QuoteQuoteRush was asking for temperatures for the entire history of the planet. I said that would be a silly exercise with no point, and posted the best model I can of the temperature over the duration of human civilization...an important timeframe for us humans. I also acknowledged that the last 200 years were unreliable and could be disregarded. My entire point for posting the graph was not the last 200 years, but the preceding 11,000 years. If Rush chooses to ignore those last 200 years (which I presume he will), he can fill the void from some other source. In my opinion, his favorite source is talk-radio (or Exxon funded "expert" Doctors of Philosophy).
Blues,
Dave
Well then your opinion about me is wrong too
You've yet to come remotely close to disproving it.
Blues,
Dave
"I AM A PROFESSIONAL EXTREME ATHLETE!"
(drink Mountain Dew)
(drink Mountain Dew)
rushmc 23
QuoteQuoteQuoteRush was asking for temperatures for the entire history of the planet. I said that would be a silly exercise with no point, and posted the best model I can of the temperature over the duration of human civilization...an important timeframe for us humans. I also acknowledged that the last 200 years were unreliable and could be disregarded. My entire point for posting the graph was not the last 200 years, but the preceding 11,000 years. If Rush chooses to ignore those last 200 years (which I presume he will), he can fill the void from some other source. In my opinion, his favorite source is talk-radio (or Exxon funded "expert" Doctors of Philosophy).
Blues,
Dave
Well then your opinion about me is wrong too
You've yet to come remotely close to disproving it.
Blues,
Dave
And you are preaching the gosiple
Got it
"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
rehmwa 2
multiple and repetitive ad hominen attacks
Lawrocket is now a "denier"
QED
...
Driving is a one dimensional activity - a monkey can do it - being proud of your driving abilities is like being proud of being able to put on pants
Lawrocket is now a "denier"
QED
...
Driving is a one dimensional activity - a monkey can do it - being proud of your driving abilities is like being proud of being able to put on pants
DanG 1
QuoteSo you admit you were wrong
Read it how ever you want. A mature person would read it as a plea for civility. Someone else might read it is a nanny-nanny-boo-boo. It's up to you.
- Dan G
[Reply]Lawrocket is now a "denier."
No I'm not!!!
My wife is hotter than your wife.
wmw999 2,589
I like your analysis. The one thing I would add would be an assertion somewhere between the #1 and the #3 positions saying that maybe things are changing, but until it's proven that it's carbon etc. usage, we shouldn't do anything.
Wendy P.
Wendy P.
There is nothing more dangerous than breaking a basic safety rule and getting away with it. It removes fear of the consequences and builds false confidence. (tbrown)
DanG 1
QuoteThe one thing I would add would be an assertion somewhere between the #1 and the #3 positions saying that maybe things are changing, but until it's proven that it's carbon etc. usage, we shouldn't do anything.
Sure I could see how someone could think that...if they were an extremist asshole freak!!!
Seriously, I think there are a lot of positions in the middle. I used my own position as the "middle" but there's certainly wiggle room around it.
- Dan G
Quote[Reply]Observation and prediction are different activities. We can clearly observe a correlation between CO2 and temperature, and a trend that both are increase. Predicting how those will play out in the future is an inexact science at best due to uncertanties in GHG emissions and other human-related activities as well as in feedbacks (especially clouds, the role of which are not well understood)
This is where the entire AGW argument lies. The predictions (always couched in "mayl) are such things as, "sea level may rise 3 meters by 2100." This is the same as saying, "sea levels probably won't increase 3 meters."
That's how reasonable predictions work (may), however your example isn't particularly accurate of how these predictions really work. Different models predict different things, some more accurate than others depending on the variables. When these various models are combined, the outcome is a bit more complicated, but the accuracy is considerably better defined. See attached.
QuoteBut the predictions are the basis for the remedial actions. The predictions are scietific wild-assed guesses. And on the basis of these SWAGs, there are requests for massive changes in the developed world. These predictions are uncertain because there is plenty we do not understand.
The alternative is no remedial action, and the requests for massive changes are met exactly with massive opposition to even minor changes (see rushmc's and brenthutch's absolute hatred for anything related to fuel efficient vehicles...because making a finite resource last longer is a bad thing?)
QuoteThis is the basis of AGW debate. The political matters of what the future means. And plenty have a lot to lose and gain on the basis of hypotheses that are 70 years away from being validated.
To simplify things, we can divide our options into 2 paths, either of which can be correct or incorrect.
We can do nothing and hope things turn out ok. If we're correct, we'll still have inefficent urban planning, an even more congested transportation network, more energy demand than we can meet (due to population growth), and still be cruising through our finite fossil resources at an unsustainable rate. If we're incorrect, we'll have massive population migration (a signficant percentage of the global population lives quite close to a coast), water-wars, famine, increased natural disaster deaths (storms, heat waves, etc), and substantially increased disease epidemics.
Alternately, we can try to adapt to and mitigate the more plausible predictions. If we're correct, we'll substantially reduce (but probably not completely) all the bad things that were previously listed as being outcomes of being wrong with Path A. If we're wrong, we'll have spent a bunch of money making our cities more resilient and energy independent, our transportation networks less congested, and have extended the lifespan of our fossil fuel reserves.
Path A leads to a tolerable outcome or an intolerable outcome. Path B leads to a tolerable outcome or a good outcome. It seems to me that Path B wins by a score of 2-1.
Blues,
Dave
"I AM A PROFESSIONAL EXTREME ATHLETE!"
(drink Mountain Dew)
(drink Mountain Dew)
billvon 3,120
.thumb.jpg.4bb795e2eaf21b8b300039a5e1ec7f92.jpg)
>We have a good 15 years of trend right now that is showing that the relationship
>(massive increase in ppm of CO2 not coupled with massive increase in temperature)
>has an exception.
Well, no. Temperatures have been increasing pretty steadily; 2010 was the hottest year ever. At most you could say that "the last 3 years are not showing the stated relationship."
This isn't new. Between 1942 and 1958 there was a significant drop in temperature. Between 1940 and 1980 there was no significant increase, on average. But take a larger view and there has been a definite and significant increase.
Between 1961 and 1979 there was also a decrease. Newsweek did a front page story about how this meant a new ice age was coming. And this was based on 18 years of declines. I would hesitate to make a similar mistake based on 3 years.
>(massive increase in ppm of CO2 not coupled with massive increase in temperature)
>has an exception.
Well, no. Temperatures have been increasing pretty steadily; 2010 was the hottest year ever. At most you could say that "the last 3 years are not showing the stated relationship."
This isn't new. Between 1942 and 1958 there was a significant drop in temperature. Between 1940 and 1980 there was no significant increase, on average. But take a larger view and there has been a definite and significant increase.
Between 1961 and 1979 there was also a decrease. Newsweek did a front page story about how this meant a new ice age was coming. And this was based on 18 years of declines. I would hesitate to make a similar mistake based on 3 years.
brenthutch 444
Quote>We have a good 15 years of trend right now that is showing that the relationship
>(massive increase in ppm of CO2 not coupled with massive increase in temperature)
>has an exception.
Well, no. Temperatures have been increasing pretty steadily; 2010 was the hottest year ever. At most you could say that "the last 3 years are not showing the stated relationship."
This isn't new. Between 1942 and 1958 there was a significant drop in temperature. Between 1940 and 1980 there was no significant increase, on average. But take a larger view and there has been a definite and significant increase.
Between 1961 and 1979 there was also a decrease. Newsweek did a front page story about how this meant a new ice age was coming. And this was based on 18 years of declines. I would hesitate to make a similar mistake based on 3 years.
What about the mistake based on 18 years of increases that have now apparently stopped? I think Newsweek did piece on that as well.
billvon 3,120
>What about the mistake based on 18 years of increases that have now apparently stopped?
They "apparently" stopped for 40 years a while back. Turns out they were as wrong as you are.
BTW what was the warmest year on record? (might want to check your math there)
They "apparently" stopped for 40 years a while back. Turns out they were as wrong as you are.
BTW what was the warmest year on record? (might want to check your math there)
[Reply]Different models predict different things, some more accurate than others depending on the variables. When these various models are combined, the outcome is a bit more complicated, but the accuracy is considerably better defined
Dave - how does one test the accuracy of a model or a group of models? One must wait until the raw data is available to either validate or invalidate the results. That will be in about another 70 years. GCMs are hypotheses that are in intial stages of testing that cannot be validated by data from 2080 until we have data from the year 2080.
Science is a PROCESS used to determine fact. GCMs are part of that process - "this computer predicts the future will look like x." In the future, the results may be "x minus 7." Or "x plus 3." We just don't know. We have to wait to find out. The accuracy of a climate model, by definition, cannot yet be determined.
[Reply]the alternative is no remedial action
That ithis is not considered "viable" is, to me, a problem. ALL options should be on the table.
And "no remedial action" can be a mighty fine - even the best - alternative if remediation is to manage an event that is not going to occur. It would be like buying snowplows for Dubai because a model predicts that Dubai may get a foot per year in 2090. It would be wasteful to remediate something that we can't be even 50% certain will happen.
Do we start evacuation and relocation of all people who live within a 30 foot above MSL location? Do we start now or later? When do we start? Why 30 feet? Why not 10 feet? Begin condemnations proceedings now? We should start now because we cannot take the chance that the sea won't inundate most of Florida?
You are coming from a place that says soending money on resilience and energy independence, etcm, is a good thing. That's opinion. It's not wrong and not right. Opinions may be different.
For example, I could see spending that money on road, bridge and maintenance and upgrade of existing infrastructure that makes the world around us safer and more efficient versus directing that money toward systems and technologies that are not yet deomonstrated as efficient. It can get there, and people can make choices of what to buy.
There is, in my opinion, nothing virutous about a person taking other peoples' money to spend as that person sees fit. Understandably. It's necessary for a number of things. But when the government is saying "we've got to spend money on these things" it's because the private persons will not. A person who swould design a society with other people's money is not an altruist but an egotist.
And a person who supports such spending - if not spending on such things himself - is saying that he or she will only do it with a gun held to his or her head.
My view of an ideal society does not match yours or anyone else's. I do not think that my way of doing things works for everybody and I don't think that I should be telling anybody else what to do with his or her life (except my kids). A government doing nothing except, "we don't know whether this beach house will be on the beach in fifty years" has done enough. Let people who think that the ocean won't rise buy the properties and put their money where their mouths are. Let the people who think, "this place will be inundated in a decade" sell her house to someone who doubts it.
That's how I see things. I don't buy fuel efficient cars unless they have 5 star safety ratings. That's best for me. What's best for others? That's up to them. I won't obligate you to subsidize a personal tank. You don't obligate me to subsidize an EV.
My wife is hotter than your wife.
This is where the entire AGW argument lies. The predictions (always couched in "mayl) are such things as, "sea level may rise 3 meters by 2100." This is the same as saying, "sea levels probably won't increase 3 meters."
But the predictions are the basis for the remedial actions. The predictions are scietific wild-assed guesses. And on the basis of these SWAGs, there are requests for massive changes in the developed world. These predictions are uncertain because there is plenty we do not understand.
This is the basis of AGW debate. The political matters of what the future means. And plenty have a lot to lose and gain on the basis of hypotheses that are 70 years away from being validated.
My wife is hotter than your wife.