Discussion:
So What Is The Ideal Climate Then?
(too old to reply)
0BZN0
2008-04-30 06:09:24 UTC
Permalink
The Ideal Climate

Dr. Don J. Easterbrook, Professor Emeritus Geology, Western Washington
University, author of 8 books, 150 journal publications with focus on
geomorphology; glacial geology; Pleistocene geochronology; environmental
and engineering geology.

CBS-TV, 60 Minutes, Burlington, Washington

March 30, 2008



http://icecap.us/images/uploads/DonEasterbrookInterviewTranscript.pdf



KLC: For the record, Don, if you gave a gift to the world and controlled
the thermostat, where would you place us with regard to climate history?



DJE: If I had to pick a climate that was good for the whole world, the
perfect climate would be around the Medieval Warm Period.



KLC: Which is similar to where we are now.



DJE: We're slightly below it. It depends on who you believe. When the
Mann hockey stick curve was all the rage, they said the MWP didn't
happen. But we know it did happen. During this time, civilizations
flourished in Europe because of the long growing season and other
things. There is good reason to believe if you're in that range, the
growing season is longer, you can grow more food, you can grow more food
in Northern latitudes, and you'll support a more robust civilization.
People will have more free time because they're not starving to death,
they can do more things, like art-



KLC: And study the climate-



DJE: Right, like study the climate, that sort of thing. If I had to pick
a climate that would be a nice thing for the whole world, I'd say
somewhere close to the MWP.



KLC: A little bit warmer than now.



DJE: Yes, a little bit warmer than now, but not much. There's an
interesting parallel. If you look at the temperature curves, we've been
coming out of the LIA for about 400 or 500 years at a rate of a degree a
century. Will we do this forever? A degree a century? We have the
thirty-year wiggles in there, but when do we top out and start cooling
again? During the early part of the Holocene, it was warmer than now. In
fact, during the Climactic Optimum; it was warmer than it is now. If we
are on an overall rising temperature curve coming out of the LIA, when
we get to the temperature of the MWP, will we get another LIA, something
really big or something in-between, like the 1880-1910 cooling? The
answer is, we don't know, we'll have to wait and see. Until we have a
better understanding of what causes climactic fluctuations, solar or not
solar, and if it is solar, what the impact of solar fluctuations are,
there are a lot of things we don't know.

Until we understand the mechanisms better, we don't know. I don't know.
I don't know anybody who does know.
--
Warnest Regards

Bonzo

"There is a clear attempt to establish truth not by scientific methods
but by perpetual repetition." Richard S. Lindzen, Ph.D. Professor of
Meteorology, MIT
son of a bitch
2008-04-30 06:30:45 UTC
Permalink
have you thought about getting a job at the weather bureau?
V-for-Vendicar
2008-05-02 04:44:49 UTC
Permalink
Post by son of a bitch
have you thought about getting a job at the weather bureau?
Do you think it would pay as much as the Propaganda Industry pays him to
post nonsense here?
Ouroboros_Rex
2008-04-30 20:08:31 UTC
Permalink
Post by 0BZN0
The Ideal Climate
Dr. Don J. Easterbrook, Professor Emeritus Geology, Western Washington
University, author of 8 books, 150 journal publications with focus on
geomorphology; glacial geology; Pleistocene geochronology;
environmental and engineering geology.
CBS-TV, 60 Minutes, Burlington, Washington
March 30, 2008
http://icecap.us/images/uploads/DonEasterbrookInterviewTranscript.pdf
KLC: For the record, Don, if you gave a gift to the world and
controlled the thermostat, where would you place us with regard to
climate history?
DJE: If I had to pick a climate that was good for the whole world, the
perfect climate would be around the Medieval Warm Period.
KLC: Which is similar to where we are now.
DJE: We're slightly below it.
Another ridiculous lie.

http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/paleo/globalwarming/medieval.html
Tunderbar
2008-04-30 21:04:16 UTC
Permalink
Post by 0BZN0
The Ideal Climate
Dr. Don J. Easterbrook, Professor Emeritus Geology, Western Washington
University, author of 8 books, 150 journal publications with focus on
geomorphology; glacial geology; Pleistocene geochronology;
environmental and engineering geology.
CBS-TV, 60 Minutes, Burlington, Washington
March 30, 2008
http://icecap.us/images/uploads/DonEasterbrookInterviewTranscript.pdf
KLC: For the record, Don, if you gave a gift to the world and
controlled the thermostat, where would you place us with regard to
climate history?
DJE: If I had to pick a climate that was good for the whole world, the
perfect climate would be around the Medieval Warm Period.
KLC: Which is similar to where we are now.
DJE: We're slightly below it.
  Another ridiculous lie.
http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/paleo/globalwarming/medieval.html- Hide quoted text -
- Show quoted text -
lol

YGN
0BZN0
2008-05-01 02:53:35 UTC
Permalink
Post by Ouroboros_Rex
Post by 0BZN0
The Ideal Climate
Dr. Don J. Easterbrook, Professor Emeritus Geology, Western
Washington
University, author of 8 books, 150 journal publications with focus on
geomorphology; glacial geology; Pleistocene geochronology;
environmental and engineering geology.
CBS-TV, 60 Minutes, Burlington, Washington
March 30, 2008
http://icecap.us/images/uploads/DonEasterbrookInterviewTranscript.pdf
KLC: For the record, Don, if you gave a gift to the world and
controlled the thermostat, where would you place us with regard to
climate history?
DJE: If I had to pick a climate that was good for the whole world, the
perfect climate would be around the Medieval Warm Period.
KLC: Which is similar to where we are now.
DJE: We're slightly below it.
Another ridiculous lie.
http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/paleo/globalwarming/medieval.html
You and the IPCC are the liars!

"We have to get rid of the Mediaeval Warm Period"

Confided to geophysicist David Deming by the IPCC (1995)






Warmest Regards

Bonzo

"The question scientists should now be asking is not how much it will
warm over the next 50 to 100 years, but why has it warmed so little
during the major carbon dioxide buildup?" Patrick J. Michaels,
Environmental Scientist , University of Virginia
V-for-Vendicar
2008-05-15 07:40:22 UTC
Permalink
Post by 0BZN0
You and the IPCC are the liars!
A current list of Bonzo's claimed Global Warming Conspirators.


01) The New York Times
02) Virtually Every Scientist on earth
03) all of the scientific press, both journals and textbooks
04) All Environmentalists
05) the vast majority of anyone with an advanced degree
06) the UN
07) the IPCC
08) All professional scientific societies, but the Petroleum Institute
09) U.S. Defense Department
10) Wikipedia
11) The World Meteorological Organization (WMO)
12) The National Auronautics and Space Administration (NASA)
13) The British Antarctic Survey
14) The National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA)
15) Realclimate.org
16) The Hadley Center
17) The Royal Society
18) The Royal Astronomical Society
19) The National Academy of Sciences
20) The American Association for the Advancement of Science (AAAS)
21) The American Physical Society
22) The American Institute of Physics
23) The Woods Hole Research Centre
24) The American Chemical Society (ACS)
25) The American Geophysical Union (AGU)
26) The U.S. Geophysical Service (USGS)
27) The National Center for Atmospheric Research (NCAR)
28) The National Resources Defense Council (NRDC)
29) The Union of Concerned Scientists (UCS)
30) The National Wildlife Federation (NWF)
31) The World Wildlife Federation (WWF)
32) The Audubon Society
33) The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA)
34) Accuweather
35) Greenpiece
36) The world Conservation Union
37) The Sierra Club.
38) The board and article reviewers of the journal Nature
39) The board and article reviewers of the journal Science
40) The staff of Scientific American magazine
41) The staff of New Scientist Magazine.
42) The Queen of England
43) Michael Gorbachev
44) Muammar al-Gaddafi
45) Maurece Strong
46) Bill Gates
47) Ted Turner
48) Warren Buffet
49) Rupert Murdoch
50) Bill Moyers
51) Dr. David Suzuki
52) Stephen Hawking
53) ABC News
54) NBC News
55) CBS News
56) The Public Broadcasting system

57) And lets not forget - Al Gore.
Fran
2008-05-02 06:33:29 UTC
Permalink
Post by 0BZN0
The Ideal Climate
Dr. Don J. Easterbrook, Professor Emeritus Geology, Western Washington
University, author of 8 books, 150 journal publications with focus on
geomorphology; glacial geology; Pleistocene geochronology; environmental
and engineering geology.
CBS-TV, 60 Minutes, Burlington, Washington
March 30, 2008
http://icecap.us/images/uploads/DonEasterbrookInterviewTranscript.pdf
KLC: For the record, Don, if you gave a gift to the world and controlled
the thermostat, where would you place us with regard to climate history?
DJE: If I had to pick a climate that was good for the whole world, the
perfect climate would be around the Medieval Warm Period.
See here's the problem. The people who bang on about the so called
"mediaeval warm period" don't all agree on when it was, nor is it
clear that it even existed outside of Northern Europe and parts of
North America. So much of humanity was living in somewhat cooler
conditions, and of course, even in the places where there's some
evidence of a warm period petween about 800CE and about 1300CE, it was
cooler than today globally and a lot cooler than Northern Europe
today. So Mr Easterbrook is playing fast and loose with the
comparative data.

One might add too that whatever combination of factors drove climate
in this temporally and geographically poorly specified optima, they
ceased. Temperatures have exceeded the MCO and are likely to continue
to increase, so talking about what climate would be ideal is simply
silly. At this stage, we are not in a position to exercise any
influence, and never will be unless something ubiquitous and rigorous
is done about atmospheric GHGs -- and even then, it will be some time
before that has an impact.

Temperatures in the Pacific Ocean have been rising sharply since the
mid 1970s and that's not going to change for a very long time --
possibly 100s of years. The difference we can make now really relates
to the speed of the increase and the extent to which the lower
troposphere can shed heat.

Fran
Ralph
2008-05-02 12:55:13 UTC
Permalink
Easier answer:

The ideal climate is the one where we survive. (selfish)
Better: ...where a lot of life survives.

Humans, being by far the grossest consumers of the life of the planet, are
changing the environment that our food needs to grow.
We will reach a tipping point where there will less food (fuel, air, etc.)
available than humans can manage to exploit.
At that point, it will be far too late to do anything about it.

The science and technology exists to change this. The governments just
don't want it.
Post by 0BZN0
The Ideal Climate
Dr. Don J. Easterbrook, Professor Emeritus Geology, Western Washington
University, author of 8 books, 150 journal publications with focus on
geomorphology; glacial geology; Pleistocene geochronology; environmental
and engineering geology.
CBS-TV, 60 Minutes, Burlington, Washington
March 30, 2008
http://icecap.us/images/uploads/DonEasterbrookInterviewTranscript.pdf
KLC: For the record, Don, if you gave a gift to the world and controlled
the thermostat, where would you place us with regard to climate history?
DJE: If I had to pick a climate that was good for the whole world, the
perfect climate would be around the Medieval Warm Period.
See here's the problem. The people who bang on about the so called
"mediaeval warm period" don't all agree on when it was, nor is it
clear that it even existed outside of Northern Europe and parts of
North America. So much of humanity was living in somewhat cooler
conditions, and of course, even in the places where there's some
evidence of a warm period petween about 800CE and about 1300CE, it was
cooler than today globally and a lot cooler than Northern Europe
today. So Mr Easterbrook is playing fast and loose with the
comparative data.

One might add too that whatever combination of factors drove climate
in this temporally and geographically poorly specified optima, they
ceased. Temperatures have exceeded the MCO and are likely to continue
to increase, so talking about what climate would be ideal is simply
silly. At this stage, we are not in a position to exercise any
influence, and never will be unless something ubiquitous and rigorous
is done about atmospheric GHGs -- and even then, it will be some time
before that has an impact.

Temperatures in the Pacific Ocean have been rising sharply since the
mid 1970s and that's not going to change for a very long time --
possibly 100s of years. The difference we can make now really relates
to the speed of the increase and the extent to which the lower
troposphere can shed heat.

Fran
Whata Fool
2008-05-02 21:31:00 UTC
Permalink
Post by Ralph
The ideal climate is the one where we survive. (selfish)
Better: ...where a lot of life survives.
Humans, being by far the grossest consumers of the life of the planet, are
changing the environment that our food needs to grow.
We will reach a tipping point where there will less food (fuel, air, etc.)
available than humans can manage to exploit.
At that point, it will be far too late to do anything about it.
The science and technology exists to change this. The governments just
don't want it.
Post by 0BZN0
The Ideal Climate
Dr. Don J. Easterbrook, Professor Emeritus Geology, Western Washington
University, author of 8 books, 150 journal publications with focus on
geomorphology; glacial geology; Pleistocene geochronology; environmental
and engineering geology.
CBS-TV, 60 Minutes, Burlington, Washington
March 30, 2008
http://icecap.us/images/uploads/DonEasterbrookInterviewTranscript.pdf
KLC: For the record, Don, if you gave a gift to the world and controlled
the thermostat, where would you place us with regard to climate history?
DJE: If I had to pick a climate that was good for the whole world, the
perfect climate would be around the Medieval Warm Period.
See here's the problem. The people who bang on about the so called
"mediaeval warm period" don't all agree on when it was, nor is it
clear that it even existed outside of Northern Europe and parts of
North America. So much of humanity was living in somewhat cooler
conditions, and of course, even in the places where there's some
evidence of a warm period petween about 800CE and about 1300CE, it was
cooler than today globally and a lot cooler than Northern Europe
today. So Mr Easterbrook is playing fast and loose with the
comparative data.
One might add too that whatever combination of factors drove climate
in this temporally and geographically poorly specified optima, they
ceased. Temperatures have exceeded the MCO and are likely to continue
to increase, so talking about what climate would be ideal is simply
silly. At this stage, we are not in a position to exercise any
influence, and never will be unless something ubiquitous and rigorous
is done about atmospheric GHGs -- and even then, it will be some time
before that has an impact.
Temperatures in the Pacific Ocean have been rising sharply since the
mid 1970s and that's not going to change for a very long time --
possibly 100s of years. The difference we can make now really relates
to the speed of the increase and the extent to which the lower
troposphere can shed heat.
Fran
Boy, talk about baseless denial. Whats a matter, OZ getting
too cold and Fran moved to Canada and became Ralph?
Tunderbar
2008-05-02 21:09:21 UTC
Permalink
Post by Ralph
The ideal climate is the one where we survive. (selfish)
Better:  ...where a lot of life survives.
Humans, being by far the grossest consumers of the life of the planet, are
changing the environment that our food needs to grow.
We will reach a tipping point where there will less food (fuel, air, etc.)
available than humans can manage to exploit.
At that point, it will be far too late to do anything about it.
The science and technology exists to change this.  The governments just
don't want it.
Post by 0BZN0
The Ideal Climate
Dr. Don J. Easterbrook, Professor Emeritus Geology, Western Washington
University, author of 8 books, 150 journal publications with focus on
geomorphology; glacial geology; Pleistocene geochronology; environmental
and engineering geology.
CBS-TV, 60 Minutes, Burlington, Washington
March 30, 2008
http://icecap.us/images/uploads/DonEasterbrookInterviewTranscript.pdf
KLC: For the record, Don, if you gave a gift to the world and controlled
the thermostat, where would you place us with regard to climate history?
DJE: If I had to pick a climate that was good for the whole world, the
perfect climate would be around the Medieval Warm Period.
See here's the problem. The people who bang on about the so called
"mediaeval warm period" don't all agree on when it was, nor is it
clear that it even existed outside of Northern Europe and parts of
North America. So much of humanity was living in somewhat cooler
conditions, and of course, even in the places where there's some
evidence of a warm period petween about 800CE and about 1300CE, it was
cooler than today globally and a lot cooler than Northern Europe
today. So Mr Easterbrook is playing fast and loose with the
comparative data.
One might add too that whatever combination of factors drove climate
in this temporally and geographically poorly specified optima, they
ceased. Temperatures have exceeded the MCO and are likely to continue
to increase, so talking about what climate would be ideal is simply
silly. At this stage, we are not in a position to exercise any
influence, and never will be unless something ubiquitous and rigorous
is done about atmospheric GHGs -- and even then, it will be some time
before that has an impact.
Temperatures in the Pacific Ocean have been rising sharply since the
mid 1970s and that's not going to change for a very long time --
possibly 100s of years. The difference we can make now really relates
to the speed of the increase and the extent to which the lower
troposphere can shed heat.
Fran- Hide quoted text -
- Show quoted text -
"tipping point" = logoism
Fran
2008-05-04 04:57:44 UTC
Permalink
Post by Ralph
The ideal climate is the one where we survive. (selfish)
Better:  ...where a lot of life survives.
The second can't be better if the first is 'ideal'
Post by Ralph
Humans, being by far the grossest consumers of the life of the planet, are
changing the environment that our food needs to grow.
We will reach a tipping point where there will less food (fuel, air, etc.)
available than humans can manage to exploit.
At that point, it will be far too late to do anything about it.
And so correct policy is what? Sit on the railroad tracks and await a
passing train?
Post by Ralph
The science and technology exists to change this.  The governments just
don't want it.
Oh I believe it is changing, but I'm unconvinced that the speed with
which this is happening matches the urgency of the challenge.

Fran
Addinall
2008-05-04 05:30:08 UTC
Permalink
[...]
Post by Fran
And so correct policy is what? Sit on the railroad tracks and await a
passing train?
Post by Ralph
The science and technology exists to change this.  The governments just
don't want it.
Oh I believe it is changing, but I'm unconvinced that the speed with
which this is happening matches the urgency of the challenge.
Urgent is somewhat of a statement plucked from fantasy land.

Loading Image...

Well?

Loading Image...

Well?

Loading Image...

Well?


Doesn't look very urgent does it?

Mark Addinall.
Post by Fran
Fran
Fran
2008-05-04 08:41:02 UTC
Permalink
Post by Addinall
[...]
Post by Fran
And so correct policy is what? Sit on the railroad tracks and await a
passing train?
Post by Ralph
The science and technology exists to change this.  The governments just
don't want it.
Oh I believe it is changing, but I'm unconvinced that the speed with
which this is happening matches the urgency of the challenge.
Urgent is somewhat of a statement plucked from fantasy land.
http://www.addinall.net/climate_history.jpg
Well?
http://www.addinall.net/uah_monthly_global_temperature_anomalies_1998...
Well?
http://www.addinall.net/rss_monthly_global_temperature_anomalies_1998...
Well?
Doesn't look very urgent does it?
Why pick a ten-year timeline? Why not ten minutes? As everybody knows,
in the long run, we all live in the present.

Fran
Addinall
2008-05-05 06:55:56 UTC
Permalink
Post by Fran
Post by Addinall
[...]
Post by Fran
And so correct policy is what? Sit on the railroad tracks and await a
passing train?
Post by Ralph
The science and technology exists to change this.  The governments just
don't want it.
Oh I believe it is changing, but I'm unconvinced that the speed with
which this is happening matches the urgency of the challenge.
Urgent is somewhat of a statement plucked from fantasy land.
http://www.addinall.net/climate_history.jpg
Well?
http://www.addinall.net/uah_monthly_global_temperature_anomalies_1998...
Well?
http://www.addinall.net/rss_monthly_global_temperature_anomalies_1998...
Well?
Doesn't look very urgent does it?
Why pick a ten-year timeline? Why not ten minutes? As everybody knows,
in the long run, we all live in the present.
Why indeed? You dont like the first graph,as it shows climate over
a very long time series, you don't like the newer decadle graphs
because they show climate over a shorter duration. You want a time
series that is 'just right' for your insane warming predictions and
hubris
to think the Earth is taking some notice of what brand of light bulb
Fran is using.

AGW is crap. Demonstratable crap. The 'average' global temperature
in
1998 was a whopping 14.57. And with ten years of EVIL right wing
humans
(mostly China and the USSA) pumping billions and squillions of tonnes
of NOXIOUS CO2 into the air, the temperature CLIMBED to a catastrophic
14.57 in 2007! DOOM! DOOM! That's an increase of NEARLY, well no,
exactly 0C!!!!


What a bunch of fucking nonsense and kiddology you people spout.

What "urgent" challenge do we face? I can think of ten off the top of
my head.
Reducing the DRASTIC increase in global 'average' temperature away
from the
0C peak is not one of them.

Is ten years, from independent sources not long enough time to meter
temperatures? Several thousand of times a day? At a cost of billions
of dollars?

Then what is? Al Gore? Wikken Chant Groups? Being an avid reader
of Green Left Weekly? Drum beating? Tea leaves perhaps?

This is OBSERVED data. Not something dreamed up in a peyote
induced epiphany of goodness and light. Here are the results of
those billions of dollars of effort.


www.addinall.net/rss.bmp
www.addinall.net/hadcrut.bmp
www.addinall.net/uah.bmp

(respects to hadcrut, rss and uad for making data available)

So what do you make of the last decade?
Come on, your own analysis, not some cut and paste
from "Unemployable Scruffy Tree Huggers Blog-O-The-Day".

What does Fran interperet this data as?

Mark Addinall.
Post by Fran
Fran- Hide quoted text -
- Show quoted text -
John M.
2008-05-05 09:32:49 UTC
Permalink
Post by Addinall
Post by Fran
Post by Addinall
[...]
Post by Fran
And so correct policy is what? Sit on the railroad tracks and await a
passing train?
Post by Ralph
The science and technology exists to change this. The governments just
don't want it.
Oh I believe it is changing, but I'm unconvinced that the speed with
which this is happening matches the urgency of the challenge.
Urgent is somewhat of a statement plucked from fantasy land.
http://www.addinall.net/climate_history.jpg
Well?
http://www.addinall.net/uah_monthly_global_temperature_anomalies_1998...
Well?
http://www.addinall.net/rss_monthly_global_temperature_anomalies_1998...
Well?
Doesn't look very urgent does it?
Why pick a ten-year timeline? Why not ten minutes? As everybody knows,
in the long run, we all live in the present.
Why indeed? You dont like the first graph,as it shows climate over
a very long time series, you don't like the newer decadle graphs
because they show climate over a shorter duration. You want a time
series that is 'just right' for your insane warming predictions and
hubris
to think the Earth is taking some notice of what brand of light bulb
Fran is using.
AGW is crap. Demonstratable crap. The 'average' global temperature
in
1998 was a whopping 14.57. And with ten years of EVIL right wing
humans
(mostly China and the USSA) pumping billions and squillions of tonnes
of NOXIOUS CO2 into the air, the temperature CLIMBED to a catastrophic
14.57 in 2007! DOOM! DOOM! That's an increase of NEARLY, well no,
exactly 0C!!!!
What a bunch of fucking nonsense and kiddology you people spout.
What "urgent" challenge do we face? I can think of ten off the top of
my head.
Reducing the DRASTIC increase in global 'average' temperature away
from the
0C peak is not one of them.
Is ten years, from independent sources not long enough time to meter
temperatures? Several thousand of times a day? At a cost of billions
of dollars?
Then what is? Al Gore? Wikken Chant Groups? Being an avid reader
of Green Left Weekly? Drum beating? Tea leaves perhaps?
This is OBSERVED data. Not something dreamed up in a peyote
induced epiphany of goodness and light. Here are the results of
those billions of dollars of effort.
www.addinall.net/rss.bmpwww.addinall.net/hadcrut.bmpwww.addinall.net/uah.bmp
(respects to hadcrut, rss and uad for making data available)
So what do you make of the last decade?
Come on, your own analysis, not some cut and paste
from "Unemployable Scruffy Tree Huggers Blog-O-The-Day".
What does Fran interperet this data as?
I see little point in anyone replying to posts like this. You have an
attitude problem that obviously clouds any objectivity you may once
have possessed.
Addinall
2008-05-05 09:48:54 UTC
Permalink
Post by John M.
Post by Fran
Post by Addinall
[...]
Post by Fran
And so correct policy is what? Sit on the railroad tracks and await a
passing train?
Post by Ralph
The science and technology exists to change this.  The governments just
don't want it.
Oh I believe it is changing, but I'm unconvinced that the speed with
which this is happening matches the urgency of the challenge.
Urgent is somewhat of a statement plucked from fantasy land.
http://www.addinall.net/climate_history.jpg
Well?
http://www.addinall.net/uah_monthly_global_temperature_anomalies_1998...
Well?
http://www.addinall.net/rss_monthly_global_temperature_anomalies_1998...
Well?
Doesn't look very urgent does it?
Why pick a ten-year timeline? Why not ten minutes? As everybody knows,
in the long run, we all live in the present.
Why indeed?  You dont like the first graph,as it shows climate over
a very long time series, you don't like the newer decadle graphs
because they show climate over a shorter duration.  You want a time
series that is 'just right' for your insane warming predictions and
hubris
to think the Earth is taking some notice of what brand of light bulb
Fran is using.
AGW is crap.  Demonstratable crap.  The 'average' global temperature
in
1998 was a whopping 14.57.  And with ten years of EVIL right wing
humans
(mostly China and the USSA) pumping billions and squillions of tonnes
of NOXIOUS CO2 into the air, the temperature CLIMBED to a catastrophic
14.57 in 2007!   DOOM!  DOOM!  That's an increase of NEARLY, well no,
exactly 0C!!!!
What a bunch of fucking nonsense and kiddology you people spout.
What "urgent" challenge do we face?  I can think of ten off the top of
my head.
Reducing the DRASTIC increase in global 'average' temperature away
from the
0C peak is not one of them.
Is ten years, from independent sources not long enough time to meter
temperatures?  Several thousand of times a day?  At a cost of billions
of dollars?
Then what is?  Al Gore?  Wikken Chant Groups? Being an avid reader
of Green Left Weekly? Drum beating?  Tea leaves perhaps?
This is OBSERVED data.  Not something dreamed up in a peyote
induced epiphany of goodness and light.  Here are the results of
those billions of dollars of effort.
www.addinall.net/rss.bmpwww.addinall.net/hadcrut.bmpwww.addinall.net/...
(respects to hadcrut, rss and uad for making data available)
So what do you make of the last decade?
Come on, your own analysis, not some cut and paste
from "Unemployable Scruffy Tree Huggers Blog-O-The-Day".
What does Fran interperet this data as?
I see little point in anyone replying to posts like this. You have an
attitude
I sure do. I have an attitude that the small amount of tax money
available for the improvement of society, locally and globally,
be spent on something worthwhile. Not mystic voodoo proposed as
science by some fundie christian in a $10,000 suit, and a bunch
of retarded scruffy hangers-on that somehow feel they are part
of the 'scientific consensus'. Spit. What is that?

If you have opinions, hopefully with some facts, then trot
them out John Boy.

All I see is bullshit, bad science and wooly headed people who
can't mount an argument to the level I expect from my ten
year old nephew.

Mark Addinall.
Post by John M.
problem that obviously clouds any objectivity you may once
have possessed.- Hide
John M.
2008-05-05 16:49:33 UTC
Permalink
Post by Addinall
Post by John M.
Post by Addinall
Post by Fran
Post by Addinall
[...]
Post by Fran
And so correct policy is what? Sit on the railroad tracks and await a
passing train?
Post by Ralph
The science and technology exists to change this. The governments just
don't want it.
Oh I believe it is changing, but I'm unconvinced that the speed with
which this is happening matches the urgency of the challenge.
Urgent is somewhat of a statement plucked from fantasy land.
http://www.addinall.net/climate_history.jpg
Well?
http://www.addinall.net/uah_monthly_global_temperature_anomalies_1998...
Well?
http://www.addinall.net/rss_monthly_global_temperature_anomalies_1998...
Well?
Doesn't look very urgent does it?
Why pick a ten-year timeline? Why not ten minutes? As everybody knows,
in the long run, we all live in the present.
Why indeed? You dont like the first graph,as it shows climate over
a very long time series, you don't like the newer decadle graphs
because they show climate over a shorter duration. You want a time
series that is 'just right' for your insane warming predictions and
hubris
to think the Earth is taking some notice of what brand of light bulb
Fran is using.
AGW is crap. Demonstratable crap. The 'average' global temperature
in
1998 was a whopping 14.57. And with ten years of EVIL right wing
humans
(mostly China and the USSA) pumping billions and squillions of tonnes
of NOXIOUS CO2 into the air, the temperature CLIMBED to a catastrophic
14.57 in 2007! DOOM! DOOM! That's an increase of NEARLY, well no,
exactly 0C!!!!
What a bunch of fucking nonsense and kiddology you people spout.
What "urgent" challenge do we face? I can think of ten off the top of
my head.
Reducing the DRASTIC increase in global 'average' temperature away
from the
0C peak is not one of them.
Is ten years, from independent sources not long enough time to meter
temperatures? Several thousand of times a day? At a cost of billions
of dollars?
Then what is? Al Gore? Wikken Chant Groups? Being an avid reader
of Green Left Weekly? Drum beating? Tea leaves perhaps?
This is OBSERVED data. Not something dreamed up in a peyote
induced epiphany of goodness and light. Here are the results of
those billions of dollars of effort.
www.addinall.net/rss.bmpwww.addinall.net/hadcrut.bmpwww.addinall.net/...
(respects to hadcrut, rss and uad for making data available)
So what do you make of the last decade?
Come on, your own analysis, not some cut and paste
from "Unemployable Scruffy Tree Huggers Blog-O-The-Day".
What does Fran interperet this data as?
I see little point in anyone replying to posts like this. You have an
attitude problem that obviously clouds any objectivity you may
once have possessed.
I sure do. I have an attitude that the small amount of tax money
available for the improvement of society, locally and globally,
be spent on something worthwhile. Not mystic voodoo proposed as
science by some fundie christian in a $10,000 suit, and a bunch
of retarded scruffy hangers-on that somehow feel they are part
of the 'scientific consensus'. Spit. What is that?
Impossible to explain to someone like yourself, whose posts show no
sign of an open, inquiring mind - this latter is the first requirement
of science.
Post by Addinall
If you have opinions, hopefully with some facts, then trot
them out John Boy.
You already have my opinion, so I won't re-iterate. It has been
factually reinforced by this post. No doubt you will provide further
facts with your next response.
Post by Addinall
All I see is bullshit, bad science and wooly headed people who
can't mount an argument to the level I expect from my ten
year old nephew.
Argument in ten-year-olds usually amounts to simple contradiction and
gainsaying of the others. You seem to have that level pretty well
taped.
Cato
2008-05-06 01:00:10 UTC
Permalink
John wrote:
"no sign of an open, inquiring mind - this latter is the first
requirement
of science. "

Reply: Are you saying the Global Warming fear crowds have an open,
inquiring mind??? They do their best to shut up the sceptics.
Claims that the "debate is over" "We have a consensus"
mudslinging, insults, etc etc, warnings and firings for not toeing the
line. The disrespect and insults and trash talk that sceptics put up
with shows just how open and inquiring the minds of the Global Warming
fear mongers are.
kT
2008-05-06 01:43:39 UTC
Permalink
Post by Cato
"no sign of an open, inquiring mind - this latter is the first
requirement
of science. "
Reply: Are you saying the Global Warming fear crowds have an open,
inquiring mind??? They do their best to shut up the sceptics.
Claims that the "debate is over" "We have a consensus"
mudslinging, insults, etc etc, warnings and firings for not toeing the
line. The disrespect and insults and trash talk that sceptics put up
with shows just how open and inquiring the minds of the Global Warming
fear mongers are.
Infantile and juvenile attempts to overthrow modern concensus science
generally evokes those kinds of responses. What exactly were you
expecting, that intelligent people waste their time stroking your
naive and ignorant egos?
Cato
2008-05-06 07:15:19 UTC
Permalink
Post by kT
Post by Cato
"no sign of an open, inquiring mind - this latter is the first
requirement
of science. "
  Reply:  Are you saying the Global Warming fear crowds have an open,
inquiring mind???  They do their best to shut up the sceptics.
    Claims that the "debate is over"  "We have a consensus"
mudslinging, insults, etc etc, warnings and firings for not toeing the
line. The disrespect and insults and trash talk that sceptics put up
with shows just how open and inquiring the minds of the Global Warming
fear mongers are.
Infantile and juvenile attempts to overthrow modern concensus science
generally evokes those kinds of responses. What exactly were you
expecting, that intelligent people waste their time stroking your
naive and ignorant egos?
There you go... thanks for proving me right...
V-for-Vendicar
2008-05-15 07:41:30 UTC
Permalink
I'm a liar huh?
Observation, out of 20 points listed below. Libertarian Cato is found to
have lied in every instance.

Concludion. Libertarian Cato is a Liar.

Hardly a surprise as I have never encounterd a Libertairan who wasn't a
perpetual liar.
ERROR 1
Sea level "rising 6 m"
Never stated. Cato's First lie.
ERROR 2
Pacific islands "drowning"
Stated in the future tense, not the current tense. Cato's Second Lie.
ERROR 3
Thermohaline circulation "stopping"
Stated as a possibility - and correctly so. Cato's Third Lie.
ERROR 4
CO2 "driving temperature"
It does. Cato's Forth Lie.
ERROR 5
Gore says "global warming" has been melting the snows of Mount
Kilimanjaro in Africa. It is not.
One researcher claims otherwise. The rest side with Gore. Cato's Fifth
lie.
ERROR 6
Lake Chad "drying up" Gore says "global warming" dried up Lake Chad in
Africa. It did not. Over-extraction of water and changing agricultural
patterns dried the lake, which was also dry in 8500BC, 5500BC, 1000BC
and 100BC.
Which is Lie number 6 for Cato.

This is what Gore says about Lake Chad...

"Unbelievable tragedies have been unfolding there and there are a lot
reasons for it. Darfur and Niger are among those tragedies. One of the
factors that has been compounding this is the lack of rainfall and the
increasing drought. This is Lake Chad, once one of the largest lakes in the
world. It has dried up over the last few decades to almost nothing."
ERROR 7
Hurricane Katrina "man made"
Which is lie # 7 for Cato

This is what Gore says about Katrina.

"And then of course came Katrina. It is worth remembering that when it hit
Florida it was a Category 1, but it killed a lot of people and caused
billions of dollars worth of damage. And then, what happened? Before it hit
New Orleans, it went over warmer water. As the water temperature increases,
the wind velocity increases and the moisture content increases. And you'll
see Hurricane Katrina form over Florida. And then as it comes into the Gulf
over warm water it becomes stronger and stronger and stronger. Look at that
Hurricane's eye. And of course the consequences were so horrendous; there
are no words to describe it. "
ERROR 8
Polar bears "dying"
Which is lie #8 for Cato

This is what Gore said about Polar Bears.

"So there is a faster build up of heat here at the North Pole in the Arctic
Ocean and the Arctic generally than any where else on the planet. That's not
good for creatures like polar bears that depend on the ice. A new scientific
study shows that for the first time they're finding polar bears that have
actually drowned, swimming long distances up to 60 miles to find the ice.
They did not find that before."

Which is correct.
ERROR 9
Gore says coral reefs are "bleaching" because of "global warming."
They are not. There was some bleaching in 1998, but this was caused by
the exceptional El Nino Southern Oscillation that year.
Which is error #9 from Cato.

And what is El Nino? A Warming of the Pacific surface waters.

So acccording to Cato, here, it isn't the warming of the earth's oceans
that causes coral bleaching, in th pacific, it's the rise of pacific ocean
temperatures.

MMMMMMMMMOOOOOOOOOOORRRRRRRRRRRROOOOOOOOONNNNNNN
ERROR 10
100 ppmv of CO2 "melting mile-thick ice"
And that is lie 10 out of 10 for Cato.

The phrase "melting mile-thick ice." never appears in Gores Documentary.
ERROR 11
Hurricane Caterina "manmade"
Which is lie # 11 for Cato A repeat of Lie #7

This is what Gore says about Katrina.

"And then of course came Katrina. It is worth remembering that when it hit
Florida it was a Category 1, but it killed a lot of people and caused
billions of dollars worth of damage. And then, what happened? Before it hit
New Orleans, it went over warmer water. As the water temperature increases,
the wind velocity increases and the moisture content increases. And you'll
see Hurricane Katrina form over Florida. And then as it comes into the Gulf
over warm water it becomes stronger and stronger and stronger. Look at that
Hurricane's eye. And of course the consequences were so horrendous; there
are no words to describe it. "
ERROR 12
Japanese typhoons "a new record"
Which is lie # 12 for Cato.

Warmer Seas Creating Stronger Hurricane, Study Confirms
by Ker Than


http://www.commondreams.org/headlines06/0317-08.htm
ERROR 13
Hurricanes "getting stronger"
Which is lie # 13 for Cato
.
Warmer Seas Creating Stronger Hurricane, Study Confirms
by Ker Than

http://www.commondreams.org/headlines06/0317-08.htm
ERROR 14
Big storm insurances losses "increasing"
Which is lie # 14 for Cato
Weather-Related Insurance Losses Doubled in '07
30 Dec 07
Losses to insurers from natural disasters nearly doubled this year to just
below $30 billion globally after an unusually quiet 2006, a leading
reinsurer said, from winter storms in Europe, flooding in Britain and
wildfires in the U.S.

http://www.desmogblog.com/weather-related-insurance-losses-doubled-in-07
ERROR 15
Mumbai "flooding"
Which is lie # 15 for Cato.
Mumbai did flood.

The Maharashtra floods of 2005 refers to the flooding of many parts of the
Indian state of Maharashtra including large areas of the metropolis Mumbai,
a city located on the coast of the Arabian Sea, on the western coast of
India, in which at least 1,000 people died. It occurred just one month after
similar flooding in Gujarat.
The floods were caused by the eighth heaviest ever recorded 24-hour rainfall
figure of 944 mm (37.2 inches) which lashed the metropolis on 26 July 2005,
and intermittently continued for the next day. 644 mm (25.4 inches) was
received within the 12-hr period between 8am and 8pm. Torrential rainfall
continued for the next week.
ERROR 16
Severe tornadoes "more frequent"
Which is lie # 16 for Cato.
Reconstructing the frequency of tornado occurrence in the central United
States

Matthew J. Menne, NOAA/NESDIS/NCDC, Asheville, NC

Evidence is presented that the apparent decrease in strong-to-violent
tornado frequency since 1950 implied by the official storm archive is
inconsistent with the radiosonde record. Abrupt changes in the bias of the
reconstruction, that is, the ratio of the number of tornado soundings
predicted to the number observed, are shown to be coincident with changes in
storm classification procedures that occurred during the 1970s and the early
1990s. Rather than a decrease in frequency since the 1950s, the
reconstruction suggests that supercell tornado frequency has been reasonably
stationary until the 1990s when some increase in frequency is suggested.
ERROR 17
The sun "heats the Arctic ocean"
Which is lie # 17 for Cato.

The sun does heat the arctic ocean from the moment the sun rises over the
arctic ocean.

MMMMMMMMOOOOOOOOORRRRRRRRRRROOOOOOOOOOONNNNNNNN
ERROR 18
Arctic "warming fastest" Gore says the Arctic has been warming faster
than the rest of the planet. It is not.
Which is lie #18 by Cato.
Arctic warming at twice global rate
Shaoni Bhattacharya

17:58 02 November 2004
NewScientist.com news service
Global warming in the Arctic is happening now, warns the most comprehensive
scientific report to date. The reports concludes that the northern ice cap
is warming at twice the global rate and that this will lead to serious
consequences for the planet.

http://www.newscientist.com/article/dn6615-arctic-warming-at-twice-global-rate.html
ERROR 19
Greenland ice sheet "unstable"
Which is lie #19 by Cato.

The word "unstable" never appears in Gore's award winning documentary - "An
Inconvenient Truth".
ERROR 20
Himalayan glacial melt waters "failing"
Which is lie #20 by Cato.

The word "failing" never appears in Gore's award winning documentary - "An
Inconvenient Truth."
Cato
2008-05-06 07:30:34 UTC
Permalink
Post by Cato
Reply: Are you saying the Global Warming fear crowds have an open,
inquiring mind??? They do their best to shut up the sceptics.
Claims that the "debate is over" "We have a consensus"
mudslinging, insults, etc etc, warnings and firings for not toeing the
line. The disrespect and insults and trash talk that sceptics put up
with shows just how open and inquiring the minds of the Global Warming
fear mongers are.
kT replied:

:Infantile and juvenile attempts to overthrow modern concensus
science
generally evokes those kinds of responses. What exactly were you
expecting, that intelligent people waste their time stroking your
naive and ignorant egos? "

Cato replies:

There you go kT... thanks for proving me right... :))) You just
couldn't resist it...I expect you people to have the "open and
inquiring the minds" that you expect us to have....but your reaction
to sceptics is the close minded insulting mudslinging infantile
namecalling as you've just proved. (kT suffers from "Foot-in-Mouth
Disease)
V-for-Vendicar
2008-05-15 07:41:39 UTC
Permalink
I'm a liar huh?
Observation, out of 20 points listed below. Libertarian Cato is found to
have lied in every instance.

Concludion. Libertarian Cato is a Liar.

Hardly a surprise as I have never encounterd a Libertairan who wasn't a
perpetual liar.
ERROR 1
Sea level "rising 6 m"
Never stated. Cato's First lie.
ERROR 2
Pacific islands "drowning"
Stated in the future tense, not the current tense. Cato's Second Lie.
ERROR 3
Thermohaline circulation "stopping"
Stated as a possibility - and correctly so. Cato's Third Lie.
ERROR 4
CO2 "driving temperature"
It does. Cato's Forth Lie.
ERROR 5
Gore says "global warming" has been melting the snows of Mount
Kilimanjaro in Africa. It is not.
One researcher claims otherwise. The rest side with Gore. Cato's Fifth
lie.
ERROR 6
Lake Chad "drying up" Gore says "global warming" dried up Lake Chad in
Africa. It did not. Over-extraction of water and changing agricultural
patterns dried the lake, which was also dry in 8500BC, 5500BC, 1000BC
and 100BC.
Which is Lie number 6 for Cato.

This is what Gore says about Lake Chad...

"Unbelievable tragedies have been unfolding there and there are a lot
reasons for it. Darfur and Niger are among those tragedies. One of the
factors that has been compounding this is the lack of rainfall and the
increasing drought. This is Lake Chad, once one of the largest lakes in the
world. It has dried up over the last few decades to almost nothing."
ERROR 7
Hurricane Katrina "man made"
Which is lie # 7 for Cato

This is what Gore says about Katrina.

"And then of course came Katrina. It is worth remembering that when it hit
Florida it was a Category 1, but it killed a lot of people and caused
billions of dollars worth of damage. And then, what happened? Before it hit
New Orleans, it went over warmer water. As the water temperature increases,
the wind velocity increases and the moisture content increases. And you'll
see Hurricane Katrina form over Florida. And then as it comes into the Gulf
over warm water it becomes stronger and stronger and stronger. Look at that
Hurricane's eye. And of course the consequences were so horrendous; there
are no words to describe it. "
ERROR 8
Polar bears "dying"
Which is lie #8 for Cato

This is what Gore said about Polar Bears.

"So there is a faster build up of heat here at the North Pole in the Arctic
Ocean and the Arctic generally than any where else on the planet. That's not
good for creatures like polar bears that depend on the ice. A new scientific
study shows that for the first time they're finding polar bears that have
actually drowned, swimming long distances up to 60 miles to find the ice.
They did not find that before."

Which is correct.
ERROR 9
Gore says coral reefs are "bleaching" because of "global warming."
They are not. There was some bleaching in 1998, but this was caused by
the exceptional El Nino Southern Oscillation that year.
Which is error #9 from Cato.

And what is El Nino? A Warming of the Pacific surface waters.

So acccording to Cato, here, it isn't the warming of the earth's oceans
that causes coral bleaching, in th pacific, it's the rise of pacific ocean
temperatures.

MMMMMMMMMOOOOOOOOOOORRRRRRRRRRRROOOOOOOOONNNNNNN
ERROR 10
100 ppmv of CO2 "melting mile-thick ice"
And that is lie 10 out of 10 for Cato.

The phrase "melting mile-thick ice." never appears in Gores Documentary.
ERROR 11
Hurricane Caterina "manmade"
Which is lie # 11 for Cato A repeat of Lie #7

This is what Gore says about Katrina.

"And then of course came Katrina. It is worth remembering that when it hit
Florida it was a Category 1, but it killed a lot of people and caused
billions of dollars worth of damage. And then, what happened? Before it hit
New Orleans, it went over warmer water. As the water temperature increases,
the wind velocity increases and the moisture content increases. And you'll
see Hurricane Katrina form over Florida. And then as it comes into the Gulf
over warm water it becomes stronger and stronger and stronger. Look at that
Hurricane's eye. And of course the consequences were so horrendous; there
are no words to describe it. "
ERROR 12
Japanese typhoons "a new record"
Which is lie # 12 for Cato.

Warmer Seas Creating Stronger Hurricane, Study Confirms
by Ker Than


http://www.commondreams.org/headlines06/0317-08.htm
ERROR 13
Hurricanes "getting stronger"
Which is lie # 13 for Cato
.
Warmer Seas Creating Stronger Hurricane, Study Confirms
by Ker Than

http://www.commondreams.org/headlines06/0317-08.htm
ERROR 14
Big storm insurances losses "increasing"
Which is lie # 14 for Cato
Weather-Related Insurance Losses Doubled in '07
30 Dec 07
Losses to insurers from natural disasters nearly doubled this year to just
below $30 billion globally after an unusually quiet 2006, a leading
reinsurer said, from winter storms in Europe, flooding in Britain and
wildfires in the U.S.

http://www.desmogblog.com/weather-related-insurance-losses-doubled-in-07
ERROR 15
Mumbai "flooding"
Which is lie # 15 for Cato.
Mumbai did flood.

The Maharashtra floods of 2005 refers to the flooding of many parts of the
Indian state of Maharashtra including large areas of the metropolis Mumbai,
a city located on the coast of the Arabian Sea, on the western coast of
India, in which at least 1,000 people died. It occurred just one month after
similar flooding in Gujarat.
The floods were caused by the eighth heaviest ever recorded 24-hour rainfall
figure of 944 mm (37.2 inches) which lashed the metropolis on 26 July 2005,
and intermittently continued for the next day. 644 mm (25.4 inches) was
received within the 12-hr period between 8am and 8pm. Torrential rainfall
continued for the next week.
ERROR 16
Severe tornadoes "more frequent"
Which is lie # 16 for Cato.
Reconstructing the frequency of tornado occurrence in the central United
States

Matthew J. Menne, NOAA/NESDIS/NCDC, Asheville, NC

Evidence is presented that the apparent decrease in strong-to-violent
tornado frequency since 1950 implied by the official storm archive is
inconsistent with the radiosonde record. Abrupt changes in the bias of the
reconstruction, that is, the ratio of the number of tornado soundings
predicted to the number observed, are shown to be coincident with changes in
storm classification procedures that occurred during the 1970s and the early
1990s. Rather than a decrease in frequency since the 1950s, the
reconstruction suggests that supercell tornado frequency has been reasonably
stationary until the 1990s when some increase in frequency is suggested.
ERROR 17
The sun "heats the Arctic ocean"
Which is lie # 17 for Cato.

The sun does heat the arctic ocean from the moment the sun rises over the
arctic ocean.

MMMMMMMMOOOOOOOOORRRRRRRRRRROOOOOOOOOOONNNNNNNN
ERROR 18
Arctic "warming fastest" Gore says the Arctic has been warming faster
than the rest of the planet. It is not.
Which is lie #18 by Cato.
Arctic warming at twice global rate
Shaoni Bhattacharya

17:58 02 November 2004
NewScientist.com news service
Global warming in the Arctic is happening now, warns the most comprehensive
scientific report to date. The reports concludes that the northern ice cap
is warming at twice the global rate and that this will lead to serious
consequences for the planet.

http://www.newscientist.com/article/dn6615-arctic-warming-at-twice-global-rate.html
ERROR 19
Greenland ice sheet "unstable"
Which is lie #19 by Cato.

The word "unstable" never appears in Gore's award winning documentary - "An
Inconvenient Truth".
ERROR 20
Himalayan glacial melt waters "failing"
Which is lie #20 by Cato.

The word "failing" never appears in Gore's award winning documentary - "An
Inconvenient Truth."
Addinall
2008-05-06 11:28:13 UTC
Permalink
Post by kT
Post by Cato
"no sign of an open, inquiring mind - this latter is the first
requirement
of science. "
  Reply:  Are you saying the Global Warming fear crowds have an open,
inquiring mind???  They do their best to shut up the sceptics.
    Claims that the "debate is over"  "We have a consensus"
mudslinging, insults, etc etc, warnings and firings for not toeing the
line. The disrespect and insults and trash talk that sceptics put up
with shows just how open and inquiring the minds of the Global Warming
fear mongers are.
Infantile and juvenile attempts to overthrow modern concensus science
BWHAHAHAHAHAHAHAAAAAAAAA!

'modern concensus science'

Is that how we do it these days?
Post by kT
generally evokes those kinds of responses. What exactly were you
expecting, that intelligent people waste their time stroking your
naive and ignorant egos?
Should people question 'modern concensus science'?

We had better. "But still it moves".

Mark Addinall.
V for Vendicar
2008-06-15 07:50:18 UTC
Permalink
Post by Addinall
'modern concensus science'
Is that how we do it these days?
It's how it's always been done.

URAh MMMMMMMMOOOOOOOOOOORRRRRRRRRRRRROOOOOOOOOONNNNNNNNN

KKKonservatism makes you stupid.
Post by Addinall
Should people question 'modern concensus science'?
You don't question modern science. You lie about it.

Big difference.
z
2008-05-06 20:54:45 UTC
Permalink
Post by Cato
"no sign of an open, inquiring mind - this latter is the first
requirement
of science. "
  Reply:  Are you saying the Global Warming fear crowds have an open,
inquiring mind???  They do their best to shut up the sceptics.
    Claims that the "debate is over"  "We have a consensus"
mudslinging, insults, etc etc, warnings and firings for not toeing the
line. The disrespect and insults and trash talk that sceptics put up
with shows just how open and inquiring the minds of the Global Warming
fear mongers are.
alternately, you're idiots and your opinions aren't worth wasting the
time of adults with, particularly when every particular point has to
be gone over intensively with each and every one of you every single
month because your brains can't retain anything you didn't read on
some website which featured the revelation of a giant conspiracy that
only your giant minds could grasp.

just raising the possibility for your consideration. open minds, etc.
Hank Kroll
2008-05-07 05:24:34 UTC
Permalink
Post by Cato
"no sign of an open, inquiring mind - this latter is the first
requirement
of science. "
  Reply:  Are you saying the Global Warming fear crowds have an open,
inquiring mind???  They do their best to shut up the sceptics.
    Claims that the "debate is over"  "We have a consensus"
mudslinging, insults, etc etc, warnings and firings for not toeing the
line. The disrespect and insults and trash talk that sceptics put up
with shows just how open and inquiring the minds of the Global Warming
fear mongers are.
The average temperature on Earth is 32 degrees F. while all the
geologic ages prior to the Plistocene was 50 degrees and above.
Durning the Carboniferous the average temperature on Earth was around
80 degrees F. This can only meen one thing: We are still in an ice
age! Global warming is about money! See new posts on Earth Loosing
Oxygen about genetic innovations that allowed plants to produce eight
times more oxygen and food for higher life forms like Hillary Clinton.
John M.
2008-05-07 11:46:31 UTC
Permalink
Post by Hank Kroll
Post by Cato
"no sign of an open, inquiring mind - this latter is the first
requirement
of science. "
Reply: Are you saying the Global Warming fear crowds have an open,
inquiring mind??? They do their best to shut up the sceptics.
Claims that the "debate is over" "We have a consensus"
mudslinging, insults, etc etc, warnings and firings for not toeing the
line. The disrespect and insults and trash talk that sceptics put up
with shows just how open and inquiring the minds of the Global Warming
fear mongers are.
The average temperature on Earth is 32 degrees F. while all the
geologic ages prior to the Plistocene was 50 degrees and above.
Ask yourself a simple question. How many humans were there on the
planet prior to the Pleistocene? Just now it's 7 billion and the
current climate is coping with feeding them - just.
Post by Hank Kroll
Durning the Carboniferous the average temperature on Earth was around
80 degrees F.
If temperatures rise to Carboniferous levels, only blue-green algae
and various bacteria-like organisms will make it, and then by mostly
living in higher latitudes.
Post by Hank Kroll
This can only meen one thing: We are still in an ice
age! Global warming is about money! See new posts on Earth Loosing
Oxygen about genetic innovations that allowed plants to produce eight
times more oxygen and food for higher life forms like Hillary Clinton.
z
2008-05-07 15:36:31 UTC
Permalink
Post by John M.
Post by Hank Kroll
Post by Cato
"no sign of an open, inquiring mind - this latter is the first
requirement
of science. "
  Reply:  Are you saying the Global Warming fear crowds have an open,
inquiring mind???  They do their best to shut up the sceptics.
    Claims that the "debate is over"  "We have a consensus"
mudslinging, insults, etc etc, warnings and firings for not toeing the
line. The disrespect and insults and trash talk that sceptics put up
with shows just how open and inquiring the minds of the Global Warming
fear mongers are.
The average temperature on Earth is 32 degrees F. while all the
geologic ages prior to the Plistocene was 50 degrees and above.
Ask yourself a simple question. How many humans were there on the
planet prior to the Pleistocene? Just now it's 7 billion and the
current climate is coping with feeding them - just.
Post by Hank Kroll
Durning the Carboniferous the average temperature on Earth was around
80 degrees F.
If temperatures rise to Carboniferous levels, only blue-green algae
and various bacteria-like organisms will make it, and then by mostly
living in higher latitudes.
Post by Hank Kroll
This can only meen one thing: We are still in an ice
age! Global warming is about money! See new posts on Earth Loosing
Oxygen about genetic innovations that allowed plants to produce eight
times more oxygen and food for higher life forms like Hillary Clinton.- Hide quoted text -
- Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text -
- Show quoted text -
this is one of those feedback mechanisms the "what-me-worry-about-AGW"
folks keep citing. when plants skewed the climate off equilibrium by
extracting 80% of the carbon in the atmosphere and ending up with it
underground, thereby reducing the earth's temperature, this made it
possible/inevitable that a species would evolve which would make use
of the potential energy represented by that carbon, in the process
returning it to the atmosphere and restoring the climate to its stable
point, i.e. hot and full of CO2; this in turn would result in that
species' loss of prominence due to the combined effect of the loss of
its main energy source at the same time the environmental stress from
a changed climate was increasing.

that's feedback. the human race is just nature's way of putting the
carbon back into the air so the earth could get hot again, afterwards
we're superfluous.
John M.
2008-05-17 06:37:04 UTC
Permalink
Post by John M.
Post by Hank Kroll
Post by Cato
"no sign of an open, inquiring mind - this latter is the first
requirement
of science. "
Reply: Are you saying the Global Warming fear crowds have an open,
inquiring mind??? They do their best to shut up the sceptics.
Claims that the "debate is over" "We have a consensus"
mudslinging, insults, etc etc, warnings and firings for not toeing the
line. The disrespect and insults and trash talk that sceptics put up
with shows just how open and inquiring the minds of the Global Warming
fear mongers are.
The average temperature on Earth is 32 degrees F. while all the
geologic ages prior to the Plistocene was 50 degrees and above.
Ask yourself a simple question. How many humans were there on the
planet prior to the Pleistocene? Just now it's 7 billion and the
current climate is coping with feeding them - just.
Post by Hank Kroll
Durning the Carboniferous the average temperature on Earth was around
80 degrees F.
If temperatures rise to Carboniferous levels, only blue-green algae
and various bacteria-like organisms will make it, and then by mostly
living in higher latitudes.
Post by Hank Kroll
This can only meen one thing: We are still in an ice
age! Global warming is about money! See new posts on Earth Loosing
Oxygen about genetic innovations that allowed plants to produce eight
times more oxygen and food for higher life forms like Hillary Clinton.
this is one of those feed back mechanisms the
what-me-worry-about-AGW"
folks keep citing. when plants skewed the climate off equilibrium by
extracting 80% of the carbon in the atmosphere and ending up with it
underground, thereby reducing the earth's temperature, this made it
possible/inevitable that a species would evolve which would make use
of the potential energy represented by that carbon, in the process
returning it to the atmosphere and restoring the climate to its stable
point, i.e. hot and full of CO2; this in turn would result in that
species' loss of prominence due to the combined effect of the loss of
its main energy source at the same time the environmental stress from
a changed climate was increasing.
that's feedback. the human race is just nature's way of putting the
carbon back into the air so the earth could get hot again, afterwards
we're superfluous.
Very perceptive of you. But do you think us humans should play along
with Gaia's little game?
V for Vendicar
2008-06-15 07:54:17 UTC
Permalink
We are still in an ice age!
MMMMMMMMMMOOOOOOOOOOOOOORRRRRRRRRRRRRRROOOOOOOOOOONNNNNN
z
2008-05-07 12:56:50 UTC
Permalink
Post by Cato
"no sign of an open, inquiring mind - this latter is the first
requirement
of science. "
  Reply:  Are you saying the Global Warming fear crowds have an open,
inquiring mind???  
don't know about him, but i'm saying that the arguments that there is
no AGW and if there is we shouldn't do anything about it and if we
should we can't anyway are worthless. The support for one hypothesis
over another depends on the strength of the best arguments, not the
weakness of the worst arguments, nor whether you approve of Al Gore.
On that measure, there is no room for doubt.
Poetic Justice <@http://Poetic-Justice.Talk-n-Dog.com>
2008-05-07 13:59:31 UTC
Permalink
Post by z
Post by Cato
"no sign of an open, inquiring mind - this latter is the first
requirement
of science. "
Reply: Are you saying the Global Warming fear crowds have an open,
inquiring mind???
don't know about him, but i'm saying that the arguments that there is
no AGW and if there is we shouldn't do anything about it and if we
should we can't anyway are worthless. The support for one hypothesis
over another depends on the strength of the best arguments, not the
weakness of the worst arguments, nor whether you approve of Al Gore.
On that measure, there is no room for doubt.
then why is there no asteroid deflector built yet?

We are 100% sure asteroids hit the earth, and 90% sure a large one is
coming.

It looks like we don't plan for every disaster that's coming.
kT
2008-05-07 14:26:34 UTC
Permalink
Post by Poetic Justice <@http://Poetic-Justice.Talk-n-Dog.com>
Post by z
Post by Cato
"no sign of an open, inquiring mind - this latter is the first
requirement
of science. "
Reply: Are you saying the Global Warming fear crowds have an open,
inquiring mind???
don't know about him, but i'm saying that the arguments that there is
no AGW and if there is we shouldn't do anything about it and if we
should we can't anyway are worthless. The support for one hypothesis
over another depends on the strength of the best arguments, not the
weakness of the worst arguments, nor whether you approve of Al Gore.
On that measure, there is no room for doubt.
then why is there no asteroid deflector built yet?
We are 100% sure asteroids hit the earth, and 90% sure a large one is
coming.
It looks like we don't plan for every disaster that's coming.
Because dumb is cheaper than smart, and if there is one thing that
Americans are, it's cheap.
z
2008-05-09 20:56:19 UTC
Permalink
Post by Poetic Justice <@http://Poetic-Justice.Talk-n-Dog.com>
We are 100% sure asteroids hit the earth, and 90% sure a large one is
coming.
It looks like we don't plan for every disaster that's coming.- Hide quoted text -
oh, why are you so sure asteriods will hit the earth? all you have to
go on are computer models of asteroids' paths. you don't have any real
data to prove that asteroids will hit the earth. besides, lots of
asteroids have hit the earth in the past, so it's clearly not
important. anyway, it's probably the sun, and those scientists who
study asteroids are obviously too stupid to think of it, and anyway
they're just saying asteroids might hit the earth to get those big fat
grants to sudy asteroids. also, al gore is fat.
kT
2008-05-09 22:48:34 UTC
Permalink
Post by z
Post by Poetic Justice <@http://Poetic-Justice.Talk-n-Dog.com>
We are 100% sure asteroids hit the earth, and 90% sure a large one is
coming.
It looks like we don't plan for every disaster that's coming.- Hide quoted text -
oh, why are you so sure asteriods will hit the earth? all you have to
go on are computer models of asteroids' paths. you don't have any real
data to prove that asteroids will hit the earth. besides, lots of
asteroids have hit the earth in the past, so it's clearly not
important. anyway, it's probably the sun, and those scientists who
study asteroids are obviously too stupid to think of it, and anyway
they're just saying asteroids might hit the earth to get those big fat
grants to sudy asteroids. also, al gore is fat.
Pretty good. You've got talent.
Poetic Justice <@http://Poetic-Justice.Talk-n-Dog.com>
2008-05-09 22:56:56 UTC
Permalink
Post by kT
Post by z
Post by Poetic Justice <@http://Poetic-Justice.Talk-n-Dog.com>
We are 100% sure asteroids hit the earth, and 90% sure a large one is
coming.
It looks like we don't plan for every disaster that's coming.- Hide quoted text -
oh, why are you so sure asteriods will hit the earth? all you have to
go on are computer models of asteroids' paths. you don't have any real
data to prove that asteroids will hit the earth. besides, lots of
asteroids have hit the earth in the past, so it's clearly not
"lots of asteroids have hit the earth in the past"
You answered your own question....
Post by kT
Post by z
important. anyway, it's probably the sun, and those scientists who
study asteroids are obviously too stupid to think of it, and anyway
they're just saying asteroids might hit the earth to get those big fat
grants to sudy asteroids. also, al gore is fat.
That's why I promoted it, give me a government grant, I'll solve the
asteroid problem.
Post by kT
Pretty good. You've got talent.
I like to think so...
V for Vendicar
2008-06-15 07:58:19 UTC
Permalink
Post by Poetic Justice <@http://Poetic-Justice.Talk-n-Dog.com>
"lots of asteroids have hit the earth in the past"
You answered your own question....
You have no evidence of that. Besides, the earth is only 6,000 years old.
and the holes in the ground were put there by Gawd to keep you stupid.
V for Vendicar
2008-06-15 07:56:04 UTC
Permalink
Post by Poetic Justice <@http://Poetic-Justice.Talk-n-Dog.com>
then why is there no asteroid deflector built yet?
RepubliKKKans continue to block funding.
V-for-Vendicar
2008-05-15 07:41:49 UTC
Permalink
I'm a liar huh?
Observation, out of 20 points listed below. Libertarian Cato is found to
have lied in every instance.

Concludion. Libertarian Cato is a Liar.

Hardly a surprise as I have never encounterd a Libertairan who wasn't a
perpetual liar.
ERROR 1
Sea level "rising 6 m"
Never stated. Cato's First lie.
ERROR 2
Pacific islands "drowning"
Stated in the future tense, not the current tense. Cato's Second Lie.
ERROR 3
Thermohaline circulation "stopping"
Stated as a possibility - and correctly so. Cato's Third Lie.
ERROR 4
CO2 "driving temperature"
It does. Cato's Forth Lie.
ERROR 5
Gore says "global warming" has been melting the snows of Mount
Kilimanjaro in Africa. It is not.
One researcher claims otherwise. The rest side with Gore. Cato's Fifth
lie.
ERROR 6
Lake Chad "drying up" Gore says "global warming" dried up Lake Chad in
Africa. It did not. Over-extraction of water and changing agricultural
patterns dried the lake, which was also dry in 8500BC, 5500BC, 1000BC
and 100BC.
Which is Lie number 6 for Cato.

This is what Gore says about Lake Chad...

"Unbelievable tragedies have been unfolding there and there are a lot
reasons for it. Darfur and Niger are among those tragedies. One of the
factors that has been compounding this is the lack of rainfall and the
increasing drought. This is Lake Chad, once one of the largest lakes in the
world. It has dried up over the last few decades to almost nothing."
ERROR 7
Hurricane Katrina "man made"
Which is lie # 7 for Cato

This is what Gore says about Katrina.

"And then of course came Katrina. It is worth remembering that when it hit
Florida it was a Category 1, but it killed a lot of people and caused
billions of dollars worth of damage. And then, what happened? Before it hit
New Orleans, it went over warmer water. As the water temperature increases,
the wind velocity increases and the moisture content increases. And you'll
see Hurricane Katrina form over Florida. And then as it comes into the Gulf
over warm water it becomes stronger and stronger and stronger. Look at that
Hurricane's eye. And of course the consequences were so horrendous; there
are no words to describe it. "
ERROR 8
Polar bears "dying"
Which is lie #8 for Cato

This is what Gore said about Polar Bears.

"So there is a faster build up of heat here at the North Pole in the Arctic
Ocean and the Arctic generally than any where else on the planet. That's not
good for creatures like polar bears that depend on the ice. A new scientific
study shows that for the first time they're finding polar bears that have
actually drowned, swimming long distances up to 60 miles to find the ice.
They did not find that before."

Which is correct.
ERROR 9
Gore says coral reefs are "bleaching" because of "global warming."
They are not. There was some bleaching in 1998, but this was caused by
the exceptional El Nino Southern Oscillation that year.
Which is error #9 from Cato.

And what is El Nino? A Warming of the Pacific surface waters.

So acccording to Cato, here, it isn't the warming of the earth's oceans
that causes coral bleaching, in th pacific, it's the rise of pacific ocean
temperatures.

MMMMMMMMMOOOOOOOOOOORRRRRRRRRRRROOOOOOOOONNNNNNN
ERROR 10
100 ppmv of CO2 "melting mile-thick ice"
And that is lie 10 out of 10 for Cato.

The phrase "melting mile-thick ice." never appears in Gores Documentary.
ERROR 11
Hurricane Caterina "manmade"
Which is lie # 11 for Cato A repeat of Lie #7

This is what Gore says about Katrina.

"And then of course came Katrina. It is worth remembering that when it hit
Florida it was a Category 1, but it killed a lot of people and caused
billions of dollars worth of damage. And then, what happened? Before it hit
New Orleans, it went over warmer water. As the water temperature increases,
the wind velocity increases and the moisture content increases. And you'll
see Hurricane Katrina form over Florida. And then as it comes into the Gulf
over warm water it becomes stronger and stronger and stronger. Look at that
Hurricane's eye. And of course the consequences were so horrendous; there
are no words to describe it. "
ERROR 12
Japanese typhoons "a new record"
Which is lie # 12 for Cato.

Warmer Seas Creating Stronger Hurricane, Study Confirms
by Ker Than


http://www.commondreams.org/headlines06/0317-08.htm
ERROR 13
Hurricanes "getting stronger"
Which is lie # 13 for Cato
.
Warmer Seas Creating Stronger Hurricane, Study Confirms
by Ker Than

http://www.commondreams.org/headlines06/0317-08.htm
ERROR 14
Big storm insurances losses "increasing"
Which is lie # 14 for Cato
Weather-Related Insurance Losses Doubled in '07
30 Dec 07
Losses to insurers from natural disasters nearly doubled this year to just
below $30 billion globally after an unusually quiet 2006, a leading
reinsurer said, from winter storms in Europe, flooding in Britain and
wildfires in the U.S.

http://www.desmogblog.com/weather-related-insurance-losses-doubled-in-07
ERROR 15
Mumbai "flooding"
Which is lie # 15 for Cato.
Mumbai did flood.

The Maharashtra floods of 2005 refers to the flooding of many parts of the
Indian state of Maharashtra including large areas of the metropolis Mumbai,
a city located on the coast of the Arabian Sea, on the western coast of
India, in which at least 1,000 people died. It occurred just one month after
similar flooding in Gujarat.
The floods were caused by the eighth heaviest ever recorded 24-hour rainfall
figure of 944 mm (37.2 inches) which lashed the metropolis on 26 July 2005,
and intermittently continued for the next day. 644 mm (25.4 inches) was
received within the 12-hr period between 8am and 8pm. Torrential rainfall
continued for the next week.
ERROR 16
Severe tornadoes "more frequent"
Which is lie # 16 for Cato.
Reconstructing the frequency of tornado occurrence in the central United
States

Matthew J. Menne, NOAA/NESDIS/NCDC, Asheville, NC

Evidence is presented that the apparent decrease in strong-to-violent
tornado frequency since 1950 implied by the official storm archive is
inconsistent with the radiosonde record. Abrupt changes in the bias of the
reconstruction, that is, the ratio of the number of tornado soundings
predicted to the number observed, are shown to be coincident with changes in
storm classification procedures that occurred during the 1970s and the early
1990s. Rather than a decrease in frequency since the 1950s, the
reconstruction suggests that supercell tornado frequency has been reasonably
stationary until the 1990s when some increase in frequency is suggested.
ERROR 17
The sun "heats the Arctic ocean"
Which is lie # 17 for Cato.

The sun does heat the arctic ocean from the moment the sun rises over the
arctic ocean.

MMMMMMMMOOOOOOOOORRRRRRRRRRROOOOOOOOOOONNNNNNNN
ERROR 18
Arctic "warming fastest" Gore says the Arctic has been warming faster
than the rest of the planet. It is not.
Which is lie #18 by Cato.
Arctic warming at twice global rate
Shaoni Bhattacharya

17:58 02 November 2004
NewScientist.com news service
Global warming in the Arctic is happening now, warns the most comprehensive
scientific report to date. The reports concludes that the northern ice cap
is warming at twice the global rate and that this will lead to serious
consequences for the planet.

http://www.newscientist.com/article/dn6615-arctic-warming-at-twice-global-rate.html
ERROR 19
Greenland ice sheet "unstable"
Which is lie #19 by Cato.

The word "unstable" never appears in Gore's award winning documentary - "An
Inconvenient Truth".
ERROR 20
Himalayan glacial melt waters "failing"
Which is lie #20 by Cato.

The word "failing" never appears in Gore's award winning documentary - "An
Inconvenient Truth."
Addinall
2008-05-06 11:19:49 UTC
Permalink
Post by John M.
Post by John M.
Post by Fran
Post by Addinall
[...]
Post by Fran
And so correct policy is what? Sit on the railroad tracks and await a
passing train?
Post by Ralph
The science and technology exists to change this.  The governments just
don't want it.
Oh I believe it is changing, but I'm unconvinced that the speed with
which this is happening matches the urgency of the challenge.
Urgent is somewhat of a statement plucked from fantasy land.
http://www.addinall.net/climate_history.jpg
Well?
http://www.addinall.net/uah_monthly_global_temperature_anomalies_1998...
Well?
http://www.addinall.net/rss_monthly_global_temperature_anomalies_1998...
Well?
Doesn't look very urgent does it?
Why pick a ten-year timeline? Why not ten minutes? As everybody knows,
in the long run, we all live in the present.
Why indeed?  You dont like the first graph,as it shows climate over
a very long time series, you don't like the newer decadle graphs
because they show climate over a shorter duration.  You want a time
series that is 'just right' for your insane warming predictions and
hubris
to think the Earth is taking some notice of what brand of light bulb
Fran is using.
AGW is crap.  Demonstratable crap.  The 'average' global temperature
in
1998 was a whopping 14.57.  And with ten years of EVIL right wing
humans
(mostly China and the USSA) pumping billions and squillions of tonnes
of NOXIOUS CO2 into the air, the temperature CLIMBED to a catastrophic
14.57 in 2007!   DOOM!  DOOM!  That's an increase of NEARLY, well no,
exactly 0C!!!!
What a bunch of fucking nonsense and kiddology you people spout.
What "urgent" challenge do we face?  I can think of ten off the top of
my head.
Reducing the DRASTIC increase in global 'average' temperature away
from the
0C peak is not one of them.
Is ten years, from independent sources not long enough time to meter
temperatures?  Several thousand of times a day?  At a cost of billions
of dollars?
Then what is?  Al Gore?  Wikken Chant Groups? Being an avid reader
of Green Left Weekly? Drum beating?  Tea leaves perhaps?
This is OBSERVED data.  Not something dreamed up in a peyote
induced epiphany of goodness and light.  Here are the results of
those billions of dollars of effort.
www.addinall.net/rss.bmpwww.addinall.net/hadcrut.bmpwww.addinall.net/...
(respects to hadcrut, rss and uad for making data available)
So what do you make of the last decade?
Come on, your own analysis, not some cut and paste
from "Unemployable Scruffy Tree Huggers Blog-O-The-Day".
What does Fran interperet this data as?
I see little point in anyone replying to posts like this. You have an
attitude problem that obviously clouds any objectivity you may
once have possessed.
I sure do.  I have an attitude that the small amount of tax money
available for the improvement of society, locally and globally,
be spent on something worthwhile.  Not mystic voodoo proposed as
science by some fundie christian in a $10,000 suit, and a bunch
of retarded scruffy hangers-on that somehow feel they are part
of the 'scientific consensus'.  Spit.  What is that?
Impossible to explain to someone like yourself,
Oh, run away then John Boy.
Post by John M.
whose posts show no
sign of an open, inquiring mind - this latter is the first requirement
of science.
Thank you for a lesson in Science. I do it for a living,
so it's nice to know I have been mis-guided for the last
few decades.
Post by John M.
If you have opinions, hopefully with some facts, then trot
them out John Boy.
You already have my opinion,
But no facts. Just opinion.
Post by John M.
so I won't re-iterate. It has been
factually reinforced by this post.
Indeed it has.
Post by John M.
No doubt you will provide further
facts with your next response.
All I see is bullshit, bad science and wooly headed people who
can't mount an argument to the level I expect from my ten
year old nephew.
Argument in ten-year-olds usually amounts to simple contradiction and
gainsaying of the others. You seem to have that level pretty well
taped.
So, produce the facts to this catastropic global warming, data sets,
methodology, abstract and conclusions and I'll read it.

Mark Addinall.
John M.
2008-05-06 17:20:42 UTC
Permalink
Post by Addinall
Post by John M.
Post by Addinall
Post by John M.
Post by Addinall
Post by Fran
Post by Addinall
[...]
Post by Fran
And so correct policy is what? Sit on the railroad tracks and await a
passing train?
Post by Ralph
The science and technology exists to change this. The governments just
don't want it.
Oh I believe it is changing, but I'm unconvinced that the speed with
which this is happening matches the urgency of the challenge.
Urgent is somewhat of a statement plucked from fantasy land.
http://www.addinall.net/climate_history.jpg
Well?
http://www.addinall.net/uah_monthly_global_temperature_anomalies_1998...
Well?
http://www.addinall.net/rss_monthly_global_temperature_anomalies_1998...
Well?
Doesn't look very urgent does it?
Why pick a ten-year timeline? Why not ten minutes? As everybody knows,
in the long run, we all live in the present.
Why indeed? You dont like the first graph,as it shows climate over
a very long time series, you don't like the newer decadle graphs
because they show climate over a shorter duration. You want a time
series that is 'just right' for your insane warming predictions and
hubris
to think the Earth is taking some notice of what brand of light bulb
Fran is using.
AGW is crap. Demonstratable crap. The 'average' global temperature
in
1998 was a whopping 14.57. And with ten years of EVIL right wing
humans
(mostly China and the USSA) pumping billions and squillions of tonnes
of NOXIOUS CO2 into the air, the temperature CLIMBED to a catastrophic
14.57 in 2007! DOOM! DOOM! That's an increase of NEARLY, well no,
exactly 0C!!!!
What a bunch of fucking nonsense and kiddology you people spout.
What "urgent" challenge do we face? I can think of ten off the top of
my head.
Reducing the DRASTIC increase in global 'average' temperature away
from the
0C peak is not one of them.
Is ten years, from independent sources not long enough time to meter
temperatures? Several thousand of times a day? At a cost of billions
of dollars?
Then what is? Al Gore? Wikken Chant Groups? Being an avid reader
of Green Left Weekly? Drum beating? Tea leaves perhaps?
This is OBSERVED data. Not something dreamed up in a peyote
induced epiphany of goodness and light. Here are the results of
those billions of dollars of effort.
www.addinall.net/rss.bmpwww.addinall.net/hadcrut.bmpwww.addinall.net/...
(respects to hadcrut, rss and uad for making data available)
So what do you make of the last decade?
Come on, your own analysis, not some cut and paste
from "Unemployable Scruffy Tree Huggers Blog-O-The-Day".
What does Fran interperet this data as?
I see little point in anyone replying to posts like this. You have an
attitude problem that obviously clouds any objectivity you may
once have possessed.
I sure do. I have an attitude that the small amount of tax money
available for the improvement of society, locally and globally,
be spent on something worthwhile. Not mystic voodoo proposed as
science by some fundie christian in a $10,000 suit, and a bunch
of retarded scruffy hangers-on that somehow feel they are part
of the 'scientific consensus'. Spit. What is that?
Impossible to explain to someone like yourself,
Oh, run away then John Boy.
Post by John M.
whose posts show no
sign of an open, inquiring mind - this latter is the first requirement
of science.
Thank you for a lesson in Science. I do it for a living,
Shame about that. But every barrel has to have a few rotten apples in
it. And I've seen a number of them in my time as a scientist to know
which is which. Yep - there are a few in climate science too, as far
as I can tell, but that has never been one of my fields.
Post by Addinall
so it's nice to know I have been mis-guided for the last
few decades.
Post by John M.
Post by Addinall
If you have opinions, hopefully with some facts, then trot
them out John Boy.
You already have my opinion,
But no facts. Just opinion.
Post by John M.
so I won't re-iterate. It has been
factually reinforced by this post.
Indeed it has.
Post by John M.
No doubt you will provide further
facts with your next response.
Post by Addinall
All I see is bullshit, bad science and wooly headed people who
can't mount an argument to the level I expect from my ten
year old nephew.
Argument in ten-year-olds usually amounts to simple contradiction and
gainsaying of the others. You seem to have that level pretty well
taped.
So, produce the facts to this catastropic global warming, data sets,
methodology, abstract and conclusions and I'll read it.
Are you telling us that you have come onto this ng to criticise the
case for CC by AGW without first appraising yourself of the relevant
data sets, methodology, abstract and conclusions? And then imagine
that someone here is daft enough to hash it all up for you? Do your
own research, lazy prat..
Addinall
2008-05-10 04:04:28 UTC
Permalink
Post by John M.
Post by Addinall
Post by John M.
Post by John M.
Post by Fran
Post by Addinall
[...]
Post by Fran
And so correct policy is what? Sit on the railroad tracks and await a
passing train?
Post by Ralph
The science and technology exists to change this.  The governments just
don't want it.
Oh I believe it is changing, but I'm unconvinced that the speed with
which this is happening matches the urgency of the challenge.
Urgent is somewhat of a statement plucked from fantasy land.
http://www.addinall.net/climate_history.jpg
Well?
http://www.addinall.net/uah_monthly_global_temperature_anomalies_1998...
Well?
http://www.addinall.net/rss_monthly_global_temperature_anomalies_1998...
Well?
Doesn't look very urgent does it?
Why pick a ten-year timeline? Why not ten minutes? As everybody knows,
in the long run, we all live in the present.
Why indeed?  You dont like the first graph,as it shows climate over
a very long time series, you don't like the newer decadle graphs
because they show climate over a shorter duration.  You want a time
series that is 'just right' for your insane warming predictions and
hubris
to think the Earth is taking some notice of what brand of light bulb
Fran is using.
AGW is crap.  Demonstratable crap.  The 'average' global temperature
in
1998 was a whopping 14.57.  And with ten years of EVIL right wing
humans
(mostly China and the USSA) pumping billions and squillions of tonnes
of NOXIOUS CO2 into the air, the temperature CLIMBED to a catastrophic
14.57 in 2007!   DOOM!  DOOM!  That's an increase of NEARLY, well no,
exactly 0C!!!!
What a bunch of fucking nonsense and kiddology you people spout.
What "urgent" challenge do we face?  I can think of ten off the top of
my head.
Reducing the DRASTIC increase in global 'average' temperature away
from the
0C peak is not one of them.
Is ten years, from independent sources not long enough time to meter
temperatures?  Several thousand of times a day?  At a cost of billions
of dollars?
Then what is?  Al Gore?  Wikken Chant Groups? Being an avid reader
of Green Left Weekly? Drum beating?  Tea leaves perhaps?
This is OBSERVED data.  Not something dreamed up in a peyote
induced epiphany of goodness and light.  Here are the results of
those billions of dollars of effort.
www.addinall.net/rss.bmpwww.addinall.net/hadcrut.bmpwww.addinall.net/...
(respects to hadcrut, rss and uad for making data available)
So what do you make of the last decade?
Come on, your own analysis, not some cut and paste
from "Unemployable Scruffy Tree Huggers Blog-O-The-Day".
What does Fran interperet this data as?
I see little point in anyone replying to posts like this. You have an
So you did anyway?
Post by John M.
Post by Addinall
Post by John M.
Post by John M.
attitude problem that obviously clouds any objectivity you may
once have possessed.
I sure do.  I have an attitude that the small amount of tax money
available for the improvement of society, locally and globally,
be spent on something worthwhile.  Not mystic voodoo proposed as
science by some fundie christian in a $10,000 suit, and a bunch
of retarded scruffy hangers-on that somehow feel they are part
of the 'scientific consensus'.  Spit.  What is that?
Impossible to explain to someone like yourself,
Oh, run away then John Boy.
Post by John M.
whose posts show no
sign of an open, inquiring mind - this latter is the first requirement
of science.
Thank you for a lesson in Science.  I do it for a living,
Shame about that. But every barrel has to have a few rotten apples in
it. And I've seen a number of them in my time as a scientist to know
which is which. Yep - there are a few in climate science too, as far
as I can tell, but that has never been one of my fields.
Yo-Yo isn't a field.
Post by John M.
Post by Addinall
so it's nice to know I have been mis-guided for the last
few decades.
Post by John M.
If you have opinions, hopefully with some facts, then trot
them out John Boy.
You already have my opinion,
But no facts.  Just opinion.
Post by John M.
so I won't re-iterate. It has been
factually reinforced by this post.
Indeed it has.
Post by John M.
No doubt you will provide further
facts with your next response.
All I see is bullshit, bad science and wooly headed people who
can't mount an argument to the level I expect from my ten
year old nephew.
Argument in ten-year-olds usually amounts to simple contradiction and
gainsaying of the others. You seem to have that level pretty well
taped.
So, produce the facts to this catastropic global warming, data sets,
methodology, abstract and conclusions and I'll read it.
Are you telling us that you have come onto this ng to criticise the
case for CC by AGW without first appraising yourself of the relevant
data sets, methodology, abstract and conclusions?
However, I have. Hence "all I can see is bullshit and bad science".
I initially took "Global Warming" on board as probably true, but
having an enquiring mind, and a tenacity for analysis, I underwent
about eight years of reviewing published information with the
conclusion that absolutely nothing out of the ordinary is happening.

The wheels seem to be falling off the global disaster religion, with
more and more scientists from many fields returning to the rule
that if the observed data does not match the hypothesis, then the
hypothesis is wrong and should be discarded. And NOT try to
massage the data into representing a belief or wish.

There is SO much wrong with the AGW assumptions when
compared to the observable facts in the harsh light of day,
I'm suprised anyone has the temerity to back it any longer.

Truly a well established meme.
Post by John M.
And then imagine
that someone here is daft enough to hash it all up for you? Do your
own research, lazy prat
Here's a read.

http://www.uah.edu/News/pdf/climatemodel.pdf


Lazy I am not. Nor stupid.

Done my own research. Have you"

Stupid cunt.

Mark Addinall.
V for Vendicar
2008-06-15 07:53:29 UTC
Permalink
Post by Addinall
However, I have. Hence "all I can see is bullshit and bad science".
I initially took "Global Warming" on board as probably true, but
having an enquiring mind, and a tenacity for analysis, I underwent
about eight years of reviewing published information with the
conclusion that absolutely nothing out of the ordinary is happening.
And that is why you have referred to averages as "voodoo".

Ahahahahahahah

Addinall - Science illiterate.
V for Vendicar
2008-06-15 07:51:30 UTC
Permalink
Post by Addinall
Thank you for a lesson in Science. I do it for a living,
so it's nice to know I have been mis-guided for the last
few decades.
Ah, so you are completely incompetent at your profession then.

Just as we all suspected.
z
2008-05-05 17:05:03 UTC
Permalink
Post by Addinall
All I see is bullshit, bad science and wooly headed people who
can't mount an argument to the level I expect from my ten
year old nephew.
well, maybe you and your ten year old nephew can post a refutation of
the IPCC reports. probably have to have more beef to it than a couple
of paragraphs of random insults to be convincing, though.
Addinall
2008-05-06 11:34:03 UTC
Permalink
Post by z
Post by Addinall
All I see is bullshit, bad science and wooly headed people who
can't mount an argument to the level I expect from my ten
year old nephew.
well, maybe you and your ten year old nephew can post a refutation of
the IPCC reports.
Easily. Find me some funding from a Green group and I'll
write it up. I wouldn't want to be considered part of 'BIG OIL'.
So if you watermelons are interested in an analysis of published
data and papers, I'll be happy to write it up for you.

Meanwhile, I'll just keep prodding you idiots with a sharp stick!
Post by z
probably have to have more beef to it than a couple
of paragraphs of random insults to be convincing, though.
I love recursion.

Mark Addinall.
V for Vendicar
2008-06-15 07:59:46 UTC
Permalink
Post by Addinall
So if you watermelons are interested in an analysis of published
data and papers, I'll be happy to write it up for you.
Do you think that your grade school newspaper would publish it?
V for Vendicar
2008-06-15 07:45:38 UTC
Permalink
Post by Addinall
I have an attitude that the small amount of tax money
available for the improvement of society, locally and globally,
be spent on something worthwhile.
So your point is that none of the money spent by cosumers and given to
Corporate AmeriKKKa does nothing to improve society.

I see.
Post by Addinall
Not mystic voodoo proposed as science by some fundie christian in a
$10,000 suit, and a bunch
of retarded scruffy hangers-on that somehow feel they are partof the
'scientific consensus'. Spit. What is that?
Ahahahahahah......... Averages aren't voodoo Addinall, although to someone
as ignorant as yourself I suppose they might as well be.

You are one hell of an ignorant LLLLOOOOOOOOOSSSSSSSSEEEEEEEEEERRRRRRRRRR
Fran
2008-05-06 02:52:09 UTC
Permalink
Post by Fran
Post by Addinall
[...]
Post by Fran
And so correct policy is what? Sit on the railroad tracks and await a
passing train?
Post by Ralph
The science and technology exists to change this.  The governments just
don't want it.
Oh I believe it is changing, but I'm unconvinced that the speed with
which this is happening matches the urgency of the challenge.
Urgent is somewhat of a statement plucked from fantasy land.
http://www.addinall.net/climate_history.jpg
Well?
http://www.addinall.net/uah_monthly_global_temperature_anomalies_1998...
Well?
http://www.addinall.net/rss_monthly_global_temperature_anomalies_1998...
Well?
Doesn't look very urgent does it?
Why pick a ten-year timeline? Why not ten minutes? As everybody knows,
in the long run, we all live in the present.
Why indeed?  You dont like the first graph,as it shows climate over
a very long time series,
I neither like nor dislike it. I simply fail to see its relevance to
the contemporary climate. It spans periods of time that mkae all of
the period since the Younger Dryas seem like a blink of the eye. It
describes shifts in temperature and CO2 that are orders of magnitude
slower than is the case today. It refers to a planet the exposed land
masses of which were, for the most part, radically differently
configured than at present. Since this configuration (and the nearly 7
billion people currently on the planet) are key considerations in
working out how to respond, the data, though interesting, simply isn't
of immediate relevance.
you don't like the newer decadle graphs
because they show climate over a shorter duration.  
Here, the sample is too small and the influence of events bearing only
an indirect connection with climate change -- El Nino/La Nina for
example can influence the interpretation in ways that are flawed. The
roughly 11-year cycle between solar maxima and minim is also overlaid
on this and moreover, it takes about 30 years for heat at the surface
of the ocean to penetrate the deeper ocean. Since heat transports are
a factor in global climate, a rolling 30 year period seems the best
useful benchmark.
You want a time
series that is 'just right'
I want one that is meanigful, whatever it says. When a handful of
scientists in the early 1970s speculated on the approach of a new ice
age, they had about 30 years of temperature data and the model of the
Milankovitch cycles to work with. They overlooked the masking effect
of airborne sulphates, but the baseline data set was at least large
enough to raise the question.

If you want me to speculate on the meaning of 2007 in context, you'll
need to ask me in about 2038.

<snip rant>
So what do you make of the last decade?
I make of it that it's consistent with accepting that the sharp
increase in temperatures since the late 1970s is part of a pattern
rather than a cyclic anomaly. When you take out the El Nino and La
Nina years as outliers, you still get a cluster of the hottest years
for which there are some reasonable data going back more than 10,000
years.



Fran
Addinall
2008-05-06 11:13:13 UTC
Permalink
Post by Fran
Post by Fran
Post by Addinall
[...]
Post by Fran
And so correct policy is what? Sit on the railroad tracks and await a
passing train?
Post by Ralph
The science and technology exists to change this.  The governments just
don't want it.
Oh I believe it is changing, but I'm unconvinced that the speed with
which this is happening matches the urgency of the challenge.
Urgent is somewhat of a statement plucked from fantasy land.
http://www.addinall.net/climate_history.jpg
Well?
http://www.addinall.net/uah_monthly_global_temperature_anomalies_1998...
Well?
http://www.addinall.net/rss_monthly_global_temperature_anomalies_1998...
Well?
Doesn't look very urgent does it?
Why pick a ten-year timeline? Why not ten minutes? As everybody knows,
in the long run, we all live in the present.
Why indeed?  You dont like the first graph,as it shows climate over
a very long time series,
I neither like nor dislike it. I simply fail to see its relevance to
the contemporary climate. It spans periods of time that mkae all of
the period since the Younger Dryas seem like a blink of the eye. It
describes shifts in temperature and CO2 that are orders of magnitude
slower than is the case today.
You're not really sure what an order of magnitude is, are you?
Sounds nice. A bit like 'exponential' increases in temperature.
I find the increase in the last ten years at exactly 0C from the
Watermelon data as quite un-remarkable.

And the last thirty years data is un-remarkable as well. As is
the last hundred years, and the last two hundred years, and the
last five hundred years.

A 'massive' temperature cline that wobbles in between 14.3C and
14.8C is a nothing event. Especially when it bears no correlation
to the amount of free CO2 being 'manufactured'. It just doesn't
add up at all.

Any decent scientist would abandon the AGW theory in search of
something
that was at least close to OBSERVABLE data.
Post by Fran
It refers to a planet the exposed land
masses of which were, for the most part, radically differently
configured than at present. Since this configuration (and the nearly 7
billion people currently on the planet) are key considerations in
working out how to respond,
Respond to what?
Post by Fran
the data, though interesting, simply isn't
of immediate relevance.
Facts are rarely relevant to this new religion.
Post by Fran
you don't like the newer decadle graphs
because they show climate over a shorter duration.  
Here, the sample is too small and the influence of events bearing only
an indirect connection with climate change
So the first set of data is TOOOOOO big,
And the last set of data is TOOOOOO small,
so, .....
Post by Fran
-- El Nino/La Nina for
example can influence the interpretation in ways that are flawed.
How in the hell can natural events like the recurring El Nino,
La Nina climate shifts be considered 'flawed' because they don't
fix your touted 'models'?!

"It's not getting warmer because some flawed and natural events
(that we don't even begin to understand) are fucking up the
results predicted by our models"? Is that really your
argument? Climate MUST follow YOUR model, and if
OBSERVABLE data doesn't fit, we dismiss the data and
not the hypothesis?
Post by Fran
The
roughly 11-year cycle between solar maxima and minim is also overlaid
on this and moreover, it takes about 30 years for heat at the surface
of the ocean to penetrate the deeper ocean.
Does it? You lot got oceanography all wrapped up as well?
There's a few people I know who would like the final and
definitive book of answers to oceanic circulation and
mixing. Which page of Green-Left Weekly is this on?
Just as a selfish afterthough, does it also describe how
water works? That could save me some time.
Post by Fran
Since heat transports are
a factor in global climate, a rolling 30 year period seems the best
useful benchmark.
Fran has found JUST RIGHT!
From when, last Wednesday or the start of next pay month?
Post by Fran
You want a time
series that is 'just right'
I want one that is meanigful, whatever it says.
However, if a time series says something you don't like,
it is discounted as TOOOOO long, or TOOOOO short!
Post by Fran
When a handful of
scientists in the early 1970s speculated on the approach of a new ice
age, they had about 30 years of temperature data and the model of the
Milankovitch cycles to work with. They overlooked the masking effect
of airborne sulphates,
And you pointed that out to the mere handfull? Did you
write it up anywhere?
Post by Fran
but the baseline data set was at least large
enough to raise the question.
If you want me to speculate on the meaning of 2007 in context, you'll
need to ask me in about 2038.
So rolling averages no longer have any statistical meaning?
Fran,as a kiddie school teacher you may be just adequate
as a sort of a Creche. As a statistician you need to go
back to the basics and start learning about the crap
you propose. It's banal and embarresing to point out your
elementry mistakes, not only in technique, but in understanding.
Post by Fran
<snip rant>
So what do you make of the last decade?
I make of it that it's consistent with accepting that the sharp
increase in temperatures
What sharp increase? I can't see one.
Why? It doesn't exist.
Post by Fran
since the late 1970s is part of a pattern
rather than a cyclic anomaly. When you take out the El Nino and La
Nina years as outliers, you still get a cluster of the hottest years
for which there are some reasonable data going back more than 10,000
years.
God you are sadly undereducated.

Mark Addinall.
Fran
2008-05-06 11:44:29 UTC
Permalink
Post by Addinall
Post by Fran
Post by Fran
Post by Addinall
[...]
Post by Fran
And so correct policy is what? Sit on the railroad tracks and await a
passing train?
Post by Ralph
The science and technology exists to change this.  The governments just
don't want it.
Oh I believe it is changing, but I'm unconvinced that the speed with
which this is happening matches the urgency of the challenge.
Urgent is somewhat of a statement plucked from fantasy land.
http://www.addinall.net/climate_history.jpg
Well?
http://www.addinall.net/uah_monthly_global_temperature_anomalies_1998...
Well?
http://www.addinall.net/rss_monthly_global_temperature_anomalies_1998...
Well?
Doesn't look very urgent does it?
Why pick a ten-year timeline? Why not ten minutes? As everybody knows,
in the long run, we all live in the present.
Why indeed?  You dont like the first graph,as it shows climate over
a very long time series,
I neither like nor dislike it. I simply fail to see its relevance to
the contemporary climate. It spans periods of time that mkae all of
the period since the Younger Dryas seem like a blink of the eye. It
describes shifts in temperature and CO2 that are orders of magnitude
slower than is the case today.
You're not really sure what an order of magnitude is, are you?
Sounds nice.
It's also applicable. Depnding which two things you're comparing,
increases in CO2 happened 1/30th or 1/40th as fast as now (which is
greater than one order of magnitude.
Post by Addinall
A bit like 'exponential' increases in temperature.
I find the increase in the last ten years at exactly 0C from the
Watermelon data as quite un-remarkable.
Well then, there's your problem. You're using duff data. GIGO
Post by Addinall
And the last thirty years data is un-remarkable as well.  As is
the last hundred years, and the last two hundred years, and the
last five hundred years.
As I said. You're using duff data. GIGO
Post by Addinall
A 'massive' temperature cline that wobbles in between 14.3C and
14.8C is a nothing event.  Especially when it bears no correlation
to the amount of free CO2 being 'manufactured'.  It just doesn't
add up at all.
Well let's see if the next 20 years bears this out. In the meantime,
let's get on with doiung what we ought to do even if it were 'a
nothing event' because the risks and costs of doing nothing on this
basis are anacceptably high and because there are benefits to acting
even if it makes no difference to temperature movement.
Post by Addinall
Any decent scientist would abandon the AGW theory in search of
something
that was at least close to OBSERVABLE data.
No true Scotsman ...
Post by Addinall
Post by Fran
It refers to a planet the exposed land
masses of which were, for the most part, radically differently
configured than at present. Since this configuration (and the nearly 7
billion people currently on the planet) are key considerations in
working out how to respond,
Respond to what?
To climate change, silly duffer. Pay attention.
Post by Addinall
Post by Fran
the data, though interesting, simply isn't
of immediate relevance.
Facts are rarely relevant to this new religion.
You mean the Denialist religion at the altar of which you pray? The
one in which you give daily thanks to the GPC for what you are about
to receive?
Post by Addinall
Post by Fran
you don't like the newer decadle graphs
because they show climate over a shorter duration.  
Here, the sample is too small and the influence of events bearing only
an indirect connection with climate change
So the first set of data is TOOOOOO big,
And the last set of data is TOOOOOO small,
so, .....
Yes
Post by Addinall
Post by Fran
-- El Nino/La Nina for
example can influence the interpretation in ways that are flawed.
How in the hell can natural events like the recurring El Nino,
La Nina climate shifts be considered 'flawed' because they don't
fix your touted 'models'?!
Silly chappy ... Including this 'noise' contaminates the data.
Post by Addinall
"It's not getting warmer because some flawed and natural events
(that we don't even begin to understand) are fucking up the
results predicted by our models"?  Is that really your
argument?  Climate MUST follow YOUR model, and if
OBSERVABLE data doesn't fit, we dismiss the data and
not the hypothesis?
Are you claiming that El Nino and La Nina are driven by GHG?
Post by Addinall
Post by Fran
The
roughly 11-year cycle between solar maxima and minim is also overlaid
on this and moreover, it takes about 30 years for heat at the surface
of the ocean to penetrate the deeper ocean.
Does it?  You lot got oceanography all wrapped up as well?
There's a few people I know who would like the final and
definitive book of answers to oceanic circulation and
mixing.  Which page of Green-Left Weekly is this on?
Just as a selfish afterthough, does it also describe how
water works?  That could save me some time.
I'd sooner see you turn on the water works and get back in touch with
your feminine side.
Post by Addinall
Post by Fran
Since heat transports are
a factor in global climate, a rolling 30 year period seems the best
useful benchmark.
Fran has found JUST RIGHT!
From when, last Wednesday or the start of next pay month?
Now Marky, as I said the other week, I'm not going to condemn you for
seeking to salve your pain in here by doing your schtick, but really,
you nneed to move on. Deep inside there's a man of wit and
perspicacity and empathy for something more than stromatloites
struggling to get out. Right now though he's locked up as securely as
those unfortunates in that Austrian sociopath's dungeon. Let's hope
that torured prisoner doesn't have to wait another 24 years for
release. Let your person go!

<snip>

Fran
Addinall
2008-05-10 05:02:27 UTC
Permalink
Post by Fran
Post by Addinall
Post by Fran
Post by Fran
Post by Addinall
[...]
Post by Fran
And so correct policy is what? Sit on the railroad tracks and await a
passing train?
Post by Ralph
The science and technology exists to change this.  The governments just
don't want it.
Oh I believe it is changing, but I'm unconvinced that the speed with
which this is happening matches the urgency of the challenge.
Urgent is somewhat of a statement plucked from fantasy land.
http://www.addinall.net/climate_history.jpg
Well?
http://www.addinall.net/uah_monthly_global_temperature_anomalies_1998...
Well?
http://www.addinall.net/rss_monthly_global_temperature_anomalies_1998...
Well?
Doesn't look very urgent does it?
Why pick a ten-year timeline? Why not ten minutes? As everybody knows,
in the long run, we all live in the present.
Why indeed?  You dont like the first graph,as it shows climate over
a very long time series,
I neither like nor dislike it. I simply fail to see its relevance to
the contemporary climate. It spans periods of time that mkae all of
the period since the Younger Dryas seem like a blink of the eye. It
describes shifts in temperature and CO2 that are orders of magnitude
slower than is the case today.
You're not really sure what an order of magnitude is, are you?
Sounds nice.
It's also applicable. Depnding which two things you're comparing,
increases in CO2 happened 1/30th or 1/40th as fast as now (which is
greater than one order of magnitude.
First, you need to look up what "order of magnitude" means.
Only you will be suprised that you are wrong.

Secondly, it's nonsense.

Loading Image...
Post by Fran
Post by Addinall
A bit like 'exponential' increases in temperature.
I find the increase in the last ten years at exactly 0C from the
Watermelon data as quite un-remarkable.
Well then, there's your problem. You're using duff data. GIGO
So, you and only you have the 'real' datasets? Why not publish?
Post by Fran
Post by Addinall
And the last thirty years data is un-remarkable as well.  As is
the last hundred years, and the last two hundred years, and the
last five hundred years.
As I said. You're using duff data. GIGO
I'm using OBSERVABLE data. You are selling religion
(not well I might add).
Post by Fran
Post by Addinall
A 'massive' temperature cline that wobbles in between 14.3C and
14.8C is a nothing event.  Especially when it bears no correlation
to the amount of free CO2 being 'manufactured'.  It just doesn't
add up at all.
Well let's see if the next 20 years bears this out. In the meantime,
let's get on with doiung what we ought to do even if it were 'a
nothing event' because the risks and costs of doing nothing on this
basis are anacceptably high and because there are benefits to acting
even if it makes no difference to temperature movement.
The world will tick along without Fran, Mark, and whatever brand of
light bulbs we are using. "Global Warming" is a vehicle for hubris
to make people think they are a little more important than they
actually are. And a vehicle for draining more money into the
coffers of a selected few 'carbon traders'. It's also a good ruse to
kill
the rest of those damn niggers you missed when banning DDT.
Post by Fran
Post by Addinall
Any decent scientist would abandon the AGW theory in search of
something
that was at least close to OBSERVABLE data.
No true Scotsman ...
There have been plenty of fine Scot scientists. My background is
not Scottish, but a Yorkshireman. I am unsure what my ethnic mix
has to do with your rant? Care to clarify?
Post by Fran
Post by Addinall
Post by Fran
It refers to a planet the exposed land
masses of which were, for the most part, radically differently
configured than at present. Since this configuration (and the nearly 7
billion people currently on the planet) are key considerations in
working out how to respond,
Respond to what?
To climate change, silly duffer. Pay attention.
So we are supposed to 'respond' to climate change? How
exactly? By destroying our economy? That's a good
first move. The poorer we get, the less aid we will be able
to give those pesky poor niggers. And it might get rid
of the undesirable old people from the planet.
Post by Fran
Post by Addinall
Post by Fran
the data, though interesting, simply isn't
of immediate relevance.
Facts are rarely relevant to this new religion.
You mean the Denialist religion at the altar of which you pray? The
one in which you give daily thanks to the GPC for what you are about
to receive?
'Denialist' religion? I had thought that denial of dogma was the
antithesis
of religion? You seem to be the one suffering a new religion, whilst
I
bask in the comradship of my old and dear friends, tables, sets,
graphs, numbers, and the Biometrika (parts I and II.).
Post by Fran
Post by Addinall
Post by Fran
you don't like the newer decadle graphs
because they show climate over a shorter duration.  
Here, the sample is too small and the influence of events bearing only
an indirect connection with climate change
So the first set of data is TOOOOOO big,
And the last set of data is TOOOOOO small,
so, .....
Yes
So you have picked a data set that almost, nearly, maybe
fits your rotten hypothesis?!

It is to laugh!
Post by Fran
Post by Addinall
Post by Fran
-- El Nino/La Nina for
example can influence the interpretation in ways that are flawed.
How in the hell can natural events like the recurring El Nino,
La Nina climate shifts be considered 'flawed' because they don't
fix your touted 'models'?!
Silly chappy ... Including this 'noise' contaminates the data.
So, including real, observable, and cyclic data into the model
somehow corrupts the data generated by simplistic models
does it? Well that comes as a suprise.
Post by Fran
Post by Addinall
"It's not getting warmer because some flawed and natural events
(that we don't even begin to understand) are fucking up the
results predicted by our models"?  Is that really your
argument?  Climate MUST follow YOUR model, and if
OBSERVABLE data doesn't fit, we dismiss the data and
not the hypothesis?
Are you claiming that El Nino and La Nina are driven by GHG?
Are you drunk? Where did that come from?
Post by Fran
Post by Addinall
Post by Fran
The
roughly 11-year cycle between solar maxima and minim is also overlaid
on this and moreover, it takes about 30 years for heat at the surface
of the ocean to penetrate the deeper ocean.
Does it?  You lot got oceanography all wrapped up as well?
There's a few people I know who would like the final and
definitive book of answers to oceanic circulation and
mixing.  Which page of Green-Left Weekly is this on?
Just as a selfish afterthough, does it also describe how
water works?  That could save me some time.
I'd sooner see you turn on the water works and get back in touch with
your feminine side.
Ah, I assume then you are drunk....
Post by Fran
Post by Addinall
Post by Fran
Since heat transports are
a factor in global climate, a rolling 30 year period seems the best
useful benchmark.
Fran has found JUST RIGHT!
From when, last Wednesday or the start of next pay month?
Now Marky, as I said the other week, I'm not going to condemn you for
seeking to salve your pain in here by doing your schtick, but really,
you nneed to move on. Deep inside there's a man of wit and
perspicacity and empathy for something more than stromatloites
struggling to get out. Right now though he's locked up as securely as
those unfortunates in that Austrian sociopath's dungeon. Let's hope
that torured prisoner doesn't have to wait another 24 years for
release. Let your person go!
I have no idea what that particular rant was about. I summise
you have abandoned any pretense of arguing science fact,
in preference to just unloading an argument about nothing
at all?

My game, set and match I believe (sic).

Mark Addinall.
Post by Fran
<snip>
Fran
Peter
2008-05-16 06:08:46 UTC
Permalink
[snip]
Post by Addinall
Post by Fran
Post by Addinall
How in the hell can natural events like the recurring El Nino,
La Nina climate shifts be considered 'flawed' because they don't
fix your touted 'models'?!
Silly chappy ... Including this 'noise' contaminates the data.
So, including real, observable, and cyclic data into the model
somehow corrupts the data generated by simplistic models
does it? Well that comes as a suprise.
BWAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAAAAAA.

I don't do that often either, but Fran's comment above would have to
rate as one of the most STUPID things WRT scientific analysis I've
seen in a long time.

Oh dear. We have an observable and repeatable (in that El Nino and La
Nina are not one-off events) set of data. The data are not capable of
being handled by the model. Therefore we throw these data sets out
because they're 'noise' that 'contaminate' the model?

Fran, you are truly, truly an IDIOT. If you have data which doesn't
fit the model, you throw the MODEL out and build a better one.

Go away and read Kuhn's 'Structures of Scientific Revolutions'. You're
engaging in classic defensive behaviour. You have what you believe is
a model which explains what you think is reality (well, actually *you*
don't, you've merely signed on to someone else's model). Data are
stacking up that the model can't explain, so you deny that the data
exists. Eventually, someone will come up with a new model which
explains all the old data and the 'anomalous' data. The old model will
be dead and gone at worst, or seen as a special sub-case of a more
comprehensive model, which in turn will be subject to attack. The
process goes on.

You know, Fran, the wind always blows from the north. Truly. My model
of wind movements says so. I can prove it, too. Any reading that my
model can't explain is obviously 'noise' that 'contaminates' the model
and therefore I discard it.

[snip]
Post by Addinall
My game, set and match I believe (sic).
Oh yes, I'd say so. Dunno why you bother, tho. What Fran misses is,
the really interesting bits of science are found by exploring the
corner cases, not ignoring them.

Latest contrib to AGW - the Labor Govt putting a means test on people
installing solar panels. Everyone knows poor people can afford to
spend $20K to get $8K back, so why not stop the rich from getting the
rebate?

PDW - now returning to programming....
Fran
2008-05-16 06:59:37 UTC
Permalink
Post by Peter
[snip]
Post by Addinall
Post by Fran
Post by Addinall
How in the hell can natural events like the recurring El Nino,
La Nina climate shifts be considered 'flawed' because they don't
fix your touted 'models'?!
Silly chappy ... Including this 'noise' contaminates the data.
So, including real, observable, and cyclic data into the model
somehow corrupts the data generated by simplistic models
does it?  Well that comes as a suprise.
BWAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAAAAAA.
That Mark chose to misread my assertion is laughable, I agree. I was
claiming that 'noise' in the data can produce misleading conclusions.
In this case, Mark relies on the El Nino of 1998 and the la Nina of
2007-8 to assert that the planet is cooling, but as I understand it,
these events are not clearly connected with AGW. If one doesn't allow
for these things, and merely looks at the start and end point one can
make a claim, but it will not really tell you anything useful about
the underlying trend.

Consider also another forcing factor bearing upon this. The sun was
near its maxima in 1998 -- and forcing was estimated at about 0.3Wm2.
At its minima its about 0.15Wm2. Should one take account of such
things, or ignore them when trying to understand a temperature trend?

I understand that you and Mark are buddies, and it's charming that you
want to affirm him, but it doesn't really add to your cred.
Post by Peter
I don't do that often either, but Fran's comment above would have to
rate as one of the most STUPID things WRT scientific analysis I've
seen in a long time.
No, tagging along with Mark's troll and pretending it has something to
do with scientific analysis is what is stupid here.
Post by Peter
Oh dear. We have an observable and repeatable (in that El Nino and La
Nina are not one-off events) set of data. The data are not capable of
being handled by the model. Therefore we throw these data sets out
because they're 'noise' that 'contaminate' the model?
No, we examine whether all the data are pertinent to the trend we're
trying to examine -- in this case the weight of anthropogenic factors
in temeperaure movement. That's one reason why 30 years is a much
better data set than 10 years.
Post by Peter
Fran, you are truly, truly an IDIOT.
Surely you could have squeezed in one more truly. It's only 5 further
characters, and it's not as if you haven't shown a penchant for
contributing heat rather than light.
Post by Peter
If you have data which doesn't
fit the model, you throw the MODEL out and build a better one.
Assuming the data is pertinent, and of course, how do you know if the
data is pertinent, except by recourse to ... oh dear ... a model.

Now, if you could show that La Nina/El Nino were strongly connected
with AGW, (and thus not extraneous) then including data affected by
these factors either way would be legitimate. Is that your claim?
Post by Peter
Go away and read Kuhn's 'Structures of Scientific Revolutions'. You're
engaging in classic defensive behaviour.
Read it some years back.
Post by Peter
You have what you believe is
a model which explains what you think is reality (well, actually *you*
don't, you've merely signed on to someone else's model). Data are
stacking up that the model can't explain, so you deny that the data
exists.
No, I question its pertinence. No firm link has been established
between GHGs and La Nina/El Nino cycles.
Post by Peter
Eventually, someone will come up with a new model which
explains all the old data and the 'anomalous' data. The old model will
be dead and gone at worst, or seen as a special sub-case of a more
comprehensive model, which in turn will be subject to attack. The
process goes on.
You know, Fran, the wind always blows from the north. Truly. My model
of wind movements says so. I can prove it, too. Any reading that my
model can't explain is obviously 'noise' that 'contaminates' the model
and therefore I discard it.
The analogy is silly, because I haven't claimed the data should be
discarded. It just can't be pressed into service to show a temperature
decline or plateau.

Let's have a simple analogy. I'm somthing of a cricket connoisseur.
Let's say player A gets a dismissal every 55 deliveries. Player B gets
one every 50 deliveries. It seems that Player B is a more effective
bowler than Player A, correct?

Suppose though Player A has a bowling style that lends itself well to
bowling on grassy pitches with a lot of bounce, whereas Player B plays
on low and two-paced continental pitches, where a player bowling a
fuller length can get a lot of LBW and caught at short cover
dismissals. When Player A is bowling on this pitches of this type, he
gets wickets every 50 deliveries, whereas Player B gets them every 60
deliveries. Which would be the better player on

a) grassy pitches?
b) sub-continental pitches?

How would one go about assessing the various data available for
pertinence?

Mark is cherrypicking, and you tow are doing the mutual admiration
society schtick. It's not edifying.
Post by Peter
[snip]
Post by Addinall
My game, set and match I believe (sic).
Oh yes, I'd say so. Dunno why you bother, tho. What Fran misses is,
the really interesting bits of science are found by exploring the
corner cases, not ignoring them.
Latest contrib to AGW - the Labor Govt putting a means test on people
installing solar panels. Everyone knows poor people can afford to
spend $20K to get $8K back, so why not stop the rich from getting the
rebate?
Actually, Mr Garrett was talking about means tested loans as a better
use of the funds. Personally, I'm not at all sure encouraging
individual householders to put solar panels on their rooves is all
that great an idea, dollar for dollar. Moreover, a great many people
on modest incomes are renters, who have no say in the matter.

It might make more sense to expend the funds building CSPs and
plugging the output into the grid under an MRET. I'd bet you could
generate a lot more Mw of capacity per dollar of expenditure that way.

Fran
Post by Peter
PDW - now returning to programming....
Addinall
2008-05-16 07:55:13 UTC
Permalink
Post by Peter
[snip]
Post by Addinall
Post by Fran
Post by Addinall
How in the hell can natural events like the recurring El Nino,
La Nina climate shifts be considered 'flawed' because they don't
fix your touted 'models'?!
Silly chappy ... Including this 'noise' contaminates the data.
So, including real, observable, and cyclic data into the model
somehow corrupts the data generated by simplistic models
does it?  Well that comes as a suprise.
BWAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAAAAAA.
I don't do that often either, but Fran's comment above would have to
rate as one of the most STUPID things WRT scientific analysis I've
seen in a long time.
I know. And we are seeing some strange shit this decade. This I
think
takes a prize.

Does this look like the climate data T Delta anomolies? I wonder if
anyone
else has noticed?
Post by Peter
Oh dear. We have an observable and repeatable (in that El Nino and La
Nina are not one-off events) set of data. The data are not capable of
being handled by the model. Therefore we throw these data sets out
because they're 'noise' that 'contaminate' the model?
Fran, you are truly, truly an IDIOT. If you have data which doesn't
fit the model, you throw the MODEL out and build a better one.
Go away and read Kuhn's 'Structures of Scientific Revolutions'. You're
engaging in classic defensive behaviour. You have what you believe is
a model which explains what you think is reality (well, actually *you*
don't, you've merely signed on to someone else's model). Data are
stacking up that the model can't explain, so you deny that the data
exists. Eventually, someone will come up with a new model which
explains all the old data and the 'anomalous' data. The old model will
be dead and gone at worst, or seen as a special sub-case of a more
comprehensive model, which in turn will be subject to attack. The
process goes on.
You know, Fran, the wind always blows from the north. Truly. My model
of wind movements says so. I can prove it, too. Any reading that my
model can't explain is obviously 'noise' that 'contaminates' the model
and therefore I discard it.
[snip]
Post by Addinall
My game, set and match I believe (sic).
Oh yes, I'd say so. Dunno why you bother, tho. What Fran misses is,
the really interesting bits of science are found by exploring the
corner cases, not ignoring them.
Latest contrib to AGW - the Labor Govt putting a means test on people
installing solar panels. Everyone knows poor people can afford to
spend $20K to get $8K back, so why not stop the rich from getting the
rebate?
Yeah noticed that.
Post by Peter
PDW - now returning to programming....
And I. Two days left....

Marky.
V for Vendicar
2008-06-15 07:42:22 UTC
Permalink
Post by Addinall
Why indeed? You dont like the first graph,as it shows climate over
a very long time series, you don't like the newer decadle graphs
because they show climate over a shorter duration.
Both graphs are laughable because you don't define what temperatures you
are plotting.

Ahahahahahahaha

Addinall = MMMMMMOOOOOOOOORRRRRRRRROOOOOOOOOOONNNNNNNNN
V for Vendicar
2008-06-15 07:41:01 UTC
Permalink
Post by Addinall
http://www.addinall.net/uah_monthly_global_temperature_anomalies_1998-2008.png
http://www.addinall.net/rss_monthly_global_temperature_anomalies_1998-2008.png
Doesn't look very urgent does it?
Impossible to say since you don't indicate what the it is you are taking a
temperature of.

Addinaill = MMMMMMMMMOOOOOOOOOOORRRRRRRRRRROOOOOOOOONNNNNNNN
z
2008-05-05 17:02:00 UTC
Permalink
Post by Ralph
The ideal climate is the one where we survive. (selfish)
Better:  ...where a lot of life survives.
Humans, being by far the grossest consumers of the life of the planet, are
changing the environment that our food needs to grow.
We will reach a tipping point where there will less food (fuel, air, etc.)
available than humans can manage to exploit.
At that point, it will be far too late to do anything about it.
The science and technology exists to change this.  The governments just
don't want it.
See, God/Nature/Evolution (pick one) screwed up by providing the wrong
climate for earth life to fluorish; fortunately, the correct climate
can be obtained as a byproduct of burning as much petroleum and coal
as we possibly can. Lucky!
Catoni
2008-06-16 02:48:34 UTC
Permalink
Post by Ralph
The ideal climate is the one where we survive. (selfish)
Better:  ...where a lot of life survives.
Humans, being by far the grossest consumers of the life of the planet, are
changing the environment that our food needs to grow.
We will reach a tipping point where there will less food (fuel, air, etc.)
available than humans can manage to exploit.
At that point, it will be far too late to do anything about it.
Yeah... you're right! If we go back to the temperatures of the
Little Ice Age..... millions and millions more will starve t6o death
because of lessened growing seasons.. colder temperatures. A little
warmer will result if longer growing seasons.. perhaps two or more
harvests... more food to feed the less fortunate.

The Little Ice Age by anthropology professor Brian Fagan of the
University of California at Santa Barbara, tells of the plight of
European peasants during the 1300 to 1850 chill: famines, hypothermia,
bread riots, and the rise of despotic leaders brutalizing an
increasingly dispirited peasantry. In the late 17th century, writes
Fagan, agriculture had dropped off so dramatically that "Alpine
villagers lived on bread made from ground nutshells mixed with barley
and oat flour." Finland lost perhaps a third of its population to
starvation and disease.

Life was particularly difficult for those who lived under the constant
threat of advancing glaciers in the French Alps. One, the Des Bois
glacier on the slopes of Mont Blanc, was said to have moved forward
“over a musket shot each day, even in the month of August.” When the
Des Bois threatened to dam up the Arve river in 1644, residents of the
town of Chamonix begged the bishop of Geneva to petition God for help.
In early June, the bishop, with 300 villagers gathered around him,
blessed the threatening glacier and another near the village of
Argentiere. For a while, salvation seemed at hand. The glaciers
retreated for about 20 years, until 1663. But they had left the land
so barren that new crops would not grow.

In many years, snowfall was much heavier than recorded before or
since, and the snow lay on the ground for many months longer than it
does today." Many springs and summers were outstandingly cold and wet,
although there was great variability between years and groups of
years. Crop practices throughout Europe had to be altered to adapt to
the shortened, less reliable growing season, and there were many years
of death and famine (such as the Great Famine of 1315-1317, although
this may have been before the LIA proper). Viticulture entirely
disappeared from some northern regions. Violent storms caused massive
flooding and loss of life. Some of these resulted in permanent losses
of large tracts of land from the Danish, German, and Dutch coasts.
In Ethiopia and Mauritania, permanent snow was reported on mountain
peaks at levels where it does not occur today. Timbuktu, an important
city on the trans-Saharan caravan route, was flooded at least 13 times
by the Niger River; there are no records of similar flooding before or
since. In China, warm weather crops, such as oranges, were abandoned
in Jiangxi Province, where they had been grown for centuries. In North
America, the early European settlers also reported exceptionally
severe winters. For example, in 1607-1608 ice persisted on Lake
Superior until June.

YES... THE SOUTHERN HEMISPHERE TOO..... LITTLE ICE AGE

Southern hemisphere
An ocean sediment core from the eastern Bransfield Basin, Antarctic
Peninsula shows centennial events that the authors link to the Little
Ice Age and Medieval Warm Period. The authors note "other unexplained
climatic events comparable in duration and amplitude to the LIA and
MWP events also appear." The LIA is easily distinguished in the
Quelccaya Ice Cap (Peruvian Andes, South America).

The Siple Dome (SD) has a climate event with an onset time that is
coincident with that of the LIA in the North Atlantic based on a
correlation with the GISP2 record. This event is the most dramatic
climate event seen in the SD Holocene glaciochemical record. The Siple
Dome ice core also contained its highest rate of melt layers (up to
8%) between 1550 and 1700, most likely due to warm summers during the
LIA.

Law Dome ice cores show lower levels of CO2 mixing ratios during
1550-1800 AD, probably as a result of colder global climate.

Sediment cores (Gebra-1 and Gebra-2) in Bransfield Basin, Antarctic
Peninsula, have neoglacial indicators by diatom and sea-ice taxa
variations during the period of the LIA.
http://www.answers.com/topic/little-ice-age?cat=technology

Poetic Justice <@http://Poetic-Justice.Talk-n-Dog.com>
2008-05-02 14:47:30 UTC
Permalink
Post by Fran
Post by 0BZN0
The Ideal Climate
Dr. Don J. Easterbrook, Professor Emeritus Geology, Western Washington
University, author of 8 books, 150 journal publications with focus on
geomorphology; glacial geology; Pleistocene geochronology; environmental
and engineering geology.
CBS-TV, 60 Minutes, Burlington, Washington
March 30, 2008
http://icecap.us/images/uploads/DonEasterbrookInterviewTranscript.pdf
KLC: For the record, Don, if you gave a gift to the world and controlled
the thermostat, where would you place us with regard to climate history?
DJE: If I had to pick a climate that was good for the whole world, the
perfect climate would be around the Medieval Warm Period.
See here's the problem. The people who bang on about the so called
"mediaeval warm period" don't all agree on when it was, nor is it
clear that it even existed outside of Northern Europe and parts of
North America. So much of humanity was living in somewhat cooler
conditions, and of course, even in the places where there's some
evidence of a warm period petween about 800CE and about 1300CE, it was
cooler than today globally and a lot cooler than Northern Europe
today. So Mr Easterbrook is playing fast and loose with the
comparative data.
I'm amazed that 0.6 degrees difference can be measured without
satellites and NASA and NOAA....

There are so many problems with todays temperature reading and yet "warm
period between about 800CE and about 1300CE" is measured so accurately.
Post by Fran
One might add too that whatever combination of factors drove climate
in this temporally and geographically poorly specified optima, they
ceased. Temperatures have exceeded the MCO and are likely to continue
to increase, so talking about what climate would be ideal is simply
silly. At this stage, we are not in a position to exercise any
influence, and never will be unless something ubiquitous and rigorous
is done about atmospheric GHGs -- and even then, it will be some time
before that has an impact.
Temperatures in the Pacific Ocean have been rising sharply since the
mid 1970s and that's not going to change for a very long time --
possibly 100s of years. The difference we can make now really relates
to the speed of the increase and the extent to which the lower
troposphere can shed heat.
Fran
nada
2008-05-03 18:19:55 UTC
Permalink
Post by Poetic Justice <@http://Poetic-Justice.Talk-n-Dog.com>
Post by Fran
Post by 0BZN0
The Ideal Climate
Dr. Don J. Easterbrook, Professor Emeritus Geology, Western Washington
University, author of 8 books, 150 journal publications with focus on
geomorphology; glacial geology; Pleistocene geochronology; environmental
and engineering geology.
CBS-TV, 60 Minutes, Burlington, Washington
March 30, 2008
http://icecap.us/images/uploads/DonEasterbrookInterviewTranscript.pdf
KLC: For the record, Don, if you gave a gift to the world and controlled
the thermostat, where would you place us with regard to climate history?
DJE: If I had to pick a climate that was good for the whole world, the
perfect climate would be around the Medieval Warm Period.
See here's the problem. The people who bang on about the so called
"mediaeval warm period" don't all agree on when it was, nor is it
clear that it even existed outside of Northern Europe and parts of
North America. So much of humanity was living in somewhat cooler
conditions, and of course, even in the places where there's some
evidence of a warm period petween about 800CE and about 1300CE, it was
cooler than today globally and a lot cooler than Northern Europe
today. So Mr Easterbrook is playing fast and loose with the
comparative data.
I'm amazed that 0.6 degrees difference can be measured without
satellites and NASA and NOAA....
There are so many problems with todays temperature reading and yet "warm
period between about 800CE and about 1300CE"  is measured so accurately.
Post by Fran
One might add too that whatever combination of factors drove climate
in this temporally and geographically poorly specified optima, they
ceased. Temperatures have exceeded the MCO and are likely to continue
to increase, so talking about what climate would be ideal is simply
silly. At this stage, we are not in a position to exercise any
influence, and never will be unless something ubiquitous and rigorous
is done about atmospheric GHGs -- and even then, it will be some time
before that has an impact.
Temperatures in the Pacific Ocean have been rising sharply since the
mid 1970s and that's not going to change for a very long time --
possibly 100s of years. The difference we can make now really relates
to the speed of the increase and the extent to which the lower
troposphere can shed heat.
Fran- Hide quoted text -
- Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text -
- Show quoted text -
This warm period existed because it's the EXACT same source that
Hansen used for A. Gore. The temperature period exists in evidence
that everyone uses, from tree rings in northern climates to ice core
samples in Greenland. In fact, there is no discussion about this.
Secondly, there a huge amoung of anthropological data includng the
burgeoing wine industry in northern England and Southern Scottland at
the time, etc.

But...the point about it being "regional" could well be true. For
example, while tree ring samples in North America show a similiar
warming period before the little ice age there doesn't appear to be a
similiar growth period in Siberia. Interestingly there is no
significant CO2 output that corresponds to the warmer period like
there is for most of every other period of warming.

My view: I don't know how much human causes the problem. The fact is
that RIGHT NOW things are completely screwed up. The native peoples of
Alaska who have an oral tradition going back thousands of year have
NEVER recorded anything like what is going on now. Tree die off in
Alaska due to warmer weather parasites has wiped out an area the size
of Maryland in southern Alaska...something I've witnessed myself.
So...whether it's us or some natural cycle, it seems to me that we
don't want to conduct a planetary experiment to see just how much
greenhouse gases we pump into the air before we expire.

David Walters
z
2008-05-05 17:09:33 UTC
Permalink
Post by nada
My view: I don't know how much human causes the problem. The fact is
that RIGHT NOW things are completely screwed up. The native peoples of
Alaska who have an oral tradition going back thousands of year have
NEVER recorded anything like what is going on now. Tree die off in
Alaska due to warmer weather parasites has wiped out an area the size
of Maryland in southern Alaska...something I've witnessed myself.
So...whether it's us or some natural cycle, it seems to me that we
don't want to conduct a planetary experiment to see just how much
greenhouse gases we pump into the air before we expire.
David Walters- Hide quoted text -
- Show quoted text -
well, that's kind of the point alright. there's not just one type of
evidence that points to AGW, there's a ton of evidence from every
possible field.

so, consider, even if it were possible that the AGW contribution to
warming is less than 100%, it would pay us to mitigate it as much as
possible.

take the alternative proposition: if there is no AGW therefore we
don't need to cut back on fossil fuels, because why? they are clean
and cheap and will never run out? geez, AGW is just the final straw
collapsing the fossil fuel camel. we've had a terrific run with it,
but the tank's starting to read 'E'.
Hank Kroll
2008-05-07 05:24:01 UTC
Permalink
Post by z
Post by nada
My view: I don't know how much human causes the problem. The fact is
that RIGHT NOW things are completely screwed up. The native peoples of
Alaska who have an oral tradition going back thousands of year have
NEVER recorded anything like what is going on now. Tree die off in
Alaska due to warmer weather parasites has wiped out an area the size
of Maryland in southern Alaska...something I've witnessed myself.
So...whether it's us or some natural cycle, it seems to me that we
don't want to conduct a planetary experiment to see just how much
greenhouse gases we pump into the air before we expire.
David Walters- Hide quoted text -
- Show quoted text -
well, that's kind of the point alright. there's not just one type of
evidence that points to AGW, there's a ton of evidence from every
possible field.
so, consider, even if it were possible that the AGW contribution to
warming is less than 100%, it would pay us to mitigate it as much as
possible.
take the alternative proposition: if there is no AGW therefore we
don't need to cut back on fossil fuels, because why? they are clean
and cheap and will never run out? geez, AGW is just the final straw
collapsing the fossil fuel camel. we've had a terrific run with it,
but the tank's starting to read 'E'.
The average temperature on Earth is 32 degrees F. while all the
geologic ages prior to the Plistocene was 50 degrees and above.
Durning the Carboniferous the average temperature on Earth was around
80 degrees F. This can only meen one thing: We are still in an ice
age! Global warming is about money! See new posts on Earth Loosing
Oxygen about genetic innovations that allowed plants to produce eight
times more oxygen and food for higher life forms like Hillary Clinton.
V-for-Vendicar
2008-05-17 06:21:30 UTC
Permalink
Post by Hank Kroll
The average temperature on Earth is 32 degrees F. while all the
geologic ages prior to the Plistocene was 50 degrees and above.
Durning the Carboniferous the average temperature on Earth was around
80 degrees F. This can only meen one thing: We are still in an ice
age! Global warming is about money!
MMMMMMMMMOOOOOOOOOOOOORRRRRRRRRRRRROOOOOOOOOONNNNNNNNN
John M.
2008-05-17 06:39:24 UTC
Permalink
On May 17, 8:21 am, "V-for-Vendicar"
Post by V-for-Vendicar
Post by Hank Kroll
The average temperature on Earth is 32 degrees F. while all the
geologic ages prior to the Plistocene was 50 degrees and above.
Durning the Carboniferous the average temperature on Earth was around
80 degrees F. This can only meen one thing: We are still in an ice
age! Global warming is about money!
MMMMMMMMMOOOOOOOOOOOOORRRRRRRRRRRRROOOOOOOOOONNNNNNNNN
Yes, he is. But it is getting really quite boring having you do
nothing but point this out all the time. Especially as there are so
many of them "out there".
V-for-Vendicar
2008-05-17 06:18:40 UTC
Permalink
I'm amazed that 0.6 degrees difference can be measured without satellites
and NASA and NOAA....
The actual resolution is about 1/10 th that.
Tunderbar
2008-05-02 21:08:41 UTC
Permalink
Post by Fran
Post by 0BZN0
The Ideal Climate
Dr. Don J. Easterbrook, Professor Emeritus Geology, Western Washington
University, author of 8 books, 150 journal publications with focus on
geomorphology; glacial geology; Pleistocene geochronology; environmental
and engineering geology.
CBS-TV, 60 Minutes, Burlington, Washington
March 30, 2008
http://icecap.us/images/uploads/DonEasterbrookInterviewTranscript.pdf
KLC: For the record, Don, if you gave a gift to the world and controlled
the thermostat, where would you place us with regard to climate history?
DJE: If I had to pick a climate that was good for the whole world, the
perfect climate would be around the Medieval Warm Period.
See here's the problem. The people who bang on about the so called
"mediaeval warm period" don't all agree on when it was, nor is it
clear that it even existed outside of Northern Europe and parts of
North America. So much of humanity was living in somewhat cooler
conditions, and of course, even in the places where there's some
evidence of a warm period petween about 800CE and about 1300CE, it was
cooler than today globally and a lot cooler than Northern Europe
today. So Mr Easterbrook is playing fast and loose with the
comparative data.
One might add too that whatever combination of factors drove climate
in this temporally and geographically poorly specified optima, they
ceased. Temperatures have exceeded the MCO and are likely to continue
to increase, so talking about what climate would be ideal is simply
silly. At this stage, we are not in a position to exercise any
influence, and never will be unless something ubiquitous and rigorous
is done about atmospheric GHGs -- and even then, it will be some time
before that has an impact.
Temperatures in the Pacific Ocean have been rising sharply since the
mid 1970s and that's not going to change for a very long time --
possibly 100s of years. The difference we can make now really relates
to the speed of the increase and the extent to which the lower
troposphere can shed heat.
Fran- Hide quoted text -
- Show quoted text -
The Medieval Warm Period has been shown to have been a global event
although it may have been more pronounced in the Northern hemisphere.
z
2008-05-05 17:21:08 UTC
Permalink
Post by Tunderbar
The Medieval Warm Period has been shown to have been a global event
although it may have been more pronounced in the Northern hemisphere.- Hide quoted text -
- Show quoted text -
Greenland seems to have enjoyed a couple of warm peaks at the
beginning and end of the "medieval warm period" but a cool spell
around 1100, at the same time Scandinavia enjoyed its warm period
(Crowley, T.J. and T. Lowery, 2000: How warm was the Medieval warm
period? Ambio, 29, 51-54).

A sediment record from just south of Newfoundland indicates the
opposite pattern from Europe; cold medieval and warm 16th to 19th
century upper ocean temperatures, during the "little ice
age" (Keigwin, L.D. and R.S. Pickart, 1999: Slope water current over
the Laurentian Fan on Interannual to Millennial Time Scales. Science,
286, 520-523), suggesting that the European temperature record of
1000-1900 is the effect of changes in ocean currents in the North
Atlantic on a centuries long scale (the North Atlantic Oscillation)
which warm one region only at the expense of cooling another, rather
than a global phenomenon.

Absent the North Atlantic, in China, for example, there doesn't seem
to be any correlation with the Medieval Warming and Little Ice Age
periods at all; eastern China appears to have been warm from the 9th
to 13th centuries, but overall China was actually cold in the 12th and
14th centuries (Wang, S.W. and D.Y. Gong, 2000: Climate in China
during the four special periods in Holocene. Progress in Nature
Science, 10(5), 379-386.; Wang, S.W., J. Ye, D. Gong and J. Zhu, 1998:
Construction of mean annual temperature series for the last one
hundred years in China, Quart. J. Appl. Met., 9(4), 392-401; Wang,
S.W., J. Ye and D. Gong, 1998: Climate in China during the Little Ice
Age. Quaternary Sciences, 1, 54-64)

In the southern hemisphere, summer mean temps (Jones, P.D., K.R.
Briffa, T.P., Barnett and S.F.B. Tett, 1998: High-resolution
palaeoclimatic records for the last millennium: interpretation,
integration and comparison with General Circulation Model control run
temperatures. The Holocene, 8, 455-471) and annual mean temps (Mann,
M.E., E. Gille, R.S. Bradley, M.K. Hughes, J.T. Overpeck, F.T. Keimig
and W. Gross, 2000: Global temperature patterns in past centuries: An
interactive presentation. Earth Interactions, 4/4, 1-29) show markedly
different behaviour from the northern hemisphere. Speleothem evidence
(isotopic evidence from calcite deposition in stalagmites and
stalactites) from South Africa indicates anomalously cold conditions
only prior to the 19th century, while speleothem and glacier evidence
from the Southern Alps of New Zealand suggest cold conditions during
the mid-17th and mid-19th centuries (Salinger, M.J., 1995: Southwest
Pacific temperature: trends in maximum and minimum temperatures.
Atmos. Res., 37, 87-100). But dendroclimatic evidence from Tasmania
(Cook, E.R., B.M. Buckley and R.D. D'Arrigo, 2000: Warm-Season
Temperatures since 1600 B.C. Reconstructed from Tasmanian Tree Rings
and Their Relationship to Large-Scale Sea Surface Temperature
Anomalies. Clim. Dyn., 16, 79-91) shows no evidence of unusual
coldness at these times.

Compared to the curent evidence of rising temperatures globally, over
and above the North Atlantic Oscillation, el nino vs la nina etc.
regional patterns, the evidence for any global anomalies of the same
scale during the 'medieval warming period' and 'little ice age' is
really feeble.
V-for-Vendicar
2008-05-20 06:20:09 UTC
Permalink
Post by Tunderbar
The Medieval Warm Period has been shown to have been a global event
although it may have been more pronounced in the Northern hemisphere.
Rubbish.
V-for-Vendicar
2008-05-15 07:39:30 UTC
Permalink
Post by 0BZN0
Dr. Don J. Easterbrook, Professor Emeritus Geology, Western Washington
University, author of 8 books, 150 journal publications with focus on
geomorphology; glacial geology; Pleistocene geochronology; environmental
and engineering geology.
Easterbrook is fond of claiming that there is a strong correlation between
sunspot numbers and global
average temperatures.

Here is the data. No Correlation.

View with mono spaced font.

No correlation between sunspot number and global average temperature
1958 -> 2007
|
|
| *
|
| * * *
| * *
|
| * *
|
^|
T| *
e| *
m| *
p| * *
e|
r| * *
a| *
t| o o
u| oo oooo o ooo o oo o oo oooo oo o ooo
r| * * * *
e| *
| * * * *
| * *
| * * *
| * * *
| * *
| *
| *
| * *
|
| *
| *
+-----------------------CO2->----------------------------------------------
* = Data
0 = Computed Regression

Y = Mx+B
M = 4.976998E-05 B = 14.18044
Correlation Coefficient .01161709
Continue reading on narkive:
Loading...