|
Post by icefisher on Jan 11, 2010 16:37:38 GMT
Again, the computer models are virtually useless. How do you not get it...if the models have no mid-range predictive capabilities the models are entirely ambiguous. Honestly, is there ANY difference between...(standard weather model)+(standard CO2+assumed feedback model) or (standard weather model + standard CO2+assumed feedback model) or (plain old random weather/climate)+(standard CO2+assumed feedback models) Let's be honest here, you can't even tell if this is just (plain old random weather/climate). You're claiming such obviously inadequate modeling capability could somehow be stitched together with a series of variables that are not known to within +/-50% to as bad as +/-120% (some involve sign changes) and used to predict 100 years into the future. If this is your claim, you clearly haven't the faintest idea of what you're talking about. Can you drop the "How do you not get it...religious zealot" stuff, please until you can demonstrate that you have an adequate grasp of the arguments being made. That is exactly the response a religious zealot would give. Understand that religion has always been largely supported on interpretations of empirical evidence. Simply because you can do some partial computations in arriving at an interpretation does not fundamentally separate what you do from what religious zealots do. Again for perhaps the thousandth time in this forum to most of the AGW advocates. . . .point to some empirical evidence that your computations are correct and demonstrate how they can be classified as unprecedented and or separate from natural processes. Until then and as long as denialist is an acceptable label from your point of view religious zealot fits. The modelling capability is obviously not "inadequate", it is ludicrous to suggest that weather must be the cause of the warming when a likely cause of the warming is staring you in the face, and you appear to be unaware that much of the information about the sensitivity of the climate comes from real data not from model data. Sensitivity of the climate comes from a combination of assumed levels of natural variation (constantly being flattened by the AGW crowd) as a factor of forcings (limited to known forcings). Now tell me which half of that equation is locked down and settled? "The climate is not sensitive to forcing, but the weather varies enough to show 0.7C warming in a century" does not scan. Indeed it does for entirely inside-the-box style of thinking. They do have a clue. Arguing " what if CO2 does almost nothing" is a bit silly. What if there is no "recovery from a little ice age caused by a mysterious unknown phenomenon." Let me see. Should I assume that it's all natural and caused by mysterious changes or should I assume it's related to something for which we can calculate has a real effect? Assume? I always loved this take on assuming. . . .Make an ASS out of U and ME. No I don't think it is appropriate to assume things without good observational evidence. You see to think to ASS-U-ME that warming weather is attributable to a partially credible known cause is to choose to take action based upon rather limited information. There are so many things we could be doing that we know can save lives and improve the planet yet you recommend the diversion of limited resources to something uncertain that will be substantially worse than better. I have dealt with this a lot from the greenside. Anything man does aquaculture, agriculture, energy development is all worse than doing nothing at all so they always stand in front of it to block it. You've been spoon fed nonsense if you still believe the "we can't do short term weather predictions, so how can we do long term predictions argument". You can't do short term predictions of when your feet will get wet when standing on a beach. But you can do a long term prediction on when you'll drown if you don't move. LOL! I can predict my feet will get wet first! Fact is you can only predict either with the ability to predict the same thing, the tides. We know the tides because they are in fact a short term enough of a prediction to have fully tested them. Ultimately you can better predict when your feet will get wet than when you will drown because drowning has additional uncertainty about how long you can hold your breath. So I think your analogy fails miserably. I think your statement that "MOST people can survive through heat just fine...nobody can survive cold without special clothing and/or a heat source." is about the most horrendously simple-minded statement I've read on this forum. For example: Science 9 January 2009: Vol. 323. no. 5911, pp. 240 - 244 DOI: 10.1126/science.1164363 Historical Warnings of Future Food Insecurity with Unprecedented Seasonal Heat David. S. Battisti1 and Rosamond L. Naylor2 No doubt all we have to learn to do is to cultivate palms and plantains? Thats a silly paper to extend to global warming where more precipitation is the prediction. Yes warm and dry is tough on crops but warm and dry is not the prediction for changing climate from global warming. Further even the IPCC falls into this lunacy. They predict that the loss of glaciers will limit water for crops. But its stupid because if the glaciers were accumulating water there would be less water available and if they are melting there is going to be an end to the melting where no more stored water will be supplied. Its amazing 2,000 scientists couldn't see that glacial water is not an infinite supply and actually put that threat in the IPCC report. These things are largely beyond our control and woe be us if anybody even thinks of building a dam to better meter the annual melt water.
|
|
|
Post by steve on Jan 11, 2010 17:28:09 GMT
Icefisher
The evidence of the ideological basis for your belief is your insistence in assuming that all those who believe the science of AGW believe either that we should or are able to do something about it, and that we believe that doing something about must be much worse than not doing anything (even if AGW is not as damaging as is thought).
It's an analogy. Warming models and warming climates show unpredictable "waves" of warming on top of a less perceptable general rise. Just because you can hold your breath for a long time doesn't mean that other people can.
I'm not being silly. In the first paper the warm spell had normal levels of precipitation. You are wrong to assume that the prediction of more precipitation means more precipitation everywhere. And you would be correct to assume that finding a study that knocked over the simple idea of "Cold climate bad. Warm climate good" took me two minutes so there is no reason, other than hope based on ideology, for arguing that a warm climate must be beneficial for all.
I would have thought it obvious that glaciers will often even out the flow of water. Maybe during hot and dry spells, it melts a bit faster than normal, providing sustained water flow at critical times. If I am a lunatic for thinking this, please post a link to the study that says I'm wrong.
|
|
|
Post by icefisher on Jan 11, 2010 18:12:53 GMT
Icefisher The evidence of the ideological basis for your belief is your insistence in assuming that all those who believe the science of AGW believe either that we should or are able to do something about it, and that we believe that doing something about must be much worse than not doing anything (even if AGW is not as damaging as is thought). Unless you have your head deeply drilled into the sand you should have noticed that is exactly what the debate is about. If indeed you are on the skeptic side of that debate you sure don't show any of it. It's an analogy. Warming models and warming climates show unpredictable "waves" of warming on top of a less perceptable general rise. Just because you can hold your breath for a long time doesn't mean that other people can. I agree but it is important to note that a model is not a real world and the acceptance of multiple causes undercuts the urgency that is central to the real, whole world, debate of this issue. I'm not being silly. In the first paper the warm spell had normal levels of precipitation. You are wrong to assume that the prediction of more precipitation means more precipitation everywhere. Where did I say more precipitation everywhere? The fact is it predicts more precipitation on average. I would take that to mean more precipitation in more areas than less. And you would be correct to assume that finding a study that knocked over the simple idea of "Cold climate bad. Warm climate good" took me two minutes so there is no reason, other than hope based on ideology, for arguing that a warm climate must be beneficial for all. Status quo is not equally beneficial for all Steve. You are erecting a strawman here. Sounds like typical Shangri-La socialist poop. I would have thought it obvious that glaciers will often even out the flow of water. Maybe during hot and dry spells, it melts a bit faster than normal, providing sustained water flow at critical times. If I am a lunatic for thinking this, please post a link to the study that says I'm wrong. And we have been in a hot spell for hundreds of years Steve while our population has grown and become dependent upon the increasing rate of melt. If it gets cold now as you suggest if should you get both less precipitation and less melt, plants would grow slower because of less sunlight and less water. Then you factor in that when its cold people need more to eat to keep warm. So either folks die from cold now or they die from the glaciers running out later but I am having difficulty here getting to your conclusion that the latter is worse than the former. And it doesn't take 2,000 scientists to prove you cannot have your cake and eat it too. . . .thats something we were all supposed to have learned before grammar school.
|
|
|
Post by Belushi TD on Jan 12, 2010 5:52:16 GMT
Here's a link to a chart of statistics from the UK, posted in another thread about 60,000 people in the UK dying because of cold. www.statistics.gov.uk/cci/nugget.asp?id=574 I'm not posting the graph because I can't make it work... however, here's the link to the thread... solarcycle24com.proboards.com/index.cgi?board=globalwarming&action=display&thread=1004 Now, the numbers in question are not nessecarily people dying of cold, but they ARE the difference between the numbers of people who died in the warmer months (april to July and August to October, if I remember correctly) and the numbers of people who die in the winter months, (Deceember through march). Now... something like 25 to 30,000 more people a year die in winter. If its not due to the COLD, then what's it due to? COLD KILLS MORE PEOPLE THAN HEAT!!! That's the bottom line. Warmer is better. People can deal with heat better than cold. That's all there is to it. More people die in winter. COLD KILLS. Belushi TD
|
|
|
Post by icefisher on Jan 12, 2010 9:04:42 GMT
Here's a link to a chart of statistics from the UK, posted in another thread about 60,000 people in the UK dying because of cold. www.statistics.gov.uk/cci/nugget.asp?id=574 I'm not posting the graph because I can't make it work... however, here's the link to the thread... solarcycle24com.proboards.com/index.cgi?board=globalwarming&action=display&thread=1004 Now, the numbers in question are not nessecarily people dying of cold, but they ARE the difference between the numbers of people who died in the warmer months (april to July and August to October, if I remember correctly) and the numbers of people who die in the winter months, (Deceember through march). Now... something like 25 to 30,000 more people a year die in winter. If its not due to the COLD, then what's it due to? COLD KILLS MORE PEOPLE THAN HEAT!!! That's the bottom line. Warmer is better. People can deal with heat better than cold. That's all there is to it. More people die in winter. COLD KILLS. Belushi TD Actually IPCC AR4 listed fewer deaths from cold as a benefit of global warming. Also it was the only human health issue ranked as high as "virtually certain". I guess at least a few authors over there insisted on taking the high road.
|
|
|
Post by steve on Jan 12, 2010 9:44:54 GMT
Icefisher
I read that as the IPCC saying that death was "virtually certain". Now that would be taking error analysis to the nth degree.
Anyway, I think that arguing that we should warm the whole earth to protect the lives of elderly and sick people in Northern latitudes is a little weak. It would be less risky to provide better home insulation and help with fuel bills.
|
|
|
Post by nautonnier on Jan 12, 2010 9:59:59 GMT
Icefisher I read that as the IPCC saying that death was "virtually certain". Now that would be taking error analysis to the nth degree. Anyway, I think that arguing that we should warm the whole earth to protect the lives of elderly and sick people in Northern latitudes is a little weak. It would be less risky to provide better home insulation and help with fuel bills. A bit of a straw man there Steve... I think that the argument was that more people will die for temperature changes n degrees down than for n degrees up. Not for taking action to change atmospheric temperature.
|
|
|
Post by steve on Jan 12, 2010 11:42:36 GMT
Some people have very strongly implied that warming can only be beneficial. I've not seen any contrary arguments that we should be returning to the Little Ice Age. Our society can cope with moderate changes of climate. Larger changes bring large impacts because our infrastructure is tailored towards current expectations.
|
|
|
Post by sigurdur on Jan 12, 2010 12:00:47 GMT
Some people have very strongly implied that warming can only be beneficial. I've not seen any contrary arguments that we should be returning to the Little Ice Age. Our society can cope with moderate changes of climate. Larger changes bring large impacts because our infrastructure is tailored towards current expectations. Yes our society can Steve. And the direction that is easiest to cope with is up, not down. Most of the worlds population lives in the NH. Most of the worlds population lives in areas that express the 4 seasons. The reason for this is land mass and where it is at. A 2.0 temp rise would as a whole be benificial verses a 2.0 temp decline.
|
|
|
Post by aj1983 on Jan 12, 2010 14:00:30 GMT
Please cut the religious zealots crap, as both of you are severely influenced by your personal beliefs, and look for arguments to strenghten this. I do so too (though I also keep in mind that I might be wrong). Anyway, a 2 C cooling is indeed much worse than a 2 C warming. I don't think anybody here dares to state the contrary, although this is somewhat biased on the midlatitudes where most rich people live. BUT, who is predicting a 2 C temperature drop in the near future? I've asked AGW skeptics on this forum, but I haven't heard anything confirming this yet. However, there is a substantial body of research (zeolots blablabla, bad scientists blablabla, politics blablabla) showing that we MIGHT get a 2 C warming in the near future. Any rapid change is bad, so it will cost lives and money to adjust to this if this verifies. However, we DO have to think about how we will prevent this, because trying to cut down CO2 at all costs is not the way I think. I believe (it's my personal green religion) that it would be better to try and stimulate energy sources and a life style which leads to less pollution, is less bad for the environment (and thus also for ourselves, our water, our crops etc.), and leads to less poverty in the world. Now THAT is a huge challenge. Not impossible though. We've had many problems here in the Netherlands too. I can remember that there were huge algae blooms in the North Sea so that the complete beach was covered in foam. Besides foam, there were also many plastics and tar on the beach. Lakes were very filthy and dangerous to swim in (that still happens sometimes). Acid rain lead to whole pine forests becoming yellow, and during times of little circulation acid rain would hurt your eyes. There are many other things I've seen changing in the last 2 decades, a huge environmental improvement (studies confirm this) compared to 2 or 3 decades ago (here). It is possible, and we are still one of the richest country in the world. Or, maybe I'm too optimistic.
|
|
|
Post by trbixler on Jan 12, 2010 15:02:40 GMT
|
|
|
Post by curiousgeorge on Jan 12, 2010 15:55:31 GMT
|
|
|
Post by stranger on Jan 13, 2010 2:36:39 GMT
I have seen the results of widespread crop failure in my lifetime. It was not pretty. A repeat of the climatic conditions that resulted in the "dust bowl" would be even worse today. After all, we have more than twice as many mouths to feed, and far less land can be rushed into production.
But it would not take much to cut food crop production enough to result in widespread malnutrition. A lack of fertilizer feedstock would do just that. A relatively minor drop in the currency exchange rate would price imported foodstuffs beyond the ability of many to pay. I could go on but the key point is this.
Avoiding widespread death from famine and disease requires almost the current level of energy production. And this administration seems bound and determined to cut domestic energy production. You fill in the rest of the picture.
Stranger
|
|
|
Post by hairball on Jan 13, 2010 2:52:30 GMT
|
|
|
Post by curiousgeorge on Jan 13, 2010 3:00:31 GMT
I have seen the results of widespread crop failure in my lifetime. It was not pretty. A repeat of the climatic conditions that resulted in the "dust bowl" would be even worse today. After all, we have more than twice as many mouths to feed, and far less land can be rushed into production. But it would not take much to cut food crop production enough to result in widespread malnutrition. A lack of fertilizer feedstock would do just that. A relatively minor drop in the currency exchange rate would price imported foodstuffs beyond the ability of many to pay. I could go on but the key point is this. Avoiding widespread death from famine and disease requires almost the current level of energy production. And this administration seems bound and determined to cut domestic energy production. You fill in the rest of the picture. Stranger Fertilizer, that is Industrial fertilizer, seems to be off the radar of the AGW/enviro crowd. They seem to think that manure is sufficient to feed the world, and absolutely detest the idea that the majority of N comes from natural gas, and that most of the other major ingredients are mined. I've mentioned this a few times to certain folks, and you can see the hackles rise on the backs of the necks, and the blood vessels start to pop on their foreheads. Very amusing actually. ;D
|
|