|
Puzzle
Mar 27, 2010 2:46:02 GMT
Post by nautonnier on Mar 27, 2010 2:46:02 GMT
"The Sahara used to be a green and pleasant place. In a matter of a few years it dried out and many communities were wiped out. Just because you've never heard of examples of catastrophic climate change doesn't mean they haven't happened"This is true archaeology now supports this and that the tribes of ancient Egypt who built the pyramids were actually driven out of their habitation of what is now the Sahara but was then a fertile equatorial forest. Was that CO 2 that caused that then Steve? or perhaps it caused the Roman optimum? or perhaps the Medieval Warm Period? So we have periods when the climate changes _WITHOUT_ the level of CO 2 driving it. So what caused the warming then? What caused the Sahara to become a desert?
|
|
|
Puzzle
Mar 27, 2010 3:08:07 GMT
Post by poitsplace on Mar 27, 2010 3:08:07 GMT
I do believe it's the opposite, guys. Africa is generally wetter when it was warmer.
|
|
|
Puzzle
Mar 27, 2010 9:55:45 GMT
Post by Ratty on Mar 27, 2010 9:55:45 GMT
I do believe it's the opposite, guys. Africa is generally wetter when it was warmer. I read somewhere that it's ice ages that create deserts?
|
|
|
Puzzle
Mar 27, 2010 11:41:21 GMT
Post by curiousgeorge on Mar 27, 2010 11:41:21 GMT
Well if we're allowed to guess, I'd guess land use changes and/or poor farming practice. Or stampeding elephants. ;D
|
|
|
Puzzle
Mar 27, 2010 16:29:37 GMT
Post by hunter on Mar 27, 2010 16:29:37 GMT
Well if we're allowed to guess, I'd guess land use changes and/or poor farming practice. Or stampeding elephants. ;D You are getting at a really important point, and one that the AGW community has totally blown: That land use is a really important forcing, and is something we can influence very directly and see the results of very directly. AGW is so steeped in pseudo religious obsessions that instead of doing cost-benefits of mitigation adaptation and remediation, we are instead pursuing something at ct great cost that delivers tiny benefits and causes unmeasured harm.
|
|
|
Puzzle
Mar 27, 2010 18:04:54 GMT
Post by curiousgeorge on Mar 27, 2010 18:04:54 GMT
Well if we're allowed to guess, I'd guess land use changes and/or poor farming practice. Or stampeding elephants. ;D You are getting at a really important point, and one that the AGW community has totally blown: That land use is a really important forcing, and is something we can influence very directly and see the results of very directly. AGW is so steeped in pseudo religious obsessions that instead of doing cost-benefits of mitigation adaptation and remediation, we are instead pursuing something at ct great cost that delivers tiny benefits and causes unmeasured harm. I know, even tho the comment was in partial jest. We could have easily had a desert right here in river city as a result of the dust bowl way back when, which was largely due to farming practices - deep plowing, burning, etc. - which was the way it had been done for centuries around the world and is still quite common. Soil dries out, no root systems, wind comes up and whooosh. Even today, burning of fields to prepare it for planting is still a common practice in the US and other countries. No-till, and related soil preservation methods are often counterproductive, since they often result in insect and crop disease issues - and therefore more reliance on chemicals. And around and around we go. We don't have to worry about elephants tho. ;D That said, it's never just one or 2 factors that lead to problems. It's always a combination and convergence of many things. Which is my main complaint with folks trying to dump whatever is happening, or not happening, to the climate on just one or 2 factors. BTW, since everybody loves models, here's an interesting development that relates to land use/ farming: www.dtnprogressivefarmer.com/dtnag/common/link.do?symbolicName=/ag/blogs/template1&blogHandle=weather&blogEntryId=8a82c0bc268be2db01279abda4430d5d&showCommentsOverride=false
|
|
|
Puzzle
Mar 27, 2010 18:27:27 GMT
Post by sigurdur on Mar 27, 2010 18:27:27 GMT
The puzzle is still a puzzle. I think that is the most important thing to understand in all of this. When one looks at climate in historical perspective, which one SHOULD look at it in, the changes of the past 200 years are certainly not unprecedented.
When looking at the science in climate, it is purely utterly ludicrious to seperate one gas as the source of climate change. For one thing, this gas has not been the predominant source of climate change in the past, and I very much doubt that it is the main source of climate change in the present. Climate changes...has changed numerous times....that is the "norm". Now all of a sudden to expect that climate has hit a stagnation point and won't change unless mankind adds a stimuli is foolhardy and not based on one scientific article that I can find.
There are a lot of "assumptions" in GCM's that have not born fruit.
Climate is a chaotic system. Adaption to that chaotic system has lead to some people surviving, and some perishing.
That is the fact of the whole matter.
One needs to continue the reserach, but with open eyes. Correlation does not breed causation.
|
|
|
Puzzle
Mar 31, 2010 18:10:41 GMT
Post by steve on Mar 31, 2010 18:10:41 GMT
I don't see they add much to the discussion. The proposition is being tested by reference to links between physical changes (Milankovitch cycles) and temperature. Other temperature changes in the Holocene can also be related to Milankovitch cycles. These things (and common sense!) are telling us that there is little justification for *assuming* that temperature just goes up and down of its own accord. That of course is just pure unmitigated claptrap! Milanovich cycles ONLY correlate to temperature changes on the 1/2 million year proxy record (several 100,000 year cycles). They do not provide explanations for the wiggles we see on smaller timescales thus if CO2 is the only forcing according to your logic temperatures do go up and down on their own accord Steve. You are wrong. These cycles have led to there being significantly more summer sunshine in the Northern hemisphere the further you go back in time up to around 6000BC which can explain the proxies that hunter referenced. In the separate point such changes have caused "tipping points" in the climate of large areas that belie the claim that tipping points are an AGW fantasy to scare the children. The "scientific reply" is that he is looking for the wrong connection in an inappropriately short record without looking at other "forcings" and without considering the physical evidence. A bit like saying that since your house is not warming at the expected rate after you turned the heating on, that the warmth must not be related to the heating.
|
|
|
Puzzle
Mar 31, 2010 19:52:06 GMT
Post by icefisher on Mar 31, 2010 19:52:06 GMT
The "scientific reply" is that he is looking for the wrong connection in an inappropriately short record without looking at other "forcings" and without considering the physical evidence. A bit like saying that since your house is not warming at the expected rate after you turned the heating on, that the warmth must not be related to the heating. LOL! "inappropriately short record" ROTFLMAO! Gee, the analysis was for the entire industrial age Steve! Thanks for admitting to zero, zilch, none empirical evidence. I guess this argument is done!!!
|
|
|
Puzzle
Mar 31, 2010 21:30:15 GMT
Post by hunter on Mar 31, 2010 21:30:15 GMT
steve, Just like the regional catastrophe that the USSR created out of the Aral sea, no one is arguing about regional responses. The AGW community is pushing a global catastrophe and tipping point. This is the prediction that is not holding up well.
|
|
|
Puzzle
Apr 1, 2010 9:46:00 GMT
Post by steve on Apr 1, 2010 9:46:00 GMT
Gee Icefisher there is plenty of evidence for a trend These deluded economonists were trying to determine whether temperature was instead governed by some sort of weird stochastic based variation as though the propensity for things to warm up might be determined by the same rules as those that tell us the amount of money old people hide under the mattress. There is not enough data to support the weird stochastic variation. Ask Lucia: hunter: How many regions have to be hit for it to count as a global issue?
|
|
|
Puzzle
Apr 1, 2010 13:01:37 GMT
Post by hunter on Apr 1, 2010 13:01:37 GMT
Hit by what? Was the Aral sea problem caused by CO2? All the world is hit by extreme weather, and always has been. If we are in a 'climate crisis'(the new branding effort) then maybe we should see... a crisis? But what do we have? World levels of cyclones- down. Ice levels- normal to slightly up. Droughts- normal Sea levels- rising normally. Temps- indistinguishable from noise. Glaciers- not melting at crisis levels.
As to your critique on stats- I think you might want to re-think the idea that stats analysis do not apply to AGW theory.
|
|
|
Puzzle
Apr 1, 2010 18:39:58 GMT
Post by icefisher on Apr 1, 2010 18:39:58 GMT
Gee Icefisher there is plenty of evidence for a trend These deluded economonists were trying to determine whether temperature was instead governed by some sort of weird stochastic based variation as though the propensity for things to warm up might be determined by the same rules as those that tell us the amount of money old people hide under the mattress. There is not enough data to support the weird stochastic variation. Ask Lucia: LOL! Statistics is exactly how we measure the validity of observations. No statistics and you have no mathematical quantification of the likelihood of a hypothesis being true. So you are saying there is plenty of evidence for a trend but not enough to estimate? One cannot just ignore what statistics tells us because of a claim of too few data. To use an old expression Steve. You are talking through your hat. You are just dowsing.
|
|
|
Puzzle
Apr 1, 2010 20:07:42 GMT
Post by hunter on Apr 1, 2010 20:07:42 GMT
Gee Icefisher there is plenty of evidence for a trend These deluded economonists were trying to determine whether temperature was instead governed by some sort of weird stochastic based variation as though the propensity for things to warm up might be determined by the same rules as those that tell us the amount of money old people hide under the mattress. There is not enough data to support the weird stochastic variation. Ask Lucia: LOL! Statistics is exactly how we measure the validity of observations. No statistics and you have no mathematical quantification of the likelihood of a hypothesis being true. So you are saying there is plenty of evidence for a trend but not enough to estimate? One cannot just ignore what statistics tells us because of a claim of too few data. To use an old expression Steve. You and Lucia are talking through your hats. You are just dowsing. icefisher, Lucia is not at all dismissing VS. She is doing what should be done- thoroughly reviewing the claim. Her thoroughness is why she has rejected the catastrophic AGW movement, and her ethical integrity is why she saw the significant failures of standards and ethics of the AGW promoters exposed in climategate
|
|
|
Puzzle
Apr 2, 2010 0:33:25 GMT
Post by icefisher on Apr 2, 2010 0:33:25 GMT
icefisher, Lucia is not at all dismissing VS. She is doing what should be done- thoroughly reviewing the claim. Her thoroughness is why she has rejected the catastrophic AGW movement, and her ethical integrity is why she saw the significant failures of standards and ethics of the AGW promoters exposed in climategate Thanks Hunter. I big tented Lucia unfairly so I edited my post. Obviously proving there is no quantifiable evidence of AGW is different than proving there never will be. The same can be said of the existence of God. It gets down to believing whatever you want to believe.
|
|