The Planet is not warming as fast as predicted, the oceans are not acidifying and now, the ice is doing just fine

[Stumpy 284]

But wattsupwiththat.com doesn't agree so therefore it can't be true.

Never try to eat more than you can lift

[Anvilbrother 0]

Unless I missed it not once does your article say its man made. No shit the climate is warming do you deny the natural cycle that has been going on for millions of years? Do you deny the fact that there have been warmer times with less co2 in our past? Alligators found where there is ice now? Sun spot cycles, orbit changes, volcanoes?

Postes r made from an iPad or iPhone. Spelling and gramhair mistakes guaranteed move along,

[rushmc 23]

the only way you can make that argument work is if you start from a false premise. That false premise being that co2 is going to cause destruction of the planet in some way or form. That's not going to happen. There's more information is found, it seems it CO 2 has little to do with anything.

"America will never be destroyed from the outside,
if we falter and lose our freedoms,
it will be because we destroyed ourselves."
Abraham Lincoln

[rushmc 23]

not one post dealing with the content. That's normal, cuz you can't argue with it. You don't have a leg to stand on. If person would take some time and go look at the site, they would find some pretty interesting debates online. Those are allowed there. They're not stifled like you're trying to do here

"America will never be destroyed from the outside,
if we falter and lose our freedoms,
it will be because we destroyed ourselves."
Abraham Lincoln

[lawrocket 3]

[Reply] what if we were wrong here? we destroy the planet.

[brenthutch 444]

You need to bone up on the concept of opportunity costs.

[lawrocket 3]

[Reply]Now we are up to four confirming sources: NASA, NOAA, JAMA and an independent Berkley study.

[billvon 3,111]

>Unless I missed it not once does your article say its man made.

"Greenhouse gas trends are responsible for the majority of the trend that we see"

[billvon 3,111]

>How many sources do I need before I should be convinced? Thus far HADCRUT, RSS
>and UAH have not confirmed. Nor has the woodfortrees.org average confirmed it.

And foxnews.oil probably won't either. So you're safe; you can deny the warming, since there's no consensus.

> But consider this: you've got a project and according to a bunch of quality control
>measures your product is within spec. But there are a few other tests out there that
>show that it's not performing as you intended.

>Do you say, "there's this guy in Huntsville, Alabama. He says we're only putting out
>avergae 12.7 volts. The other tests show 12.8. He says he's got data that is
>contiguous versus ours, which is smoothed out after after measurement every hour. I
>say screw him."

>Or do you look at what the guy says and try to confirm the results?

I check it out. And once I get four people confirming his data I go with that.

Of course, if my rich uncle stood to lose lots of business unless I could show a failure, I might find an endless number of reasons to say "well, we just don't know - heck, who knows anything in electronics? It's just so hard. So we'll just have to assume it doesn't meet spec, since not everyone agrees that it does."

[lawrocket 3]

billvon

>Unless I missed it not once does your article say its man made.

"Greenhouse gas trends are responsible for the majority of the trend that we see"

So the decade trend of .01 degrees warming from 04-14 is man made? See the NASA, NOAA and JMA data for the .1-.2 degrees per century trend.

That trend is not within natural variation and you'd bet your house on it?

My wife is hotter than your wife.

[billvon 3,111]

>That trend is not within natural variation and you'd bet your house on it?

I'd bet my house that the overall trend (1850 to today) is not within natural variation. (Some people, sadly, have bet their homes that it's NOT a trend - and lost.)

[lawrocket 3]

billvon

>How many sources do I need before I should be convinced? Thus far HADCRUT, RSS
>and UAH have not confirmed. Nor has the woodfortrees.org average confirmed it.

And foxnews.oil probably won't either. So you're safe; you can deny the warming, since there's no consensus.

That's a great answer to a question I didn't ask. Question is, "How many sources do I need before I should be convinced?" To wit, is NASA enough? Or do I need four datasets? Here I thought that when no datasets disagree then there is no room for argument.

Problem: not all datasets agree. So, what is the objective standard? And keep fox news out of this. I have.

[Quote]I check it out. And once I get four people confirming his data I go with that.

Hat if nobody can rule it out? Let's say you've got three people confirming it and four people who "cannot rule it out." Then what? Because that is kinda what the situation is. Namely, your souece that confirms you voltage is "38% certain that it is within specs."

Would you feel comfy cozy with that? Actually, I know the answer, so no need.

[Quote]Of course, if my rich uncle stood to lose lots of business unless I could show a failure, I might find an endless number of reasons to say "well, we just don't know - heck, who knows anything in electronics? It's just so hard. So we'll just have to assume it doesn't meet spec, since not everyone agrees that it does."

Red herring.

Bill, you are doing everything to toss other things out there to avoid the question. It's not like you. You have always been reasonable and a person who, when presented with all sides, considers all sides.

I've said repeatedly that NASA and NOAA aren't wrong. Neither are JMA or HADCRUT or RSS or UAH. It's why I'm a "lukewarmist." I am convinced it's happening. But I don't see evidence of horrors.

My wife is hotter than your wife.

[headoverheels 334]

billvon

>Unless I missed it not once does your article say its man made.

"Greenhouse gas trends are responsible for the majority of the trend that we see"

There are a lot of cow farts I that mix.

[lawrocket 3]

billvon

>That trend is not within natural variation and you'd bet your house on it?

I'd bet my house that the overall trend (1850 to today) is not within natural variation. (Some people, sadly, have bet their homes that it's NOT a trend - and lost.)

Hmm. So despite the vast evidence of rapid temperature rises and sea level rises in the last 10k years (and the frequent insistence of guys like Mann that this is the greatest temperature rise in a millenium, which of course means that it was greater a millenium ago), it's still outside of natural variation.

I just have a hard time being convinced that natural variation, which was more than the last 150 years, no longer happens. "Nature slowed down and doesn't work like that anymore. She stopped at around 1849" just doesn't make sense to me.

[Reply](Some people, sadly, have bet their homes that it's NOT a trend - and lost.)

[billvon 3,111]

>I just have a hard time being convinced that natural variation, which was more than
>the last 150 years, no longer happens. "Nature slowed down and doesn't work like that
>anymore. She stopped at around 1849" just doesn't make sense to me.

Of course it hasn't stopped. There are year to year variations. 1998 was a very warm year due to a big El Nino, for example. Those will continue to occur. 1991-1992 were cooler than normal due to Mt. Pinatubo. Those will continue to occur.

But the underlying signal is very clear - we are, on average, warming.

[brenthutch 444]

So the warming that occurred between 1910-1940 was due to natural variability however the warming that occurred from 1970-2000 was man made?!?!

Keep in mind that both warming spells are nearly identical in both duration and rate.

Google "global warming graph"

[sfzombie13 324]

brenthutch

You need to bone up on the concept of opportunity costs.

no, i don't. the cost of doing nothing is too great. and for the other idiot response, i am not worried, nothing is going to happen in my lifetime.

_________________________________________
Si hoc legere scis nimium eruditionis habes

[lawrocket 3]

sfzombie13

***You need to bone up on the concept of opportunity costs.

no, i don't. the cost of doing nothing is too great. and for the other idiot response, i am not worried, nothing is going to happen in my lifetime.

What specific things will happen if we do nothing? How much ill it cost?

My wife is hotter than your wife.

[brenthutch 444]

sfzombie13

***You need to bone up on the concept of opportunity costs.

no, i don't. the cost of doing nothing is too great. and for the other idiot response, i am not worried, nothing is going to happen in my lifetime.

What are the cost of doing nothing? So far the cost have been:
More sea ice,more polar bears, more food, less drought, fewer tornados, fewer hurricanes, and a General increase in global living standards via industrialization fueled by carbon based energy.

[Phil1111 1,173]

rushmc

Lots of good reading out there


http://wattsupwiththat.com/2015/01/11/alarmists-bizarrely-claim-just-what-agw-predicts-about-the-record-high-global-sea-surface-temperatures-in-2014/

http://wattsupwiththat.com/2015/01/08/anthropogenic-warming-in-the-cet-record/

http://wattsupwiththat.com/2015/01/09/two-new-papers-suggest-solar-activity-is-a-climate-pacemaker/

http://wattsupwiththat.com/2015/01/03/the-great-pause-lengthens-again/

Quoting the same source again and again doesn't add credibility.It reduces it.

[SkyDekker 1,465]

Quote

Question is, "How many sources do I need before I should be convinced?"

How many doctors and lab reports do you demand before you believe their diagnosis?

[wmw999 2,587]

Quote

when we have a reliable and affordable technological base to replace fossil fuels, we'll do it

However, without any incentive, whether natural or artificial, that will happen as late as possible, hurting the people with the most means the least.

Which means that all those easiest early adopters will drive the market to the old technology as long as possible, depressing the (financial) pressure to innovate.

As long as alternative energy is derided by many as a liberal boondoggle because "we still got oil," it will remain marginalized. Infrastructure is far more expensive to build than it was 100 years ago when it was being developed for cars, electricity, sewers and water. It'll hurt, and the longer we put off figuring it out, the more it will disproportionately hurt people who will have to sacrifice a greater percentage to support people who just don't feel like being inconvenienced.

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)

[lawrocket 3]

SkyDekker

Quote

Question is, "How many sources do I need before I should be convinced?"

How many doctors and lab reports do you demand before you believe their diagnosis?

When the lab reports disagree, I'd rather not be forced to choose which one I believe. There are many labe reports, and all of them have some degree of disagreement.

We've got a differential diagnosis for climate right now. Running a fever of 98.7, suspected cause CO2. It just went up by a few hundreths of a degree. Do we take aggressive action to bring the temp back down? Or do we wait and see and keep an eye on it?

My wife is hotter than your wife.

[rehmwa 2]

lawrocket

Do we take aggressive action to bring the temp back down? Or do we wait and see and keep an eye on it?

How about we hypothesize some measureable long term effects and determine some undesired end point and its intersect (date). And then see if the trends will validate the hypothesis at some interim date? Then react appropriately on the confirmed hypothesis.........

This sounds reasonable, I can't imagine anyone responding violently or with disdain or name calling on that plan of action.....

...
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

[billvon 3,111]

>So the warming that occurred between 1910-1940 was due to natural variability
>however the warming that occurred from 1970-2000 was man made?!?!

Think of it this way.

There are storm surges at the beach. There are times when high pressures actually depress the water a bit. So if you were at the beach during those times you might see unusually low or unusually high water.

But if you therefore concluded "therefore there are no tides!" that would be foolish. You could ask "oh, so one of those things is due to an observable storm, and one is due to an invisible force coming magically from the Moon?" - but that wouldn't change the tidal signal, which is stronger over time than storm surges are.