|
Post by sigurdur on Jun 27, 2010 14:18:29 GMT
The analogy that Socold presented is interesting. Taking it a bit further, if you stay in bed all day, the chances of falling and breaking a leg or arm are mitigated. So, you stay in bed for 2 days, getting a bit thirsty by then, but you are so scared of falling that you stay in bed. By the 10th day of being in bed you are feverish and near death. But your bones are still intact.
By the 20th day, you have assumed room temperature. You have saved your bones, but given your life to do so.
The resulting death is based on fear of something that "might" happen.
You get out of bed, fall, break your arm. You have it set, put in a cast, and then continue with life.
I like the second option a whole lot better than the 1st option.
The whole co2 thing is very simple. We are a world based on energy. We, as humans, have harnessed the use of energy. By using it, we live much longer and have the ability to set bones etc. That bone setting took awhile to perfect with modern teck, but it is pretty good now assuring a positive outcome.
Using energy is the same. When faced with a fracture, you figure out how to fix that fracture. IF you had stayed in bed, you would never have needed to fix that fracture, but you would also be dead.
I choose to live life. I will worry about the broken bone when it happens. It is better than choosing death.
|
|
|
Post by hunter on Jun 27, 2010 15:14:35 GMT
soclod, What do you mean by 'believe the Vostock ice core'? Does it exist? Yes. Does it tel a story, with large ranges of uncertainty, about climate? Yes. Do you mean, 'do I believe the Vostock ice core means that CO2 is causing a climate apocalypse? No. Socold, your guys have been saing for 20 years we are experiencing the apocalypse right now. Hansen predicted many years ago that by now Manhattan would be inundated due to CO2 and that new, more southerly foliage would be moving into the NY city area. CAGW promoters have written plenty of books claiming that the apocalypse is upon us NOW. They are flat out wrong. Why should they be believed for the tomorrow parts of their predictions? What is annoying is how so many true believers stop thinking so easily once they learn the news CO2 is a ghg. Sorry that you are one of them.
|
|
|
Post by steve on Jun 28, 2010 8:43:22 GMT
hunter, Your method of trying to win the argument is to pick out one or two quotes from people who may or may not have been quoted out of context and insist that some sort of "apocalypse" has been predicted but has not happened. You ignore the masses of measured, published statements. Have a look, for example, at the 2nd Assessment report published in 1995. There are no claims of "apocalypse" happening within 20 years. www.ipcc.ch/pdf/climate-changes-1995/ipcc-2nd-assessment/2nd-assessment-en.pdfYou also try to put everyone who disagrees with you into the "apocalypse prediction" category without really defining what an "apocalypse" is. I might have made mention of the significant costs of adaptation, the hugely exaggerated costs of mitigation by "your guys", the inevitable sea rise of a number of metres that will happen over the next couple of hundred years or so, and the destruction of agriculture by heat stress and ozone that will be significant by 20500. I've never predicted anything that sounds like an imminent (within the decade) "apocalypse". If temperatures and ocean heat content start falling significantly (say to levels of 2000), if improvements in observations and models identify lower sensitivity, or new sources of negative feedbacks, then CAGW might be falsified. But much premature identification of cooling, falling sea levels, reducing OHC, negative feedbacks by "your guys" has come to nothing much so far.
|
|
|
Post by hunter on Jun 28, 2010 12:20:23 GMT
hunter, Your method of trying to win the argument is to pick out one or two quotes from people who may or may not have been quoted out of context and insist that some sort of "apocalypse" has been predicted but has not happened. You ignore the masses of measured, published statements. Have a look, for example, at the 2nd Assessment report published in 1995. There are no claims of "apocalypse" happening within 20 years. www.ipcc.ch/pdf/climate-changes-1995/ipcc-2nd-assessment/2nd-assessment-en.pdfYou also try to put everyone who disagrees with you into the "apocalypse prediction" category without really defining what an "apocalypse" is. I might have made mention of the significant costs of adaptation, the hugely exaggerated costs of mitigation by "your guys", the inevitable sea rise of a number of metres that will happen over the next couple of hundred years or so, and the destruction of agriculture by heat stress and ozone that will be significant by 20500. I've never predicted anything that sounds like an imminent (within the decade) "apocalypse". If temperatures and ocean heat content start falling significantly (say to levels of 2000), if improvements in observations and models identify lower sensitivity, or new sources of negative feedbacks, then CAGW might be falsified. But much premature identification of cooling, falling sea levels, reducing OHC, negative feedbacks by "your guys" has come to nothing much so far. Dodge and weave all you want, but CAGW without an apocalypse is a pile of junk. A complete waste of time. But if you are going to dodge and weave, please do not assert that only a few poor CAGW promoters, quoted out of context, are creating a misimpression in the weak minds of the denialist scum. Googling climate apocalypse yields 1,420,000 hits, mostly from true believers proclaiming one. Googling climate catastrophe yields 591,000. To claim that it is all from out of context misquotes is to ignore Hansen's book on the topic, "Storms of My Grandchildren", Gore's "Earth in the Balance" and entire sections of books at Barnes & Noble etc. Since many of the apocalyptic claptrap prophecies of CAGW promoters involve big areas on the planet becoming uninhabitable, to assert that skeptics are over stating something is a bit ironic, no? I would suggest that economic delusions like 'we are going to get off of oil in 20 years', or be a wind based power system in 20 years are the more overstated by orders of magnitude, claims than any from skeptics pointing out that so far not one CAGW inspired prediction, policy, or industry has actually been successful without huge government subsidy. Except of course the important CAGW industry of writing books about the looming calamity.
|
|
|
Post by steve on Jun 28, 2010 13:53:42 GMT
Dodge and weave all you want, but CAGW without an apocalypse is a pile of junk. A complete waste of time. Noting that virtually noone is aligned with *your* definition of a CAGW advocate is not dodging and weaving. Catastrophes will happen as a result of AGW. You seem to be bothered that because we cannot state that the level of catastrophes up to now is higher due to AGW we should assume that CAGW is falsified. Hansen's youngest granchild appears to be 5 years old. I expect that he will see the catastrophe unfold if he lives an average length life.
|
|
|
Post by dontgetoutmuch on Jun 28, 2010 14:20:29 GMT
hunter, Your method of trying to win the argument is to pick out one or two quotes from people who may or may not have been quoted out of context and insist that some sort of "apocalypse" has been predicted but has not happened. You ignore the masses of measured, published statements. Steve, You ignore the fact that the massess of measured, published statements are steaming piles. Mostly made by a select group of conmen known as "The Team". These snake oil salesmen are riding the AGW gravy train and won’t let little things like ethics and science slow the train…
|
|
|
Post by dontgetoutmuch on Jun 28, 2010 14:32:27 GMT
Dodge and weave all you want, but CAGW without an apocalypse is a pile of junk. A complete waste of time. Noting that virtually noone is aligned with *your* definition of a CAGW advocate is not dodging and weaving. Catastrophes will happen as a result of AGW. You seem to be bothered that because we cannot state that the level of catastrophes up to now is higher due to AGW we should assume that CAGW is falsified. Hansen's youngest granchild appears to be 5 years old. I expect that he will see the catastrophe unfold if he lives an average length life. And I expect that you are wrong. Furthermore, I expect that Hansen's granchildren will live to visit him in prison.
|
|
|
Post by icefisher on Jun 28, 2010 16:48:21 GMT
Your method of trying to win the argument is to pick out one or two quotes from people who may or may not have been quoted out of context and insist that some sort of "apocalypse" has been predicted but has not happened. Your method to win the argument is to look at the past 30 years out of context of a larger climate pattern and ignore the past and insist the change you are seeing is going to result in a catastrophe. Seems to me I have challenged you and others here to put your theory in the context of at least 100 years and ideally 200 years and provide consistent mathematically based explanations for the variations the world has seen including an explanation of why the best measured land mass can go 70 years with no significant warming. As an auditor the fact nobody will take on that challenge except to try to dummy up the record as if no change has occurred raises flags for me. We have seen hanky panky going on in the email exchanges of the TEAM and considering the error bars surrounding the absolute temperature of the globe is on the order of + or - 1degC there is plenty of room for hanky panky that can be argued as a plausible interpretation of less than adequately sampled records. The whole program has been to hide the decline to emphasize recent warming and manufactured science to produce hockey stick handles to de-emphasize historic climate variation. There is no question that scientists who have been willing to stretch the truth have been rewarded with more and more opportunities to publish their findings. It should go without saying that some net harm should be established as fact before taking action. People should not lose their freedom on a prediction that has no basis in actual empirical fact. Catastrophes will happen as a result of AGW. Catastrophes will happen without AGW. That is the natural nature of the world. Fools who think they can control the climate are more than likely going to double the number of catastrophes. I think the biggest mistake preservationists make is believing they can control the environment and shape it in their view of what is natural. The fact is the world is evolving and the past is not a good template for the future. A better measure is actual measured harm. If somebody pours arsenic in an estuary you can measure that harm and it makes sense to take action to restrict it and restore it. And most important there is a feasible alternative to dumping the arsenic. Humans are part of nature and restricting humans without evidence they are actually doing harm even if evidence does exist they are changing the world is actually the very definition of messing with nature as a decision to restrict change is an action to change the course of nature. We can worry about the success of humans and their burgeoning population and what that portends for the future. But the fact is most of the harm to nature that increasing populations have caused have been handled better by economically successful populations than the unsuccessful ones. That is likely to continue. I believe in the concept that environmentalism is good for business; but one has to always be very careful that the environmentalism they are advocating will actually produce benefits for business. The first prerequisite for that is clearly identified harm. Fix that harm and the benefits will flow. Fix something that doesn't need fixing is just plain bad for business no matter whether you are fixing the environment or your delivery truck.
You seem to be bothered that because we cannot state that the level of catastrophes up to now is higher due to AGW we should assume that CAGW is falsified. A reasonable presumption based upon that evidence is that AGW is not causing any harm. If so then it doesn't matter if it is falsified. As a result of that problem the policy advocates of doing something spent a lot of money elevating the "esteemed" status of a lot of people to publish garbage that postulates stuff like "tipping points" and other such nonsense that almost certainly does not exist or the world would have turned into Venus a long time ago. More likely is AGW will continue progressing at a pace that is all but unobservable, and continue to increase the carrying capacity of the world to support lifeforms as it has over the previous 100 years. If you think thats a bad thing. . . .try suicide and help us all out. We will erect a statue to you.
Hansen's youngest granchild appears to be 5 years old. I expect that he will see the catastrophe unfold if he lives an average length life. Suspect? Thats like a hunch. Maybe you should keep it to yourself and act accordingly. Nope! You are going to be like the visitor that doesn't know when his welcome ran out.
|
|
|
Post by magellan on Jun 28, 2010 16:51:15 GMT
Dodge and weave all you want, but CAGW without an apocalypse is a pile of junk. A complete waste of time. Noting that virtually noone is aligned with *your* definition of a CAGW advocate is not dodging and weaving. Catastrophes will happen as a result of AGW. You seem to be bothered that because we cannot state that the level of catastrophes up to now is higher due to AGW we should assume that CAGW is falsified. Hansen's youngest granchild appears to be 5 years old. I expect that he will see the catastrophe unfold if he lives an average length life. His grandchildren should have drowned or burned to a crisp by now. wattsupwiththat.com/2009/10/22/a-little-known-but-failed-20-year-old-climate-change-prediction-by-dr-james-hansen/While doing research 12 or 13 years ago, I met Jim Hansen, the scientist who in 1988 predicted the greenhouse effect before Congress. I went over to the window with him and looked out on Broadway in New York City and said, “If what you’re saying about the greenhouse effect is true, is anything going to look different down there in 20 years?” He looked for a while and was quiet and didn’t say anything for a couple seconds. Then he said, “Well, there will be more traffic.” I, of course, didn’t think he heard the question right. Then he explained, “The West Side Highway [which runs along the Hudson River] will be under water. And there will be tape across the windows across the street because of high winds. And the same birds won’t be there. The trees in the median strip will change.” Then he said, “There will be more police cars.” Why? “Well, you know what happens to crime when the heat goes up.”
And so far, over the last 10 years, we’ve had 10 of the hottest years on record. Yes steve, quacks come in all shapes and sizes. Hansen, Gore, bloodletting, scientology, steve...... Looking at U.S. temperature records by NCDC, things don't seem to be working out so well for Prophet Hansen and his flock. I don't think the highway is under water, is it? c3headlines.typepad.com/.a/6a010536b58035970c0120a652616b970b-pi[/img]
|
|
|
Post by scpg02 on Jun 28, 2010 16:58:26 GMT
Yes steve, quacks come in all shapes and sizes. Hansen, Gore, bloodletting, scientology, steve...... They found a new use for leeching so you never know...
|
|
|
Post by hunter on Jun 29, 2010 3:03:47 GMT
steve, So you actually are so far up into CAGW that you can sit there and admit that the predictions are wrong, but the claims are still true, and not feel the least bit of cognitive dissonance? Does even a glimmer disturb the smooth pond of your intellect? I do not assume CAGW is falsified. I conclude, from observing the vast difference between the claims of CAGW promoters and reality, that CAGW is wrong. True believers assume CAGW is correct, and so ignore the evidence that shows otherwise.
|
|
|
Post by douglavers on Jun 29, 2010 4:25:28 GMT
The next 2-3 years will be interesting from a climate point of view:
a) Our local star has gone really quiet. There seems to be no end to this in sight, despite suggestions that this is "the calm before the storm". Some radical redesigns of solar models are probably in progress. b) The PDO has gone into its cold cycle, for the first time with really good satellite instruments available to study what is happening. c) The planetary temperatures are already veering outside the IPCC forecasts from several years ago.
Meanwhile, the CLOUD experiments at CERN are presumably proceeding as planned - I can't find anything on their website. They must surely be reaching the point shortly when they start to publish. [ anyone know anything? ]
If Svensmark is right about his cosmic ray/ lower cloud idea, some very traumatic [for the people concerned] changes to forecast models will be required.
Anyhow, returning to the original point of this thread, I think it will be no more that 3 years before the AGW hypothesis will be scrapped or validated with reasonable confidence.
|
|
|
Post by steve on Jun 29, 2010 7:26:37 GMT
Icefisher Sometimes you are such a prat. Particularly when you spend 20 minutes justifying your statement that: before realising that in my next sentence was based on exactly that presumption. Why didn't you just delete what you wrote instead of getting all riled
|
|
|
Post by steve on Jun 29, 2010 7:50:38 GMT
hunter steve, So you actually are so far up into CAGW that you can sit there and admit that the predictions are wrong, but the claims are still true, and not feel the least bit of cognitive dissonance? Does even a glimmer disturb the smooth pond of your intellect? I do not assume CAGW is falsified. I conclude, from observing the vast difference between the claims of CAGW promoters and reality, that CAGW is wrong. True believers assume CAGW is correct, and so ignore the evidence that shows otherwise. You are a True Believer in the theory that AGW requires obvious catastrophes now. You have no cognotive dissonance because you won't even look at the documents that show by and large the concerns relate to probabilities of impacts some decades into the future. If you argued based on the current predictions and realities, you would have to accept that the science predicted warming, and that warming in line with the predictions has happened. You might have to accept that despite the poring over the data by the loons a WUWT and the more considered sceptical eyes at Lucia's blog, no particular problems with the warming observations have been identified. You would have to accept that since the science predicts *continued* warming, continued warming is not an unreasonable expectation. Now you might wish (like icefisher) to dispute whether such warming is likely to be "good" or "bad", but your world view seems to limit you to the here and now.
|
|
|
Post by hunter on Jun 29, 2010 14:35:00 GMT
steve, I am a true beleiver that when predictions are wrong, they are wrong. You, on the other hand, require no evidence to sustain your faith. Here is a nice reading list that samples the bogus pap your side belches out in endless streams, like effluent from a feedlot. www.congress.org/soapbox/alert/15194771My world view limits me to believing in things by use of my reason and faith, not a pure leap of faith that requires no facts to sustain it. You can stick to your CAGW magical thinking all you want. The climate does not care.
|
|