The Real AGW Debate Question!

[rushmc 23]

Quote

New paper: How much of the global temperature change is natural?

Holocene century-on-century changes have a standard deviation close to 1deg C, so if there is a signal due to carbon dioxide, it still has not emerged from the background noise

http://wattsupwiththat.com/2015/05/17/new-paper-how-much-of-the-global-temperature-change-is-natural/

And this from an AGW believer no less

"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]

From the link

Quote

“There has been widespread investigation of the drivers of changes in global temperatures. However, there has been remarkably little consideration of the magnitude of the changes to be expected over a period of a few decades or even a century. To address this question, the Holocene records from several ice cores up to 8000 years before present were examined. The differences in temperatures between all records which are approximately a century apart were determined, after any trends in the data had been removed. The differences were close to normally distributed. The average standard deviation of temperature over a century was 0.98 ± 0.27 oC.
This suggests that while some portion of the temperature change observed in the 20th century was probably caused by greenhouse gases, there is a strong likelihood that the major portion was due to natural variations. “

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

[DanG 1]

Quote

...after any trends in the data had been removed...

Um, why aren't you upset that the raw data was manipulated?

- Dan G

[billvon 3,119]

>Um, why aren't you upset that the raw data was manipulated?

The data was manipulated in a way that was acceptable to the faithful, of course.

[rushmc 23]

First off, what they did was not hidden and is a standard procedure( for this kind of work) and was reported up front because of what I just posted. (talk to the statations that post here for more detail)

Or do you prefer the tactics like Mann uses and actually CHANGES the trend to fit his agenda? (and not tell anybody except thier own)


BTW
Do you understand what was done and why?

"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]

all the evidence of climate change you need. All the Glaciers that were there in 1979 are gone.

My wife is hotter than your wife.

[DanG 1]

Quote

what they did was not hidden

How do you know what they did? Did you pay to read the actual paper?

Quote

...and is a standard procedure( for this kind of work)

Yes, so is statistical manipulation used by the "alarmists".

Quote

...and was reported up front because of what I just posted.

Again, how do you know what the author really did?

Quote

(talk to the statations that post here for more detail)

That word can't look right even to you.

Quote

Or do you prefer the tactics like Mann uses and actually CHANGES the trend to fit his agenda? (and not tell anybody except thier own)

I've yet to see any evidence that the trend has been fabricated.

Quote

Do you understand what was done and why?

I understand, but the devil is in the details. Do you understand, or have some insight into the details beyond a two sentence abstract?

- Dan G

[lawrocket 3]

I'm only partly kidding. Climate change is now being viewed as causative of events related to plate tectonics. Like earthquakes and volcanoes.

http://www.newsweek.com/nepal-earthquake-could-have-been-manmade-disaster-climate-change-brings-326017.html

Quote

The untold – and terrifying – story behind the earthquake that devastated Nepal last Saturday morning begins with something that sounds quite benign. It’s the ebb and flow of rainwater in the great river deltas of India and Bangladesh, and the pressure that puts on the grinding plates that make up the surface of the planet.

Recently discovered, that causal factor is seen by a growing body of scientists as further proof that climate change can affect the underlying structure of the Earth.

Because of this understanding, a series of life-threatening “extreme geological events” – earthquakes, volcanoes and tsunamis – is predicted by a group of eminent geologists and geophysicists including University College London’s Bill McGuire, professor emeritus of Geophysical and Climate Hazards.

Try Newsweek for only $1.25 per week

“Climate change may play a critical role in triggering certain faults in certain places where they could kill a hell of a lot of people,” says Professor McGuire. Some of his colleagues suspect the process may already have starte.

These guys are serious.

My wife is hotter than your wife.

[rushmc 23]

lawrocket

all the evidence of climate change you need. All the Glaciers that were there in 1979 are gone.

they work very hard at covering ALL the bases don't they!

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

[Guest]

lawrocket

I'm only partly kidding. Climate change is now being viewed as causative of events related to plate tectonics. Like earthquakes and volcanoes.

http://www.newsweek.com/nepal-earthquake-could-have-been-manmade-disaster-climate-change-brings-326017.html

Quote

The untold – and terrifying – story behind the earthquake that devastated Nepal last Saturday morning begins with something that sounds quite benign. It’s the ebb and flow of rainwater in the great river deltas of India and Bangladesh, and the pressure that puts on the grinding plates that make up the surface of the planet.

Recently discovered, that causal factor is seen by a growing body of scientists as further proof that climate change can affect the underlying structure of the Earth.

Because of this understanding, a series of life-threatening “extreme geological events” – earthquakes, volcanoes and tsunamis – is predicted by a group of eminent geologists and geophysicists including University College London’s Bill McGuire, professor emeritus of Geophysical and Climate Hazards.

Try Newsweek for only $1.25 per week

“Climate change may play a critical role in triggering certain faults in certain places where they could kill a hell of a lot of people,” says Professor McGuire. Some of his colleagues suspect the process may already have starte.

These guys are serious.

For my part, I am concerned about the effect that the receding glaciers will have on Mount Rainier. I wonder whether the reduction in its icecap will trigger other events such as major mudslides, or even an eruption.

That would be bad.

Here's something else I don't get: even if AGW is BS, where is the risk in reducing greenhouse gasses and reducing/reversing deforestation? Who will be harmed by that? The way I see it, there is no downside to it.

mh
.

"The mouse does not know life until it is in the mouth of the cat."

[billvon 3,119]

>The way I see it, there is no downside to it.

The general fears are:
1) Mitigations will be expensive and people will be forced to pay crippling penalties.
2) New laws will restrict things they enjoy, like large trucks for recreation and green golf courses in the desert.
3) Reducing emissions will mean that "the other side wins." And many people (including some here) will do anything to avoid that happening.

[Amazon 7]

markharju

***I'm only partly kidding. Climate change is now being viewed as causative of events related to plate tectonics. Like earthquakes and volcanoes.

http://www.newsweek.com/nepal-earthquake-could-have-been-manmade-disaster-climate-change-brings-326017.html

Quote

The untold – and terrifying – story behind the earthquake that devastated Nepal last Saturday morning begins with something that sounds quite benign. It’s the ebb and flow of rainwater in the great river deltas of India and Bangladesh, and the pressure that puts on the grinding plates that make up the surface of the planet.

Recently discovered, that causal factor is seen by a growing body of scientists as further proof that climate change can affect the underlying structure of the Earth.

Because of this understanding, a series of life-threatening “extreme geological events” – earthquakes, volcanoes and tsunamis – is predicted by a group of eminent geologists and geophysicists including University College London’s Bill McGuire, professor emeritus of Geophysical and Climate Hazards.

Try Newsweek for only $1.25 per week

“Climate change may play a critical role in triggering certain faults in certain places where they could kill a hell of a lot of people,” says Professor McGuire. Some of his colleagues suspect the process may already have starte.

These guys are serious.

For my part, I am concerned about the effect that the receding glaciers will have on Mount Rainier. I wonder whether the reduction in its icecap will trigger other events such as major mudslides, or even an eruption.

That would be bad.

Here's something else I don't get: even if AGW is BS, where is the risk in reducing greenhouse gasses and reducing/reversing deforestation? Who will be harmed by that? The way I see it, there is no downside to it.

mh
.

The ice up there is already pretty rotten.... as is the rock from hydrothermal regions all over the mountain turning rock into various types of clay.... Rotton rock only needs a small shake.. low level seismic event and the White River or Tahoma ... or the Nisqually.. or any of the others... could have a major mudflow.... hell even an heavy rain even has caused mudflows that have caused damage... but a good shaker and any of the iceflows collapsing.. and Orting..... Pullyallup and even Tacoma as well as some of the Rivers flowing into the Seattle Burbs could have a mudflow.... without even having an eruption. Orting sits on a mudflow deposit of over 50 feet thick... would not want to be there.

[turtlespeed 226]

markharju

***I'm only partly kidding. Climate change is now being viewed as causative of events related to plate tectonics. Like earthquakes and volcanoes.

http://www.newsweek.com/nepal-earthquake-could-have-been-manmade-disaster-climate-change-brings-326017.html

Quote

The untold – and terrifying – story behind the earthquake that devastated Nepal last Saturday morning begins with something that sounds quite benign. It’s the ebb and flow of rainwater in the great river deltas of India and Bangladesh, and the pressure that puts on the grinding plates that make up the surface of the planet.

Recently discovered, that causal factor is seen by a growing body of scientists as further proof that climate change can affect the underlying structure of the Earth.

Because of this understanding, a series of life-threatening “extreme geological events” – earthquakes, volcanoes and tsunamis – is predicted by a group of eminent geologists and geophysicists including University College London’s Bill McGuire, professor emeritus of Geophysical and Climate Hazards.

Try Newsweek for only $1.25 per week

“Climate change may play a critical role in triggering certain faults in certain places where they could kill a hell of a lot of people,” says Professor McGuire. Some of his colleagues suspect the process may already have starte.

These guys are serious.

For my part, I am concerned about the effect that the receding glaciers will have on Mount Rainier. I wonder whether the reduction in its icecap will trigger other events such as major mudslides, or even an eruption.

That would be bad.

Here's something else I don't get: even if AGW is BS, where is the risk in reducing greenhouse gasses and reducing/reversing deforestation? Who will be harmed by that? The way I see it, there is no downside to it.

mh
.

No downside?
Do you like paying more for stuff for no reason?
If it is BS, and trillions have been spent because of increased prices for a BS reason, I would call that a down side.

I know my retirement account would look much better now if the cost of energy was less.

I'm not usually into the whole 3-way thing, but you got me a little excited with that. - Skymama
BTR #1 / OTB^5 Official #2 / Hellfish #408 / VSCR #108/Tortuga/Orfun

[lawrocket 3]

There will be losers. There is pretty much no economic activity that is not powered by fossil fuels. As a result, there is not an economic activity that will be unaffected by regulation of greenhouse gases and fossil fuel. It's that simple.

Here's an example. In Seattle a couple of days ago a lot of people protesting a semisubmersible in kayaks. All those kayaks are made of plastics. Derived from petroleum products. It's like they really do lot consider the reality. Not one of those kayaks was manufactured or shipped without petroleum. For crying out loud most if not all of them were driven to a launching point.

And yes, a lot of people will lose jobs, businesses, careers. Yes it happens. But look at the rust belt as an example of what happens when a sub economy gets collapsed.

Yes, there are benefits for everybody. But there are losses, too. Indeed, some people will suffer greatly. Those are the downsides that should be acknowledged. Want to say that it's worth it in the balance kf things then it's fine. But it's the lack of acknowledgement that breeds greater contempt.

My wife is hotter than your wife.

[billvon 3,119]

>There will be losers. There is pretty much no economic activity that is not powered by
>fossil fuels. As a result, there is not an economic activity that will be unaffected by
>regulation of greenhouse gases and fossil fuel. It's that simple.

That is certainly true. There have been times that our economic activity was powered by human labor. Then horses. Then wood. Then it was coal. Then it was oil. During each change, some people lost, some people won. Since in pretty much all measures of society's progress (energy use per capita, purchasing power, GDP per person) we have continued to grow, more people have won than lost. Even if the case of the out-of-work woodsman, or the furloughed coal miner, or the unemployed oil line repairman make the headlines.

>Here's an example. In Seattle a couple of days ago a lot of people protesting a
>semisubmersible in kayaks. All those kayaks are made of plastics. Derived from
>petroleum products.

Yep. It's like people protesting big government, then getting in their cars and driving home on government roads while listening to radio programming on government-maintained frequencies.

[Amazon 7]

billvon

>There will be losers. There is pretty much no economic activity that is not powered by
>fossil fuels. As a result, there is not an economic activity that will be unaffected by
>regulation of greenhouse gases and fossil fuel. It's that simple.

That is certainly true. There have been times that our economic activity was powered by human labor. Then horses. Then wood. Then it was coal. Then it was oil. During each change, some people lost, some people won. Since in pretty much all measures of society's progress (energy use per capita, purchasing power, GDP per person) we have continued to grow, more people have won than lost. Even if the case of the out-of-work woodsman, or the furloughed coal miner, or the unemployed oil line repairman make the headlines.

>Here's an example. In Seattle a couple of days ago a lot of people protesting a
>semisubmersible in kayaks. All those kayaks are made of plastics. Derived from
>petroleum products.

Yep. It's like people protesting big government, then getting in their cars and driving home on government roads while listening to radio programming on government-maintained frequencies.

While collecting their monthly socialism money from the big government.

[lawrocket 3]

billvon

>There will be losers. There is pretty much no economic activity that is not powered by
>fossil fuels. As a result, there is not an economic activity that will be unaffected by
>regulation of greenhouse gases and fossil fuel. It's that simple.

That is certainly true. There have been times that our economic activity was powered by human labor. Then horses. Then wood. Then it was coal. Then it was oil. During each change, some people lost, some people won. Since in pretty much all measures of society's progress (energy use per capita, purchasing power, GDP per person) we have continued to grow, more people have won than lost. Even if the case of the out-of-work woodsman, or the furloughed coal miner, or the unemployed oil line repairman make the headlines.

>Here's an example. In Seattle a couple of days ago a lot of people protesting a
>semisubmersible in kayaks. All those kayaks are made of plastics. Derived from
>petroleum products.

Yep. It's like people protesting big government, then getting in their cars and driving home on government roads while listening to radio programming on government-maintained frequencies.

Hmm. Even libertarians see the need for roads. That's not big government. Big government says that billvon's solar power system lacks accessible MSDS.

My wife is hotter than your wife.

[SkyDekker 1,465]

Quote

Hmm. Even libertarians see the need for roads. That's not big government. Big government says that billvon's solar power system lacks accessible MSDS.

Big government is every portion of government one doesn't think they personally need, untill they find out they do. Then it is essential government and people think they should be at the front of the line.

[turtlespeed 226]

SkyDekker

Quote

Hmm. Even libertarians see the need for roads. That's not big government. Big government says that billvon's solar power system lacks accessible MSDS.

Big government is every portion of government one doesn't think they personally need, untill they find out they do. Then it is essential government and people think they should be at the front of the line.

Only the ones that have an entitlement mentality.

I'm not usually into the whole 3-way thing, but you got me a little excited with that. - Skymama
BTR #1 / OTB^5 Official #2 / Hellfish #408 / VSCR #108/Tortuga/Orfun

[Amazon 7]

turtlespeed

***

Quote

Hmm. Even libertarians see the need for roads. That's not big government. Big government says that billvon's solar power system lacks accessible MSDS.

Big government is every portion of government one doesn't think they personally need, untill they find out they do. Then it is essential government and people think they should be at the front of the line.

Only the ones that have an entitlement mentality.

You mean like all those Tea Baggers at the Astroturf rallies who get their socialism money every month and the ones who feel they are entitled to open carry to intimidate other people???

[turtlespeed 226]

Amazon

******

Quote

Hmm. Even libertarians see the need for roads. That's not big government. Big government says that billvon's solar power system lacks accessible MSDS.

Big government is every portion of government one doesn't think they personally need, untill they find out they do. Then it is essential government and people think they should be at the front of the line.

Only the ones that have an entitlement mentality.

You mean like all those Tea Baggers at the Astroturf rallies who get their socialism money every month and the ones who feel they are entitled to open carry to intimidate other people???

One thing having nothing to do with the other.

Yes. I do mean those that think the government should pick up their tab for nothing.

Entitled to open carry is either voted in, or it's not. It would be a law, not an entitlement.

I'm not usually into the whole 3-way thing, but you got me a little excited with that. - Skymama
BTR #1 / OTB^5 Official #2 / Hellfish #408 / VSCR #108/Tortuga/Orfun

[Amazon 7]

turtlespeed

*********

Quote

Hmm. Even libertarians see the need for roads. That's not big government. Big government says that billvon's solar power system lacks accessible MSDS.

Big government is every portion of government one doesn't think they personally need, untill they find out they do. Then it is essential government and people think they should be at the front of the line.

Only the ones that have an entitlement mentality.

You mean like all those Tea Baggers at the Astroturf rallies who get their socialism money every month and the ones who feel they are entitled to open carry to intimidate other people???

One thing having nothing to do with the other.

Yes. I do mean those that think the government should pick up their tab for nothing.

Entitled to open carry is either voted in, or it's not. It would be a law, not an entitlement.

Really???? I don't see that caveat in the Constitution....

[SkyDekker 1,465]

Quote

Yes. I do mean those that think the government should pick up their tab for nothing.

So you will be speaking up to ensure Dean Potter's family pays for the recovery of his body after he died performing an illegal act?

[turtlespeed 226]

SkyDekker

Quote

Yes. I do mean those that think the government should pick up their tab for nothing.

So you will be speaking up to ensure Dean Potter's family pays for the recovery of his body after he died performing an illegal act?

What welfare is Dean receiving?

I think his estate, if there is any, should go to compensation, yes.

I'm not usually into the whole 3-way thing, but you got me a little excited with that. - Skymama
BTR #1 / OTB^5 Official #2 / Hellfish #408 / VSCR #108/Tortuga/Orfun

[billvon 3,119]

>Hmm. Even libertarians see the need for roads. That's not big government.

Our roads here are indeed big government - they are paid for, constructed by, maintained by and administered by big government. But Tea Partyers still use them.