|
Post by jimcripwell on Jun 9, 2010 13:32:08 GMT
Touku writes "Jim, if you rely on data, and just have a different or dissident view, you're a sceptic."
I dont care in the least what label anyone puts on me. I am, fundamentally, a scientist. I read the science that the IPCC presented in the TAR, and decided it was completely unscientific. Nothing I have read since then has changed my mind. Many years ago (over 60), I read my first copy of Nature, and saw the extract from a poem by Wordsworth on the front cover. "To the solid ground of Nature, Trusts the mind that builds for aye". That has been the cornerstone of my philosophy ever since.
|
|
|
Post by throttleup on Jun 9, 2010 15:06:00 GMT
graywolf, What grief? But since ou bring up the interesting topic of reactions to news, your reaction of expanding glee to any information you can wring out of a news report regarding a connection between Arctic ice and CAGW is rather macabre. If I actually believed, as you do, that the world was facing a real catastrophe caused by CO2, and that Arctic ice was an indicator of that catastrophe, I would not chortle or prance around in happiness as you do if I received confirmation. You, Lovelock, Hansen, Gore and far too many seem to be hungering after a good ol' apocalypse, and cannot wait until them sinners get whats coming. hunter, I have to agree with your characterization. Far too many of the CAGW crowd are all-to-pleased with the prospect of global annihilation as the result of temperature creep. One could easily imagine that if there was a killer asteroid heading to earth they would scream it from the roof-tops but, oddly, would cackle "Yes! YES!!" as it drew closer. Just seems odd to me... but then again, you and I are normal! --- touko, your posts are interesting. "They are fundamentally as scared of the changes as anyone, but try to offload the fright from their minds onto any carrier that they could despise and disregard, as they are fundamentally not in terms with their own insecurity. You and me are in effect working brutally as their very own unpaid psychotherapists!" I appreciate your help (and Graywolf's too!) as I am (obviously!) mentally unbalanced. So unbalanced, that I DON'T fear the "changes" as you suggest. The earth, climate-wise and other-wise has always been full of change. We adapt, or we die. In fact (I hate to tell you this!), we're ALL gonna die anyway, even if the earth followed your preferred path to climate perfection. As a "psychotherapist," you need to listen better. We're not 'scared,' full of hate or 'insecure.' (We all appreciate your 'brutal' help, however!) I'm probably slow and not as smart as you. But if it's a hot day in June I don't scream "global warming!" And if it's a cold day in June, I don't scream "ice age!" We would benefit by doing more watching, more learning, more listening... and less blaming. Arctic ice extent doesn't scare me. The extent of abject stupidity related to it does. Nice couch. Should I make another appointment for next week?
|
|
|
Post by sigurdur on Jun 9, 2010 15:26:12 GMT
What have I been missing? ?.... Here we have touko telling us that since we don't believe there is a threat of some sort.....we are mmmmmm.......unbalanced? I think not. The observations are trumping the AGW folks.....it is that simple. Not all can be explained....surprised?
|
|
|
Post by hunter on Jun 9, 2010 15:32:32 GMT
Touko is simply demonstrating the psychiatric concept of transference rather well.
Throttleup, Thanks for noticing. It is a bit odd, no? We, who keep pointing out that nothing dreadful is happening- because it is not- are full of hate and denial, while those who see CO2 boogeymen in every daily report on ice/weather/sea levels/ storm warnings/rain, drought/cool/warm/etc. are posing as the sophisticates. The miasma of the true believer is entertaining in a dark way, like watching a slow motion train wreck or ship sinking.
|
|
|
Post by throttleup on Jun 9, 2010 19:17:45 GMT
Touko is simply demonstrating the psychiatric concept of transference rather well. Throttleup, Thanks for noticing. It is a bit odd, no? We, who keep pointing out that nothing dreadful is happening- because it is not- are full of hate and denial, while those who see CO2 boogeymen in every daily report on ice/weather/sea levels/ storm warnings/rain, drought/cool/warm/etc. are posing as the sophisticates. The miasma of the true believer is entertaining in a dark way, like watching a slow motion train wreck or ship sinking. Darkly entertaining and odd? Yes! On the plus side, if you accidentally drop your toast and it lands butter-side down, at least you can blame global warming! But it is tiring when, as you say, every little thing is due to the CO2 boogeyman. I mean, come on! It's the 21st Century! Isn't it? Just as tiring as 0bama's "Bush's Fault!" mantra... It's nice, it's easy, it's simple. But it's a cheat.
|
|
|
Post by trbixler on Jun 9, 2010 21:00:58 GMT
"More on the Beeville, TX weather station" "Being a skeptic, I searched for the raw data. The monthly data is available at the NOAA site. Got the data for Beeville and plotted the second graph above (click the graphs for better detail). Does anyone see any warming going on? Doing a linear trendline on the monthly data gives us “y = -0.0637x + 829.59″, which means that temperatures have gone down! And now, imagine which were the 20 hottest months at Beeville, for the last 113 years:" wattsupwiththat.com/2010/06/09/more-on-the-beeville-tx-weather-station/
|
|
|
Post by socold on Jun 10, 2010 22:09:47 GMT
Here's the same result using GHCN raw and adjusted. Even though all the years are plotted, some of the annual averages have less than 12 months of data. For example the large spike in 1902 is probably because the value for February 1902 is missing and therefore averaging the remaining 11 months will produce a warm biased annual mean. It could be estimated, but for the graphs after this I don't include years with less than 12 months in the plot. This is the difference between the graphs above: This is the raw and adjusted data for a station at San Antonio, 138km away from the Beeville station And at a station at Corpus Christi, 78km away from Beeville station At both these stations the adjusted data is very close to the raw data. In fact the raw and adjusted data are right on top of each other in recent decades (which is why it looks like the blue plot disapears). Here's the raw dataset for all 3 plotted together:
|
|
|
Post by matt on Jun 10, 2010 23:23:22 GMT
You, Lovelock, Hansen, Gore and far too many seem to be hungering after a good ol' apocalypse, and cannot wait until them sinners get whats coming. Not quite. People want to start work on the solutions, but having to convince deniers gets in the way. The satisfaction you describe is from proving, hopefully for the last time needed, that CAGW is a real threat. People like to work on solutions and they like being right. You can't hold that against them.
|
|
|
Post by sigurdur on Jun 11, 2010 0:06:51 GMT
You, Lovelock, Hansen, Gore and far too many seem to be hungering after a good ol' apocalypse, and cannot wait until them sinners get whats coming. Not quite. People want to start work on the solutions, but having to convince deniers gets in the way. The satisfaction you describe is from proving, hopefully for the last time needed, that CAGW is a real threat. People like to work on solutions and they like being right. You can't hold that against them. Matt: I am a bit daff......please explain to me how CAGW is a real threat? I am old.....have seen the scares of the past, and just can't get my mind to grasp the physics of the hyped CAGW threat. Ya see, what some idiots proclaim is physically impossible, yet they keep claiming the same old story. Enlighten me if you would be so kind?
|
|
|
Post by hunter on Jun 11, 2010 13:03:42 GMT
Matt, Please do tell us, without circular reasoning or appeals to authority, exactly what you are seeking to solve and how?
|
|
|
Post by touko on Jun 11, 2010 14:37:32 GMT
|
|
|
Post by steve on Jun 11, 2010 14:58:53 GMT
Matt, Please do tell us, without circular reasoning or appeals to authority, exactly what you are seeking to solve and how? How to maintain the health of the economy while reducing use of fossil fuels. How to predict impacts of warming, and how to adapt to them so avoiding or minimising the impacts. I think you and Sigurdur are too fixated on the inability to accurately predict any catastrophic outcomes of AGW. Well, with luck we'll all be dead before rising sea levels wreck our cities. But you forget that there are quite mundane basic things such as the fact that road, rail and utility infrastructure is built to certain tolerances, and fixing that is costly. Also, a few years down the line when even you lot aren't dumb enough to think that the continued warming has no anthropogenic cause, there will be a growing desire to plan much further ahead, and there will be a need to start making the downpayments for much bigger infrastructure changes. Unfortunately the pain will be all the greater due to the delays caused by the oil and industry lobbyists.
|
|
|
Post by hunter on Jun 11, 2010 15:28:40 GMT
steve, It seems you are asserting that humanity has lost the ability to adapt, mitigate, restore and overcome changes. That is very interesting. It takes a breathtaking level of historical illiteracy to achieve that perspective. congratulations. Do you believe that humans- even in relatively recent times- have not dealt with substantial changes in climates? And of course you cannot be bothered to review the idea that CAGW belief vastly over states the evidence fo cliamte change, vastly over states the risks of climate change, and vastly under estimates our ability to adapt to our changing climate. You might consider your untimely death to be 'lucky', but I think you will find yourself in a distinct minority. I certainly hope you will understand if me and many others decline to join you in your definition of luck.
|
|
|
Post by sigurdur on Jun 11, 2010 18:00:01 GMT
Matt, Please do tell us, without circular reasoning or appeals to authority, exactly what you are seeking to solve and how? How to maintain the health of the economy while reducing use of fossil fuels. How to predict impacts of warming, and how to adapt to them so avoiding or minimising the impacts. I think you and Sigurdur are too fixated on the inability to accurately predict any catastrophic outcomes of AGW. Well, with luck we'll all be dead before rising sea levels wreck our cities. But you forget that there are quite mundane basic things such as the fact that road, rail and utility infrastructure is built to certain tolerances, and fixing that is costly. Also, a few years down the line when even you lot aren't dumb enough to think that the continued warming has no anthropogenic cause, there will be a growing desire to plan much further ahead, and there will be a need to start making the downpayments for much bigger infrastructure changes. Unfortunately the pain will be all the greater due to the delays caused by the oil and industry lobbyists. "I think you and Sigurdur are too fixated on the inability to accurately predict any catastrophic outcomes of AGW". Steve, you have said it all. Unless we have a drastic climate shift, which co2 will not cause, the predictions and their accuracy are very important. When one mitigates, it is better to mitigate for a known reason. What if we mitigate and do all the wrong things? Expending our scarce resources.....then having none left to adapt with. The threat of warming is not a bad thing overall. The increased productivety of agriculture, in itself, is a boon for mankind. It is much easier to adapt with a full belly rather than a starving one. The predictions done so far concerning AGW are useless. The predictions that our current time frame are in show not even one that I can find have come about. The reason those predictions have not born fruit is that there is a LOT about climate that we do not yet understand. The down side of the failed catastrophes is that AGW has lost its credibility. People who are involved in real world production, not only ag, pay attention to climate. With that attention, we realize how little the climate scientists know as the proof is in the pudding.
|
|
|
Post by socold on Jun 11, 2010 20:49:23 GMT
It's granted that we aren't going to leave the oil and coal in the ground. The question is whether we burn the bulk of it up in a short time period or we stretch it out over a much longer period. The way things are going it looks like governments are not that interested as long as the power doesn't run out on their watch - so I expect we will go down the burning fossil fuels up in a short time period route. In 30 years I bet we are frantically drilling the oil shales and tar sands to make ends meet and then in decades after that we will have real troubles adapting to a world of low fossil fuel supplies, let alone any necessary adaptation to climate change.
|
|