Do you accept the reality of AGW ?

[Doug1029]

ok, so why do the solar activity proxies match very well with past temperature reconstructions, i'm sure everyone agrees that it would be idiotic to suggest that myans and romans had an influence on the sun's activity, or does the agenda driven unfalsifiable han-roman-myan hypothesis just assume this is all coincidence:

you're now raising on a busted flush whilst jumping the shark.

Co-variance.

[Guest]

ok, so why do the solar activity proxies match very well with past temperature reconstructions, i'm sure everyone agrees that it would be idiotic to suggest that myans and romans had an influence on the sun's activity, or does the agenda driven unfalsifiable han-roman-myan hypothesis just assume this is all coincidence:

http://upload.wikime..._labels.svg.png

http://upload.wikime...0_years.svg.png

http://cyclesresearc...11000-yr-sm.png

you're now raising on a busted flush whilst jumping the shark.

The problem is they also change dependent on plant growth so the correlations are far from clear cut when it comes to the "solar" indicators.

Its always going to be tough teasing out the various co-varient variables in any causative pattern - but there is little doubting that man has been a significant component since at least 8000 years ago.

Br Cornelius

Edited February 25, 2013 by Guest

[Little Fish]

"little doubting" is faith based.

the british empire existed throughout the little ice age, if this doesn't falsify the fanciful speculation, then what does?

Edited February 25, 2013 by Little Fish

[notoverrated]

i love rivalries.

[Little Fish]

maybe the poll should be "do you trust the IPCC climate scientists"

"Phil, Here are some speculations on correcting SSTs to partly explain the 1940s warming blip. If you look at the attached plot you will see that the land also shows the 1940s blip (as I'm sure you know). So, if we could reduce the ocean blip by, say, 0.15 degC, then this would be significant for the global mean -- but we'd still have to explain the land blip. I've chosen 0.15 here deliberately. This still leaves an ocean blip, and i think one needs to have some form of ocean blip to explain the land blip (via either some common forcing, or ocean forcing land, or vice versa, or all of these). When you look at other blips, the land blips are 1.5 to 2 times (roughly) the ocean blips -- higher sensitivity plus thermal inertia effects. My 0.15 adjustment leaves things consistent with this, so you can see where I am coming from. Removing ENSO does not affect this. It would be good to remove at least part of the 1940s blip, but we are still left with "why the blip". [Tom Wigley, to Phil Jones and Ben Santer]"

http://di2.nu/foia/1254108338.txt

[Guest]

"little doubting" is faith based.

the british empire existed throughout the little ice age, if this doesn't falsify the fanciful speculation, then what does?

So what ? The Little Ice age was a minor blip in the weather of Northern Europe. How is the status of the British Empire relevant to anything ?

Br Cornelius

[Guest]

If I see a problem with a dataset I want to understand where it came from and account for it. If its real I want to understand how and why it is real. The whole SST dataset back to the start of the last century up until the advent of satellite recording is frankly dubious due to its relatively poor spatial coverage. As you well know the data is full of problems.

Br Cornelius

Edited February 25, 2013 by Guest

[Little Fish]

If I see a problem with a dataset I want to understand where it came from and account for it. If its real I want to understand how and why it is real.

Br Cornelius

and if tom wigley, and crew see a problem with the dataset, they just fiddle the numbers, and tricks to HIDE declines.

[Guest]

and if tom wigley, and crew see a problem with the dataset, they just fiddle the numbers, and tricks to HIDE declines.

Rather than looking at an email out of context - I actually like to understand its context and why it was written rather than assuming an alterior motive. Its quite educational when you do.

So much easier to assume the worlds out to get you .

Br Cornelius

[onereaderone]

A very interesting article about how we are playing with fire in unnecessarily shifting climate even a bit. As we shift the climate we massively increase the chances of catastrophic shifts in continental scale weather systems;

"

Gradualist arguments

(snip)

888888888888888888888888888888888888888888888888888888888888888888888888888

Crops cannot pack up and move as people can. It may be possible in the gradualist scenarios that people could slowly change their agricultural patterns over time to accord with changed temperature or rainfall. It is doubtful that this could happen very successfully in a situation where there was radical change in a decade. Further, most of the world survives not based upon agri-business, but rather on settled, subsistence farming whose strength rests on the farmers having a long-developed understanding of their land and crops. Sudden change would negate this understanding.

888888888888888888888888888888888888888888888888888888888888888888888888

(snip)

been called the gloom-and-doom warnings of the long-term effects of global warming may actually turn out to have been optimistic. The future could well be far more catastrophic than is generally projected."

http://dieoff.org/page127.htm

Br Cornelius

this is whats wrong with this whole crazyness...

crops do pick up and walk thousands of miles ... sellective breeding and clever people have planted more than 10% of all reasonable farm land , and some completely unreasonable places as well ...

what is totaly being missed is the simple truth... there is climet change , and hows that global warming working for you in kansas... funny how oil in the gulf of mexico

pushed agro business , and based on what "the predictions " of what happens when you push up carbondioxide will tell you.... their heat wavy should be a record setter...

this whole eco-screamer has nothing at all to do with records or common sense ... it is not a debate or a argument...

it is not even political . eco freaks shake down industrys for payola , with no intrest in saving animals , and use good natured , world of disney , bambi lovers as the wittless dupes to threaten industrys .

global warming is a way to tax air ... its just one more way to collect tax's for a larger more controlling goverment ...

just like UFO's , it does not matter one tiny bit what the truth is... directors of agencys , and govermental officals who were never eleted will say what the truth is...

all based on what is in the best intrest of the greatest number .

the simple truth is... crops make global warming , not engine exsaust... and the crops are makeing cooling, not warming ... and air polution is a local problem that oceans fix as long as people do not get in the way ....

and as for the eco freaks ... the really bad news is... the science of exstinction has been totaly under reported , and with in only 100 years all the large preditors will live in zoo's , with in 200 years no large wild animals will remain out side captive reserves ... and insects are falling in to exstinction so fast , any number you hear is likely way to small .

if the force function of current trends continues as it is with out change... this genaration will see the near exstinction of all but the hardyest of all wild creatures , and the domestic animal take over of all lands .

you may in this life time see ... all animals on earth domesticated... or eraticated.

but by that time , the eco-freak lobby will be on mars ... eco screaming about earth life contamination of the pristine marsian eco system , and what we must do to save the microbial life ....

( meaning , they want money from any one that goes to the astroid belt or to mars )

Edited February 25, 2013 by onereaderone

[Guest]

Little Fish, I am intrigued why you tempted us with news of a clean way of extracting energy from coal but then failed to deliver.

What gives ?

You should surely realize by now that I will consider any form of clean energy which offers hope of a sustainable future, and I actually have some of the scientific skills to make a value judgement about cost benefit analysis. I searched the web but could find no references other than gasification processes (which are a very mixed bag when energy balance is considered). Spill the beans. If there's something we need to know - then inform us. This isn't about denial, this is about sustainability which is something we should all be passionate about.

Br Cornelius

[Little Fish]

how about someone present some scientific evidence that burning fossil can change climate to any degree worth fussing about..

[Guest]

how about someone present some scientific evidence that burning fossil can change climate to any degree worth fussing about..

Already been done

You just choose to deny it

You had a chance to teach us something, but you ran away.

Br Cornelius

Edited February 27, 2013 by Guest

[Little Fish]

Already been done

You just choose to deny it

You had a chance to teach us something, but you ran away.

Br Cornelius

please direct me to the evidence.

[nothinglizx2]

I've seen several movies expressing the idea that the global warming is due to a technology inducing it so that aliens can inhabit this world.

They live: They guy talking on the television warning people about what is happening all around them

and

The Arrival:

Are two I can think of right now.

If you've seen the conspiracy messages about Aurora in Batman The Dark Knight Rises and Transformers 3, Crash and Burn on the buildings at the end of the 1995 movie Hackers as well as all the other 9/11

conspiracy messages in other movies like the 1996 movie The long Kiss Goodnight (Mr. Perkins Speech), and The end scene of Fight club (1999), then you are aware of the possibilty that what is being said in

the movies They live and The Arrival, could be true.

With H.A.A.R.P, this adds even more credibilty to the possability.

The Truth is always the truth no matter what you believe.

Do the research yourself.

[Doug1029]

there is climet change ,

Just what do you think global warming is, if not climate change?

and hows that global warming working for you in kansas...

Wichita, Kansas is on the extreme edge of the climate region that I study. Wichita's all-time coldest temperature was on January 29, 1886 when the temperature reached -42 degrees F. If the climate was not warming, we should have seen another such low temperature in the 127 winters since then. But climate is really about averages, not extremes. Wichita's average daily temperature has climbed about one-half degree F since 1980. And that's how it's working in Wichita in the Great State of Kansas.

funny how oil in the gulf of mexico

pushed agro business , and based on what "the predictions " of what happens when you push up carbondioxide will tell you.... their heat wavy should be a record setter...

I don't understand your reasoning here. Mind explaining how you came to that conclusion?

this whole eco-screamer has nothing at all to do with records or common sense ... it is not a debate or a argument...

it is not even political . eco freaks shake down industrys for payola , with no intrest in saving animals , and use good natured , world of disney , bambi lovers as the wittless dupes to threaten industrys .

I have three file drawers containing the complete modern weather history of Arkansas. If you want to know the low temperature on February 26, 1904 in Dallas, Arkansas, or some other podunk town on some other day, the odds are real good I can find it for you. The Weather Bureau has stations behind every country store and hay bail across the country. It's all about records.

But I do see your point that some of the political organizations have been less than honest. And that doesn't help the cause. It does no good to accurately predict a disaster if people don't believe you. "I told you so," is an admission of failure.

global warming is a way to tax air ... its just one more way to collect tax's for a larger more controlling goverment ...

just like UFO's , it does not matter one tiny bit what the truth is... directors of agencys , and govermental officals who were never eleted will say what the truth is...

all based on what is in the best intrest of the greatest number .

I disagree with the current campaign in the US to put a carbon tax on polluters. There are simply too many ways to slip through the cracks and the polluters are going to find them. A better idea is a carbon fee that is levied at the well-head, mine mouth or port-of-entry. All fossil-carbon products would have to pay it. The money would then be returned to the citizenry and divided EQUALLY to offset costs. The fees would start low and be gradually raised. The free market would then do the regulating as each person made his/her purchasing choices.

the simple truth is... crops make global warming , not engine exsaust... and the crops are makeing cooling, not warming ... and air polution is a local problem that oceans fix as long as people do not get in the way ....

You and Ronald Reagan... "Trees cause global warming."

There are soil treatments that sequester carbon and can be applied during tillage. I don't know where the research on this stands at the moment, but in the US, with our subsidized cropping, we could have this in nationwide application in just two to three years. The government is the slow part of the operation.

Anything the releases carbon to the atmosphere is a contributor to global warming, whether that's a car, a power plant or a farm tractor. Makes no difference.

and as for the eco freaks ... the really bad news is... the science of exstinction has been totaly under reported , and with in only 100 years all the large preditors will live in zoo's , with in 200 years no large wild animals will remain out side captive reserves ... and insects are falling in to exstinction so fast , any number you hear is likely way to small .

if the force function of current trends continues as it is with out change... this genaration will see the near exstinction of all but the hardyest of all wild creatures , and the domestic animal take over of all lands .

you may in this life time see ... all animals on earth domesticated... or eraticated.

Extinction is one of the ecology problems we face and by no means the only one.

but by that time , the eco-freak lobby will be on mars ... eco screaming about earth life contamination of the pristine marsian eco system , and what we must do to save the microbial life ....

( meaning , they want money from any one that goes to the astroid belt or to mars )

Climate science is pretty solid. Don't mistake the political noise, the ecofreaks, for the science.

But there is one good thing to be said about the ecopoliticians: without them, nothing at all would be happening. We need them to get the science into application. We just hope that they manage to apply the right things to the right places at the right times.

Doug

[Guest]

please direct me to the evidence.

I did - it took five years - but you still ignored it.

Come on Little Fish shows the clean coal.

Br Cornelius

[Little Fish]

I did - it took five years - but you still ignored it.

Come on Little Fish shows the clean coal.

Br Cornelius

a hypothesis is not evidence.

even doug could not do it.

Edited February 27, 2013 by Little Fish

[Doug1029]

a hypothesis is not evidence.

even doug could not do it.

I'm not quite sure what you are referring to, but if it is human causes of global warming, I have told you many times to check studies of the earth's carbon budget. Isotopic studies further support the conclusions. That you have not done this says more about your willingness to do some reading than it does about me or the availability of

Doug

Edited February 27, 2013 by Doug1029

[Little Fish]

see what i mean, doug can't do it.

appealing to the ether doesn't cut it.

[Guest]

see what i mean, doug can't do it.

appealing to the ether doesn't cut it.

The closed mind can never be persuaded with real evidence (as you have abundantly shown on multiple subjects) so, no Little Fish - nothing I could tell you would convince you of anything.

No matter how many times you have been shown to be totally and utterly wrong on an individual fact - you never admit it or change your position.

You are the archetypal denialist.

Br Cornelius

[Little Fish]

The closed mind can never be persuaded with real evidence (as you have abundantly shown on multiple subjects) so, no Little Fish - nothing I could tell you would convince you of anything.

No matter how many times you have been shown to be totally and utterly wrong on an individual fact - you never admit it or change your position.

You are the archetypal denialist.

Br Cornelius

a subjective psychological profile of an internet poster is not evidence of dangerous human caused climate change, it is evidence that you have no evidence though.

[Guest]

a subjective psychological profile of an internet poster is not evidence of dangerous human caused climate change, it is evidence that you have no evidence though.

The fact that you are not open to persuasion says nothing about the evidence and everything about your psychology.

All I hope is that the lies you buy into can be shown to be such for others with less closed minds.

You can take a Donkey to the trough, but you can't make him drink

Br Cornelius

Edited February 27, 2013 by Guest

[Little Fish]

are you going to show the evidence, or just continue bloviating from the balcony to your fellow cultists?

[Doug1029]

see what i mean, doug can't do it.

appealing to the ether doesn't cut it.

If I can't appeal to the ether, how am I going to explain that non-sequitor at the end? Apparently, the UM computer doesn't like me.

Digging up all the currently-available evidence on any scientific topic, especially one as extensive as human causes of global warming, is a time-consuming process and very likely, by the time you get it done, the science has moved on. A careful and detailed literature search would easily be the equivalent of a research paper. Research papers build your career; replies to insults on know-nothing websites do not. That's why you are not getting your evidence. Providing it is a helluva lot of work. That being the case, if you want it, you will have to quit being so d-----d lazy and do the work yourself. If you don't want it bad enough to find it, why should anybody else care about getting it for you?

A year ago I made some rash statements about finding the info you're looking for. I thought I would have some time. Those papers I thought would be done by now still have a long way to go. It will be a long time before I get around to looking it up, if I ever do.

Doug