wylie
Level 3 Rank
Posts: 129
|
Post by wylie on Jul 1, 2009 18:37:45 GMT
Is it not correct to say, however, that the concern is not with an increase of a few degrees celsius, but with the advent of irrevocable runaway heating of the atmosphere? There is a risk of additional unpredictable effects that might lead to more warming (eg. methane release) but no "runaway" warming to evaporating oceans. I would agree that in a few thousand years' time, once things have settled down, an earth that is 3C warmer may well have more plants and animals on it than now. Since humans developed their intelligence in cold weather, since the Industrial Revolution started during the "LIA", and since the temperature of a country is not well correlated with its level of development, claims that we thrive in warm weather have to be taken with a very large pinch of salt. Hansen is taking the highly supportable view that the evidence does not show that the MWP was globally warmer than is now (certainly not 2-3C) and that the Holocene optimum was northern latitute event caused by earth wobbles. Since his view is well-supported by the science, it is perfectly rational for him to put himself on the line over this. Steve, Do you believe Models more than historical evidence? If you believe in models more than historical evidence, then your statement makes sense. However, the historical evidence is very strong that the medieval human population (especially Northern Europe) exploded because of increases in agricultural productivity. Increased crop yields do indeed correlate well with increased temperature (especially if you are limited by the seasonal duration of frost-free days). Of course, I do not deny that the industrial revolution began during a cold period (evidence of human adaptability to cold climates). I also do not deny that humans are an adaptable species (that would be contrary to the evidence - eskimos adapted to Greenland and the Canadian Arctic with neolithic technology, for example). I am simple stating the obvious, that food is more available in warmer climates and that human populations have been (and continue to be) dependent on the food supply. If the climate warms (especially in higher latitudes), there is VERY strong evidence that the human food supply will increase. THe increase in CO2 at the same time is a "double whammy". CO2 increases leads to "almost linear" increases in crop productivity. For example, a recent study by the Univerisity of Illinois showed that for open air CO2 fertilization for a 40% increase in CO2 (550ppm vs. 380ppm ) soy-bean yields increased by 19% and corn yields increased by 43% with 10% less usage of water. To maintain that warming and CO2 increases would hurt plant productivity and the human food supply (if you are suggesting that) in the face of the evidence seems strange to me. Also, most reasonable scientists would come to the conclusion that rainfall would, on average, increase in a warmer world (more energy for evaporation of water). This would imply the potential (with simple technology such as reservoirs) to FURTHER INCREASE food crop yields. Finally, very few people can live on a Tundra. More room to expand for humanity is a good thing. Hope that this helps to clarify the situation. IWylie |
|
|
|
Post by icefisher on Jul 1, 2009 19:12:25 GMT
Is it not correct to say, however, that the concern is not with an increase of a few degrees celsius, but with the advent of irrevocable runaway heating of the atmosphere? There is a risk of additional unpredictable effects that might lead to more warming (eg. methane release) but no "runaway" warming to evaporating oceans. I would agree that in a few thousand years' time, once things have settled down, an earth that is 3C warmer may well have more plants and animals on it than now. You obviously don't know much about biology. Critters are opportunistic, nature abhors a vacuum. Visions spread by AGW morons of deserts and depopulation of the earth is simply nonsense. Great extinctions are more than likely associated with blockage of sunlight. Extinction risks most likely do not arise from retaining energy on the surface of the planet. The basics of life is the conversion of sunlight into consumable energy. You more than likely have it completely backwards and upside down when it comes to warming temperatures and CO2. All evidence points to that. Look to poisonous pollution, nuclear war, ice ages, meteor hits, volcanism and other stuff that obscures the sun for loss of biological populations. A warmer planet will almost assurdedly increase the number of creatures on this planet. Alleged feedback from more moisture in the air will irrigate more lands not less. Since humans developed their intelligence in cold weather, The appropriate saying there is "necessity is the mother of invention". But this is just more utter nonsense. The Renaissance started with the Carolingians in the 8th Century and ran until the LIA started in the 16th century. Even the Chinese and Arabs hit peaks of scientific and artistic development during that warm phase. since the Industrial Revolution started during the "LIA", and since the temperature of a country is not well correlated with its level of development, claims that we thrive in warm weather have to be taken with a very large pinch of salt. More historic nonsense. The Industrial revolution was in the 19th century. Nadir of the LIA was during the 16th and 17th centuries. Hansen is taking the highly supportable view that the evidence does not show that the MWP was globally warmer than is now (certainly not 2-3C) and that the Holocene optimum was northern latitute event caused by earth wobbles. Since his view is well-supported by the science, it is perfectly rational for him to put himself on the line over this. We understand that history does not matter when saving the earth is at stake. It also does not matter if its real or imagined to Dr. Hansen. |
|
|
|
Post by dopeydog on Jul 1, 2009 19:18:26 GMT
Today at 12:53pm, steve wrote:
"Since humans developed their intelligence in cold weather"
Most of human evolution occurred in Africa. It's quite warm there I hear, although I've never been to that continent.
|
|
|
|
Post by donmartin on Jul 1, 2009 23:36:48 GMT
I've read that our species survived the glaciation period of our existence simply because we could outrun the Neanderthals. That is, we could catch them.
|
|
|
|
Post by poitsplace on Jul 2, 2009 4:32:12 GMT
Socold: I spent my spare time in the past two weeks studying the MWP. Show me a reliable source that the MWP was not a world wide event. In all my reading, the time frame from caves, stalagmite, plant growth, etc showed it was happening worldwide. I have no idea of the cause, as there were many ideas floated, but one thing did stick. IT was worldwide, and it happened during the time frame. This sort of thing is the real problem with AGW hysteria. Socold and other AGW alarmists blindly accept everything that HINTS that the current warming is unprecedented. Just about any article or study...no matter how shaky or absurd is accepted at face value. The debate is ONLY over because they've closed their eyes tight, plugged their ears and begun chanting their mantra that REALLY equates to "I'm not listening...I'm not listening!" They accept blindly that someone can make a reliable computer model when it involves numerous, poorly understood processes. One guy comes in and says that temperatures were stable for the last thousand years and they buy it hook, line and sinker. When it's shown to be total nonsense they point to other studies that only show less pronounced warming/cooling and CONTINUE to blindly accept that the earth's climate is some kind of ultra-stable system. They buy the nonsensical claims that feedbacks driven by heat can be as powerful as the initial forcing (and probably higher) but that they somehow can magically tell the difference between their own heat and CO2's. Then they ignore the fact that such powerful feedbacks would mean their stable temperature hypotheses would have to be wrong. Expecting long-term climate stability in a world of such powerful feedbacks...is like expecting a marble to stay balanced on a needle point or knife edge. |
|
|
|
Post by steve on Jul 2, 2009 6:09:21 GMT
Steve, Ahem, you have to be kidding me that the MWP was not a global event.....right? The idea it was not was trial balloned about 10 years ago. Since then, peer reviewed literature has shown that it was worldwide in nature. Both SH and NH continents show the MWP. Ahem indeed. Read what I said, I did not claim that it was not a "global event". There is little evidence that the MWP was globally warmer than today. Certainly there is no evidence that it was 2-3C warmer. |
|
|
|
Post by steve on Jul 2, 2009 6:21:30 GMT
There is a risk of additional unpredictable effects that might lead to more warming (eg. methane release) but no "runaway" warming to evaporating oceans. I would agree that in a few thousand years' time, once things have settled down, an earth that is 3C warmer may well have more plants and animals on it than now. Since humans developed their intelligence in cold weather, since the Industrial Revolution started during the "LIA", and since the temperature of a country is not well correlated with its level of development, claims that we thrive in warm weather have to be taken with a very large pinch of salt. Hansen is taking the highly supportable view that the evidence does not show that the MWP was globally warmer than is now (certainly not 2-3C) and that the Holocene optimum was northern latitute event caused by earth wobbles. Since his view is well-supported by the science, it is perfectly rational for him to put himself on the line over this. Steve, Do you believe Models more than historical evidence? If you believe in models more than historical evidence, then your statement makes sense. However, the historical evidence is very strong that the medieval human population (especially Northern Europe) exploded because of increases in agricultural productivity. Increased crop yields do indeed correlate well with increased temperature (especially if you are limited by the seasonal duration of frost-free days). Of course, I do not deny that the industrial revolution began during a cold period (evidence of human adaptability to cold climates). I also do not deny that humans are an adaptable species (that would be contrary to the evidence - eskimos adapted to Greenland and the Canadian Arctic with neolithic technology, for example). I am simple stating the obvious, that food is more available in warmer climates and that human populations have been (and continue to be) dependent on the food supply. If the climate warms (especially in higher latitudes), there is VERY strong evidence that the human food supply will increase. THe increase in CO2 at the same time is a "double whammy". CO2 increases leads to "almost linear" increases in crop productivity. For example, a recent study by the Univerisity of Illinois showed that for open air CO2 fertilization for a 40% increase in CO2 (550ppm vs. 380ppm ) soy-bean yields increased by 19% and corn yields increased by 43% with 10% less usage of water. To maintain that warming and CO2 increases would hurt plant productivity and the human food supply (if you are suggesting that) in the face of the evidence seems strange to me. Also, most reasonable scientists would come to the conclusion that rainfall would, on average, increase in a warmer world (more energy for evaporation of water). This would imply the potential (with simple technology such as reservoirs) to FURTHER INCREASE food crop yields. Finally, very few people can live on a Tundra. More room to expand for humanity is a good thing. Hope that this helps to clarify the situation. IWylie Who lives in these high latitudes that will soon become agricultural heaven? Unfortunately billions do not live in these high latitudes. Will the Canadians, the Scandinavians and the Russians welcome mass immigration from sub-tropical regions to take advantage of this agricultural bounty, or will they keep it for themselves? Rainfall will not increase everywhere. As well as the heat and reduced rainfall reducing food productivity in parts of Africa, the Indian subcontinent and the Mediterranean, the heat will (alongside urban growth) significantly increase surface levels of ozone that are hugely damaging to plants (60-70% reduction in productivity found in experiments). |
|
|
|
Post by steve on Jul 2, 2009 6:29:44 GMT
There is a risk of additional unpredictable effects that might lead to more warming (eg. methane release) but no "runaway" warming to evaporating oceans. I would agree that in a few thousand years' time, once things have settled down, an earth that is 3C warmer may well have more plants and animals on it than now. You obviously don't know much about biology. Critters are opportunistic, nature abhors a vacuum. Visions spread by AGW morons of deserts and depopulation of the earth is simply nonsense. Great extinctions are more than likely associated with blockage of sunlight. Icefisher, you obviously did not read what I said - how moronic is that?  What you say below agrees with me: If you think the Industrial Revolution sprung out of nowhere in the 19th Century then your reading of history is a little lax. |
|
|
|
Post by steve on Jul 2, 2009 6:34:04 GMT
Socold: I spent my spare time in the past two weeks studying the MWP. Show me a reliable source that the MWP was not a world wide event. In all my reading, the time frame from caves, stalagmite, plant growth, etc showed it was happening worldwide. I have no idea of the cause, as there were many ideas floated, but one thing did stick. IT was worldwide, and it happened during the time frame. This sort of thing is the real problem with AGW hysteria. Socold and other AGW alarmists blindly accept everything that HINTS that the current warming is unprecedented. Nope. People like you blindly accept that the MWP was globally warmer than now based on a dodgy pen drawing done by a scientist called Lamb who was trying to represent the temperature of England. How do I know that? Because Steve McIntyre told me. Does Steve McIntyre believe that the MWP was globally warmer than now. I don't think so. He won't say so directly because he prefers to make the case that the science showing that the MWP was not warmer is flawed. |
|
|
|
Post by steve on Jul 2, 2009 6:45:21 GMT
The central points of the above argument are these:
1. The planet is currently adapted to current temperatures.
2. There really is no good evidence that significant diversions from these temperatures have occurred since the last ice age.
3. It is obvious that the environment of places that are 2-3C apart are very different.
To me, leaving aside the careful assessment of the scientists involved in the IPCC process, it is stating the b****ing obvious that one cannot be sanguine in the face of a potential 2-3C temperature rise that is unlikely to be reversed for centuries.
On that basis it is entirely rational, and indeed laudable, to put ones career and reputation on the line to campaign for action to reduce the risk.
|
|
|
|
Post by poitsplace on Jul 2, 2009 9:56:25 GMT
The central points of the above argument are these: 1. The planet is currently adapted to current temperatures. 2. There really is no good evidence that significant diversions from these temperatures have occurred since the last ice age. 3. It is obvious that the environment of places that are 2-3C apart are very different. To me, leaving aside the careful assessment of the scientists involved in the IPCC process, it is stating the b****ing obvious that one cannot be sanguine in the face of a potential 2-3C temperature rise that is unlikely to be reversed for centuries. On that basis it is entirely rational, and indeed laudable, to put ones career and reputation on the line to campaign for action to reduce the risk. What risk? The equatorial regions won't warm significantly. Almost all the warming is in the places that are cold limited. There's also PLENTY of habitat that's essentially an icy wasteland right now. That would be turned into tundra...the existing tundra into forrests. Of course...this assumes the warming continues. You actually don't have any REAL evidence that we'll even have the warming suggested by CO2 absorption. The stable temperatures you claim would in fact be evidence of NEGATIVE feedbacks...at least with respect to further warming. That's why the interglacials generally stop at around these temperatures...it's a fairly stable node. |
|
|
|
Post by steve on Jul 2, 2009 12:47:27 GMT
The central points of the above argument are these: 1. The planet is currently adapted to current temperatures. 2. There really is no good evidence that significant diversions from these temperatures have occurred since the last ice age. 3. It is obvious that the environment of places that are 2-3C apart are very different. To me, leaving aside the careful assessment of the scientists involved in the IPCC process, it is stating the b****ing obvious that one cannot be sanguine in the face of a potential 2-3C temperature rise that is unlikely to be reversed for centuries. On that basis it is entirely rational, and indeed laudable, to put ones career and reputation on the line to campaign for action to reduce the risk. What risk? The equatorial regions won't warm significantly. Almost all the warming is in the places that are cold limited. There's also PLENTY of habitat that's essentially an icy wasteland right now. That would be turned into tundra...the existing tundra into forrests. Of course...this assumes the warming continues. You actually don't have any REAL evidence that we'll even have the warming suggested by CO2 absorption. The stable temperatures you claim would in fact be evidence of NEGATIVE feedbacks...at least with respect to further warming. That's why the interglacials generally stop at around these temperatures...it's a fairly stable node. If you want to stick your head in the sand and ignore the fact that most scientists think there is a risk, and come up with extremely dodgy and unsupportable arguments about how it can't possibly happe, then go ahead. Fact is, that Hansen *does* have the backing of the world's scientists for his opinion that levels of CO2 are a grave risk to our way of life. So before that pompous prat, Anthony Watts, criticises Hansen and demands Hansen's sacking for the action he is taking, he needs to do a lot more with his little photo survey. |
|
|
|
Post by woodstove on Jul 2, 2009 14:04:46 GMT
What risk? The equatorial regions won't warm significantly. Almost all the warming is in the places that are cold limited. There's also PLENTY of habitat that's essentially an icy wasteland right now. That would be turned into tundra...the existing tundra into forrests. Of course...this assumes the warming continues. You actually don't have any REAL evidence that we'll even have the warming suggested by CO2 absorption. The stable temperatures you claim would in fact be evidence of NEGATIVE feedbacks...at least with respect to further warming. That's why the interglacials generally stop at around these temperatures...it's a fairly stable node. If you want to stick your head in the sand and ignore the fact that most scientists think there is a risk, and come up with extremely dodgy and unsupportable arguments about how it can't possibly happe, then go ahead. Fact is, that Hansen *does* have the backing of the world's scientists for his opinion that levels of CO2 are a grave risk to our way of life. So before that pompous prat, Anthony Watts, criticises Hansen and demands Hansen's sacking for the action he is taking, he needs to do a lot more with his little photo survey. Sounds like you may be losing your cool, Steve. Anthony Watts uses his full name in all his dealings. He stands up for what he believes in, and stands behind what he says. As I like to acknowledge from time to time, my name is Harold Ambler. What's yours, Steve? |
|
|
|
Post by icefisher on Jul 2, 2009 15:00:17 GMT
If you want to stick your head in the sand and ignore the fact that most scientists think there is a risk, and come up with extremely dodgy and unsupportable arguments about how it can't possibly happe, then go ahead. Fact is, that Hansen *does* have the backing of the world's scientists for his opinion that levels of CO2 are a grave risk to our way of life. Poppycock! Fact is most of the scientists you are talking about have a view of the world having never left the hallowed halls. They are full of theories and credentials but very short on real world hands on experience. Bottom line is who are you going to trust to bring in a field of wheat, an ecologist or a farmer? LOL!!! I'll take big money on that one. . . .you game? The USSR did and lost it all. I'm picking the Farmer's Almanac having a better idea on how the climate works than Hansen and his clutch of ecologists and climatologists. So before that pompous prat, Anthony Watts, criticises Hansen and demands Hansen's sacking for the action he is taking, he needs to do a lot more with his little photo survey. Watts is one of those observant types with real world experience if not a lot of credentials. For one thing he is not advocating civil disobedience or defending people for violence against AGW alarmists, unlike Hansen. From that alone he is more credible than Hansen. With Hansen, following the lead of Stephen Schneider of essentially lying to the public to achieve their aims, nothing Hansen does has a shred of credibility. His attack dog Gavin Schmidt runs a stupid blog that busily deletes the posts of skeptics in order to create the impression of a majority of alarmists. Thats just plain and simple dishonesty. Fact is the science behind AGW is incredibly weak. Thats why algorhythms, data, and models are hidden from auditors like Steve McIntyre. The stuff just does not hold up to close scrutiny, its all smoke and mirrors and a little natural warming added in. I am not a climatologist but I have a lot of experience in what McIntyre does. His latest post on GARP is a hilarious insider joke that anybody in Steve's business can appreciate. Now that I have vented, I am not going to say they are completely wrong; because we really don't know. But the guys like Hansen and Schmidt don't want you to know they don't know. And thats true even if they are right because these people have been professionally educated in the topic of knowing and they know they don't really know. That effectively puts them in the same company as Ken Lay/Jeff Skilling, Michael Milken, Bernard Ebbers, and Bernie Madoff. |
|
|
|
Post by magellan on Jul 2, 2009 16:22:07 GMT
If you want to stick your head in the sand and ignore the fact that most scientists think there is a risk, and come up with extremely dodgy and unsupportable arguments about how it can't possibly happe, then go ahead. Fact is, that Hansen *does* have the backing of the world's scientists for his opinion that levels of CO2 are a grave risk to our way of life. Poppycock! Fact is most of the scientists you are talking about have a view of the world having never left the hallowed halls. They are full of theories and credentials but very short on real world hands on experience. Bottom line is who are you going to trust to bring in a field of wheat, an ecologist or a farmer? LOL!!! I'll take big money on that one. . . .you game? The USSR did and lost it all. I'm picking the Farmer's Almanac having a better idea on how the climate works than Hansen and his clutch of ecologists and climatologists. So before that pompous prat, Anthony Watts, criticises Hansen and demands Hansen's sacking for the action he is taking, he needs to do a lot more with his little photo survey. Watts is one of those observant types with real world experience if not a lot of credentials. For one thing he is not advocating civil disobedience or defending people for violence against AGW alarmists, unlike Hansen. From that alone he is more credible than Hansen. With Hansen, following the lead of Stephen Schneider of essentially lying to the public to achieve their aims, nothing Hansen does has a shred of credibility. His attack dog Gavin Schmidt runs a stupid blog that busily deletes the posts of skeptics in order to create the impression of a majority of alarmists. Thats just plain and simple dishonesty. Fact is the science behind AGW is incredibly weak. Thats why algorhythms, data, and models are hidden from auditors like Steve McIntyre. The stuff just does not hold up to close scrutiny, its all smoke and mirrors and a little natural warming added in. I am not a climatologist but I have a lot of experience in what McIntyre does. His latest post on GARP is a hilarious insider joke that anybody in Steve's business can appreciate. Now that I have vented, I am not going to say they are completely wrong; because we really don't know. But the guys like Hansen and Schmidt don't want you to know they don't know. And thats true even if they are right because these people have been professionally educated in the topic of knowing and they know they don't really know. That effectively puts them in the same company as Ken Lay/Jeff Skilling, Michael Milken, Bernard Ebbers, and Bernie Madoff. Apparently, in steve's world, a phony survey is physically documenting measurement instruments based on standards set forth by CRN. That would mean then a "real" survey is sitting in a cubicle programming models manipulating data to agree with the programmer's preordained conclusions. Have you read McIntyre's collation of how AGW hucksters like Schmidt/Hansen et al are bastardizing statistics to get the results they want? www.climateaudit.org/?p=6440 |
|
What you say below agrees with me:
