|
Post by crakar24 on Feb 17, 2009 6:12:51 GMT
(rant follows, please feel free to ignore)
On top of that we have the other bit of insanity. Seriously, look at the little ice age...the time when many of the glaciers formed. Look at the rise and fall of human civilization coinciding with the medieval warm period and the little ice age...as well as other warm/cool periods. Alarmists like Gore and Hansen actually imply that all those warm periods when humans prospered in the past are DANGEROUS and will kill billions.
Tell me...in all honesty...what kind of idiot can stand there and tell us that returning to the pre-industrial temperatures is a good thing for humans or life in general? What kind of absolute moron stands up boldly stating that BILLIONS could die if it warms up by a couple of degrees because it would cause starvation...and that the IDEAL solution would be to return to a time that was so cold we'd lose most of a growing season? What kind of idiot thinks it's BETTER for earth to ride the knife edge of such low CO2 levels that most plants can't even grow...oh and by the way...would reduce crop yields a further 25%?[/quote]
On the contrary, i rather enjoyed it.
Speaking of C02 levels, there was a report in the Sunday Adelaide Advertiser (sth Australia) which said the Government has launched an inquiry into its Carbon trading scheme. Apparently the liberals (opposition) are bemused and the Greens are mystified.
Oh by the way the inquiry is supposed to be secret which is probably why the report was less than a paragraph long and buried on page 27. What will come of this secret inquiry is anybodies guess.
More news as it comes to hand.
|
|
|
Post by steve on Feb 17, 2009 11:08:24 GMT
|
|
|
Post by tallbloke on Feb 17, 2009 21:20:15 GMT
What sea-level rise do current temperatures lead to? The one we have already judging by the way sea level rise stopped pretty soon after sst's levelled out in 2003. What makes you think sea levels would rise further at current temperatures?
|
|
|
Post by poitsplace on Feb 18, 2009 5:35:04 GMT
I don't know the answer to this strawman question, nor to the following questions. Will current temperatures result in the breakdown of the Greenland Icesheet, the West Antarctic Ice Sheet? What sea-level rise do current temperatures lead to? What further temperature rises will come? It's not a strawman, your argument is just that weak. We KNOW temperatures were hotter in the last few thousand years, didn't seem to destroy the world as we know it. All indications are that every bit of water lost from the greenland ice sheet (and more) would be deposited in antarctica. Not that the loss of ice from the greenland ice sheet is remotely worrying. Ooooooh, 62 cubic kilometers a year *shudder*. Oh my god, at the current rate it would take a mere 10000 years to melt...we must act NOW before...hmmm, on those time scales even if it were a problem, "adaptation" is free. As for what temperature rises may come...the world doesn't seem to care much about our CO2 increases or it would have warmed up a bit over the last 10 years. No, the cold countries are NOT more hospitable, they're necessarily industrialized. If you think they're more hospitible and you're in a cold, northern climate...just sleep out on your porch or doorstep every night over even the remainder of the winter and tell me how hospitable it is. The only reason we can survive cold..is technology (including but not limited to the control of fire) Heh, on it's head. See there's a problem here, we KNOW what I'm talking about is true. ALL evidence points to it being true. What YOU are talking about is pure speculation. The only place your heat stress (well, drought) scenario shows up shows no signs of being related to CO2 at all. It's the ocean currents. We should EXPECT it to be the ocean currents. We've found the mechanism (well, the current systems) that drive such changes. We've observed a couple of full cycles...sorry, mystery largely solved. CO2 is not the culprit. CO2 increases we've had so far (and to any level achievable by humans) will have the affect of increasing essentially ALL plant growth. Also, ironically, it increases it THE MOST for stressed plants.
|
|
|
Post by steve on Feb 18, 2009 12:28:37 GMT
poitsplace,
While you are no doubt convinced of your view, many other impartial and intelligent people have a different view.
You are convinced that these people know that it was warmer in the recent past and that as the warmth wasn't disastrous then it won't be now. But it isn't true that they think it was warmer (globally and all year round) in the recent past. You're also convinced these people have an idea of the ideal climate. That's not true either.
So feel free to be optimistic that some vague numerological correlation between ocean currents and temperature is the cause of the warming, and let's hope you're right.
|
|
|
Post by poitsplace on Feb 18, 2009 16:02:34 GMT
poitsplace, While you are no doubt convinced of your view, many other impartial and intelligent people have a different view. You are convinced that these people know that it was warmer in the recent past and that as the warmth wasn't disastrous then it won't be now. But it isn't true that they think it was warmer (globally and all year round) in the recent past. You're also convinced these people have an idea of the ideal climate. That's not true either. So feel free to be optimistic that some vague numerological correlation between ocean currents and temperature is the cause of the warming, and let's hope you're right. No, I'm convinced that they're mostly normal people...normal, flawed people. I'm convinced that there's the same kind of "consensus" today that there was over 30 years ago when the "consensus" said it was cooling. I'm convinced that in both cases the "consensus" did/does exist, but in a much weaker form than most are lead to believe...something along the lines of "Yeah, I can see how that might be true." I am also convinced that it was warmer in the past than it is now...because all we have to indicate it was cooler in the past are really bad proxies (most of which were shreaded almost immediately after they came out) and because quite frankly...even the world's colonization, ART and businesses reflect the climate changes of the past including both the medieval warm period and the little ice age (as well as a great deal of proxy data). Now I KNOW that CO2 in the ice cores does not show the kind of correlation that alarmists like to say it does. The CO2 was driven by the temperature, pure and simple. I KNOW the straight physics of absorption (which BTW ignores re-emission) says CO2 shouldn't have a substantial impact on temperatures (more than about a degree). I also know that similar warming periods occurred in the very recent past and without the help of substantial CO2 rises. We basically just have a few of vocal scientists that for one reason or another are VERY passionate about the piss-poor CO2 correlation and a bunch of political groups that know nothing of what they're saying jumping on the bandwagon because it suits their other agendas. The "consensus" is mostly composed of people that thought as I did a few years back...having not actually looked into the matter. It simply sounds reasonable on the surface and what the heck, I'm all for reduction in ACTUAL pollution and people conserving resources. I'm still for cutting pollution and conserving resources...but this preoccupation with CO2 is ill conceived and potentially harmful to many people. It would collapse the economies of the developed nations and would leave the impoverished developing nations wallowing in their own filth. You know, you need to give some long, hard thought to those "billions that might die" in developing nations and realize that with an average lifespan of 40 or under...THEY ARE ALREADY DYING UNNATURAL DEATHS due to lack of infrastructure. Not one, not hundreds, not thousands, not ten percent...essentially 100% of the people of the developing world are dying what WE would consider unnatural deaths. You and others poorly supported (ie, not at all) vilification of CO2 and the attempt to stop developing nations from using available resources...THAT is what will truly harm them.
|
|
|
Post by dopeydog on Feb 18, 2009 17:05:33 GMT
Well spoken Poitsplace
|
|
|
Post by tobyglyn on Feb 18, 2009 23:58:36 GMT
|
|
|
Post by steve on Feb 19, 2009 9:57:32 GMT
A sickening allegation made without thought and without supporting evidence, and probably derived from some insane denier's blogsite (perhaps via a few other thoughtless blog posters).
|
|
|
Post by twawki on Feb 19, 2009 11:15:28 GMT
poitsplace, While you are no doubt convinced of your view, many other impartial and intelligent people have a different view. You are convinced that these people know that it was warmer in the recent past and that as the warmth wasn't disastrous then it won't be now. But it isn't true that they think it was warmer (globally and all year round) in the recent past. You're also convinced these people have an idea of the ideal climate. That's not true either. So feel free to be optimistic that some vague numerological correlation between ocean currents and temperature is the cause of the warming, and let's hope you're right. If you cant argue the facts to go on to claim because others support your opinion you must be right is a furphy. Fact the world is cooling. Fact cooling reduces food production and increases the need for more energy to stay warm Fact significantly more people die from the cold than the warmth. Fact sea level rise is diminishing. Fact. We are also seeing record cold, record snow, glacial advance etc.
|
|
|
Post by poitsplace on Feb 19, 2009 11:41:50 GMT
A sickening allegation made without thought and without supporting evidence, Darn, you're right! Here, problem solved Human development en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:UN_Human_Development_Report_2007_(2).pngLife Expectancy en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Life_Expectancy_2007_Estimates_CIA_World_Factbook.PNGAPPARENTLY their life expectancy is pretty much tied to their development. Are you implying then that the energy industry, backbone of the developed world, is going to develop faster there if they're required to use energy sources that even we have a hard time using? Look, I'm sorry if you have to cut and paste large chunks of other people's articles to get your point across...but I'm quite capable of thinking and speaking for myself, thanks. I just fail to see how any of the CO2 based AGW argument makes any sense. There's no significant evidence that CO2 drives temperature...heck and gone from the so-called "settled science" status portrayed by alarmists. Ice cores pretty much show the opposite, temperature drives CO2. The straight physics of it would suggest only a small increase at most. Recent conditions are almost perfect to test the theory of CO2 forcing. We might as well wait and see for a few years while alternative energy technologies mature. There's no sense destroying our economy immediately based on a theory that is currently COMPLETELY unproven. (again, only recently have conditions been favorable to show if it's viable or not)
|
|
|
Post by twawki on Feb 19, 2009 11:44:59 GMT
Quote " The implications of the foregoing are that all efforts to curb the increase of CO2 will be futile. The AGW hypothesis serves as an alibi for exorbitant expenditures of public funds which will have no detectable impact on worldwide temperatures. It is all pain for no gain. This hypothesis is used as the justification for measures that will harm the economy, undermine our system of free enterprise by imposing high costs and new layers of regulation on it. Moreover, it will encroach upon the civil freedoms of the citizen " www.rogerhelmer.com/labohm.aspCurrent governance and AGW disempowers people and societies - isnt this the opposite of what its meant to do!
|
|
|
Post by steve on Feb 19, 2009 13:20:20 GMT
There is significant evidence that CO2 *should* drive temperature. It's basic physics.
There is significant evidence that CO2 *does* drive temperature. Because over decades, warming is correlated with CO2 levels roughly in line with model predictions, and because other *known* influences on climate have been small over the same period.
Yes, something unobvious might smack us in the mouth if observations improve or if new theories are developed. But currently the "alternative" ideas do not have good scientific support.
Again that's a straightforward misunderstanding. If A causes B, it doesn't prove that B cannot cause A. The ice cores do not show that CO2 does not *add* to the warming that was already in place, and basic physics has a hard time identifying *all* the causes that led to the 10C or so difference between glacial and interglacial periods.
To me the scientific argument, the recognition of risks that arise and how you mitigate the risks are three separate issues. It is unhelpful to link them by implying that people involved in the scientific argument are automatically involved in the mitigation of risks to the detriment of people in less developed countries.
|
|
|
Post by nautonnier on Feb 19, 2009 17:11:14 GMT
There is significant evidence that CO2 *should* drive temperature. It's basic physics. There is significant evidence that CO2 *does* drive temperature. Because over decades, warming is correlated with CO2 levels roughly in line with model predictions, and because other *known* influences on climate have been small over the same period. Yes, something unobvious might smack us in the mouth if observations improve or if new theories are developed. But currently the "alternative" ideas do not have good scientific support. Again that's a straightforward misunderstanding. If A causes B, it doesn't prove that B cannot cause A. The ice cores do not show that CO2 does not *add* to the warming that was already in place, and basic physics has a hard time identifying *all* the causes that led to the 10C or so difference between glacial and interglacial periods. To me the scientific argument, the recognition of risks that arise and how you mitigate the risks are three separate issues. It is unhelpful to link them by implying that people involved in the scientific argument are automatically involved in the mitigation of risks to the detriment of people in less developed countries. In short - an unfalsifiable hypothesis If CO 2 concentrations are driven by temperature then the same observations would hold true.
|
|
|
Post by gettingchilly on Feb 19, 2009 22:23:38 GMT
solar input x (CO2 (non saturated) +ve feedback) = massive temp rise solar input x (CO2 (saturated) +ve feedback) = not so massive temp rise solar input x (Particulates -ve feedback) = massive temp fall solar input x (anything you like here) = massive temp (anything you like here)l solar input x (1000 fold ?ve feedback) = 1000 x temp ?
solar input x (Truth feedback) = massive temp truth.
Only one constant here, can you spot it?
(solar input x 0.01) = (Truth x 0.01) x (Truth feedback) = (massive temp truth including (0.01 x Truth feedback))
What I am trying to get to here is that even the most devoted AGW devotee should agree with the above . If the feedback is x1 x100 or x1000000000 then the same feedback multiplier applies to solar input as this is the basis of the multiplier . Is this not obvious.
The higher you need to amplify the suns input to meet the temperature rises that occurred in the last 30yrs then if he suns input changes then the same multiplier applies.
|
|