.
But do you think it would be appropriate to just remove all of the warning labels and let nature take its course.
rushmc 23
A very good post which leads to the one question I have had all along
Why?
What is the reason?
I feel that many on the AGW side agree with you as well but, and this is a big but, having this belief does not help those who wish to alter life styles to be what they think everyones should be. (group number 1)
The second group sees money. This is the UN's goal. It is just another form of money and power to that group.
Cant let a good disaster go by with gaining something huh![[:/]](/uploads/emoticons/dry.png "[:/]"){kind=small}
"America will never be destroyed from the outside,
if we falter and lose our freedoms,
it will be because we destroyed ourselves."
Abraham Lincoln
if we falter and lose our freedoms,
it will be because we destroyed ourselves."
Abraham Lincoln
billvon 3,118
> I do not believe anybody out there is arguing that the climate is
> not changing.
A great many people are. The website "wattsupwiththat" posted dozens of pictures of weather stations claiming that there were 'false' heat sources that made it look like the climate was warming. Their claim was that the trend was not true; the climate was not warming.
From SEPP, Fred Singer's website (one of the best-funded deniers out there) - "since the climate is not warming significantly, there is no immediate reason for concern."
Recently several people - including some people here - have claimed that climate change has stopped since temperatures have not yet exceeded the average for 2005.
>As far as the human effect, yeah. I believe we are having an effect that
>makes the general warming pattern have some anthropogenic character.
>However, I believe from what I've seen and read that the human effect is
>negligible - perhaps at most 1-2 degrees C between 1860 and 2100.
That's pretty close to the B1 scenario - a change between 1.1 and 2.9 degrees C through 2100. It assumes a lot more environmental focus that we have now, but that seems to be happening.
>The entire debate over AGW - and over climate change PERIOD -
>centers around the predicted disasters and human catastrohes that will
>be associated with climate change.
Again, if you think that, you're paying too much heed to popular media. The debate in the pages of Science and Nature journals do not talk about horrifying human catastrophes. They talk about positive feedback mechanisms, negative feeback mechanisms, effects of higher temperatures, effects of higher acidity in the oceans etc. Many effects are negative; some are neutral, some are positive. Too many people mistake movies like "The Day After Tomorrow" for actual science.
>There are predictions of disaster. "The ice is melting the ice is melting
>in Greenlans!"
Ice is melting - and it's not the end of the world, nor is it a disaster. It's just melting ice. It has effects - but again, Manhattan is not going to be underwater next weekend.
>But your post indicated to me that discussion of the possible
>benefits that could come from climate change is off the table.
Where did you get that? The third denier position is that "it's a good thing and anyone who claims otherwise is an Al Gore liar alarmist asshole." They deny any possible negative consequence (thus the name) and accuse scientists of "trying to impose their lifestyles on everyone to get more funding" or something.
There are some significant changes that will come about as a result of climate change, and as a result of CO2 increases. Some will be beneficial and some won't be, and some will be both. For example, some plants will grow faster. That seems like a good thing. However, most weeds will grow faster than most crops due to the type of photosynthesis they use. That might be a bad thing, depending on what you're trying to grow. Assuming that we don't have to worry about it because CO2 must be a good thing (an "amazingly effective aerial fertilizer for our crops" was how one website described it) would be a mistake.
> not changing.
A great many people are. The website "wattsupwiththat" posted dozens of pictures of weather stations claiming that there were 'false' heat sources that made it look like the climate was warming. Their claim was that the trend was not true; the climate was not warming.
From SEPP, Fred Singer's website (one of the best-funded deniers out there) - "since the climate is not warming significantly, there is no immediate reason for concern."
Recently several people - including some people here - have claimed that climate change has stopped since temperatures have not yet exceeded the average for 2005.
>As far as the human effect, yeah. I believe we are having an effect that
>makes the general warming pattern have some anthropogenic character.
>However, I believe from what I've seen and read that the human effect is
>negligible - perhaps at most 1-2 degrees C between 1860 and 2100.
That's pretty close to the B1 scenario - a change between 1.1 and 2.9 degrees C through 2100. It assumes a lot more environmental focus that we have now, but that seems to be happening.
>The entire debate over AGW - and over climate change PERIOD -
>centers around the predicted disasters and human catastrohes that will
>be associated with climate change.
Again, if you think that, you're paying too much heed to popular media. The debate in the pages of Science and Nature journals do not talk about horrifying human catastrophes. They talk about positive feedback mechanisms, negative feeback mechanisms, effects of higher temperatures, effects of higher acidity in the oceans etc. Many effects are negative; some are neutral, some are positive. Too many people mistake movies like "The Day After Tomorrow" for actual science.
>There are predictions of disaster. "The ice is melting the ice is melting
>in Greenlans!"
Ice is melting - and it's not the end of the world, nor is it a disaster. It's just melting ice. It has effects - but again, Manhattan is not going to be underwater next weekend.
>But your post indicated to me that discussion of the possible
>benefits that could come from climate change is off the table.
Where did you get that? The third denier position is that "it's a good thing and anyone who claims otherwise is an Al Gore liar alarmist asshole." They deny any possible negative consequence (thus the name) and accuse scientists of "trying to impose their lifestyles on everyone to get more funding" or something.
There are some significant changes that will come about as a result of climate change, and as a result of CO2 increases. Some will be beneficial and some won't be, and some will be both. For example, some plants will grow faster. That seems like a good thing. However, most weeds will grow faster than most crops due to the type of photosynthesis they use. That might be a bad thing, depending on what you're trying to grow. Assuming that we don't have to worry about it because CO2 must be a good thing (an "amazingly effective aerial fertilizer for our crops" was how one website described it) would be a mistake.
Quote> I do not believe anybody out there is arguing that the climate is
> not changing.
A great many people are. The website "wattsupwiththat" posted dozens of pictures of weather stations claiming that there were 'false' heat sources that made it look like the climate was warming. Their claim was that the trend was not true; the climate was not warming.
I don't read it. I do, however, understand that his concerns are legitimate. There are claims that the increased readings are due to heat island effect. My thought - okay. That's called anthropogenic warming. Not due to CO2 but another anthropogenic cause.
QuoteFrom SEPP, Fred Singer's website (one of the best-funded deniers out there) - "since the climate is not warming significantly, there is no immediate reason for concern."
I bolded the language of subjective argument. This is the counterpart to "robust" used so often by the Schmidts of the AGW movement.
QuoteRecently several people - including some people here - have claimed that climate change has stopped since temperatures have not yet exceeded the average for 2005.
Yes. If their point is like mine, warming has paused and we don't know why. Twelve years now. The recent tmperature has a moderately strong El Nino - which always causes an increase.
People on the alarmist side say, "Signal v. noise. Short term trends don't show anything." And yet they announce that "last year was the second warmest year on record." What about short-term trends.
It is ironic that those who are the most ignorant of the subject are usually the MOST likely to pick up the inconsistencies. The deniers are largely a group of people who say, "Hey. Global warming leads to more floods? And more droughts. And to more frequent and intense blizzards as well as less frequent and less intense snowfall?" The ignorant can reasonably conclude that they are being had.
Quote>As far as the human effect, yeah. I believe we are having an effect that
>makes the general warming pattern have some anthropogenic character.
>However, I believe from what I've seen and read that the human effect is
>negligible - perhaps at most 1-2 degrees C between 1860 and 2100.
That's pretty close to the B1 scenario - a change between 1.1 and 2.9 degrees C through 2100. It assumes a lot more environmental focus that we have now, but that seems to be happening.
The problem is that the increases in global temperature - the curve - began well before there would be any appreciable effect of the industrial era. Thus there was noise before a signal, making things more difficult to separate signal from noise and to attribute it to CO2/methane/water vapor.
I think 2.9C is a bit high for the anthropogenic effect.
Quote>The entire debate over AGW - and over climate change PERIOD -
>centers around the predicted disasters and human catastrohes that will
>be associated with climate change.
Again, if you think that, you're paying too much heed to popular media. The debate in the pages of Science and Nature journals do not talk about horrifying human catastrophes. They talk about positive feedback mechanisms, negative feeback mechanisms, effects of higher temperatures, effects of higher acidity in the oceans etc. Many effects are negative; some are neutral, some are positive. Too many people mistake movies like "The Day After Tomorrow" for actual science.
The popular media has been dominated by the "alarmist" camp for decades now! James Hansen ADMITTED to making doom scenarios to call attention to the problem.
The point is simple that AGW has become a political fact. Early dominance of the alarmists in the media presence have brought forth this sort of crap. Do Hansen, Mann, Schmidt, Bradley, Steig, etc., make efforts to prevent these beliefs? No. They attack those who attack the beliefs as "contrarians."
This is what the mainstream press does. The skilled marketer knows this. In order to get coverage a press release has to be drafted that paints a picture to interest the public.
Recently, however, the tide looks to be turning - especialy with the British press across the Pond. It seems that many of the AGW community spokespersons are not used to being questioned.
Quote>There are predictions of disaster. "The ice is melting the ice is melting
>in Greenlans!"
Ice is melting - and it's not the end of the world, nor is it a disaster. It's just melting ice. It has effects - but again, Manhattan is not going to be underwater next weekend.
Nor will it be underwater in my kids' lifetimes outside of some non-CO2 event. Likely not for several hundred years...
ut it seems like there is urgency abou tTuvalu, the Maldives, etc. There's something else going on - and it is politics.
Quote>But your post indicated to me that discussion of the possible
>benefits that could come from climate change is off the table.
Where did you get that? The third denier position is that "it's a good thing and anyone who claims otherwise is an Al Gore liar alarmist asshole." They deny any possible negative consequence (thus the name.)
So you are looking only at the limited kooks? Why can the position not progress to "the effects will not be as bad as the lay public have been told."
QuoteThere are some significant changes that will come about as a result of climate change, and as a result of CO2 increases. Some will be beneficial and some won't be, and some will be both. For example, some plants will grow faster. That seems like a good thing. However, most weeds will grow faster than most crops due to the type of photosynthesis they use. That might be a bad thing, depending on what you're trying to grow.
Of course! Yet, the political involvement is that it muist be stopped at all costs. Like reducing greenhouse gas emissions by 80% to prevent catastrophe.
The proposals are extremely silly to those who look at the cost/benefit. They ONLY make sense to prevent a global catastrophe - which will not happen.
Or - to direct money into the accounts of those who were smart enough to make the world believe that their very existence depends on it...
My wife is hotter than your wife.
are those the same unbiased scientists that fudge data by adding a couple of degrees here and there? Or the ones that argue that so many of they agree, that it must be right?
Rob
Share this post
Link to post
Share on other sites