Actually the satellites tend to be our best measuring stick. And their capacity will only improve with time.
Nobel Prize winning Scientist ridicules Obamas take on Climate Change.
- Thread starter Aegon_Targaryen
- Start date
Actually the satellites tend to be our best measuring stick. And their capacity will only improve with time.
1-2 degree increase will actually be very beneficial. I don't favor switching from fossil fuels. I favor building more nuke plants but that's not happening because of the environmental wackos. Oh, and I don't want the gov't building the nuke plants. Let the market rule. Get the gov/enviro wackos out of the way and we'd be using more nuclear energy and less happy. That should make you happy. If solar and wind make economic sense, use those. I don't want the gov't dictating though. The one area I don't mind the gov't spending some dollars is in university research on technology.
I'm a crazy cat. I have more faith in the market than I have in gov't or lawyers, etc. I know that's a strange concept to grasp for people on the left, but I trust the market to better respond to these problems. I feel that way about the same way about energy commerce as I do commerce between a baker and a gay couple demanding the baker make the wedding cake for him. That sh*t is nutty to me because I have faith in the free market. In my world, the gay couple gets their wedding cake, the baker gets to keep his business, the lawyers have less work, and everyone is happy.
I agree with your train of thought. There are many scholarly articles online pointing out that AGRICULTURE has boomed since the end of the little ice age, and some of that is attributable to the climate becoming more GREENHOUSE in nature. Don't worry alarmists, we aren't turning into Venus. Our orbit would have to shift for that to happen.
Ok so you're on board with 1-2 degrees being real. What would make that stop there absent changes in what we are doing? How do you account for the feedback that 2 degrees will cause as permafrost melts and release more and oceans heat and absorb less? Don't we need to force coal plants to convert to nuke? Or tax coal to allow the market to make that decision?
This is why deniers don't want to accept its real. Once you admit the temps are going up and man is doing it, you reach the inevitable conclusion it will keep going up and accelerating into something bad. Fortunately we will both probably be dead before this gets too bad, but I imagine that would be a sin to dump this on others for people like you.
No, your logic is flawed. You are like a guy who measures the ocean when the tide is coming in and predicts Omaha will be under 10 feet of sea water in 10 years.
Accepting the possibility of a 1 or 2 degree increase in the next 100 years does not require one to accept a continuing increase.
Another truism is that an AGW alarmist who doesn't actively support development of nuclear energy is not serious.
You have zero understanding of how the temperature measurements are made, and WHY the 'tweaks' are absolutely necessary to obtain valid results.
Stations move, structures near them change, times of day for acquiring temperatures change and a myriad of other adjustments have been made over the past 100 years for land-based and sea based measurements. Dozens of scientists have evaluated the impacts/biases for these shifts, and used 'best estimate' correction factors, which are updated whenever someone identifies another source of bias and addresses it. The same is true for satellite-based measurements, where drift in sensors can create artificial biases. The BEST study did some of the most sophisticated analysis yet on this type of correction, and that study (fully endorsed by Anthony Watts, before the results didn't match his hypothesis) indicated that the human signature on the warming was virtually certain, and that the warming identified by prior studies was most likely UNDER-estimated.
Roy Spencer, one of the deniers' media darlings, has testified before Congress claiming there is a "17 year hiatus" in warming. But, when you look AT HIS OWN DATA, no such 'hiatus' is evident. You can see for yourself here:
http://www.woodfortrees.org/plot/
This guy's site allows you to look at MANY data sets over any time period you want, and you can run stacked means to smooth the data properly (Judy Curry, another 'oft media quoted' AGW detractor, has a site which shows this window smoothing method in proper context and why it's the best way to smooth the data properly).
Here is Roy Spencer's own data:
We have AT BEST, a 5-year 'hiatus' in the warming (and you can find 5-year leveling periods just about ANYWHERE in the records), when using a decadal smoothing filter; there is no 'hiatus' since 1997/98 at all.
You can look at several other data sets and see the exact same result - the warming 'hiatus' is only a construction by the media, and doesn't exist when you use appropriate smoothing to look at the data. And with the expected "significant" El Nino event underway, we will blow away the 1997/98 El Nino year in global temperatures.
Again, this is Roy Spencer's UAH own dataset, and he has literally lied about claiming 'there is a hiatus climatologists cannot explain' in light of his own data.
Here is HADCRUT4 global data with decadal smoothing:
...and the same data starting in 1980 to 'zoom in' on the alleged "17 year pause":
Warming in the past 15-17 years is plainly obvious.
You can plot Spencer's UAH data set, HADCRUT 3 or 4, BEST and GISTEMP, all from this same site and see for yourself.
Why do you believe this? What would cause the warming to stop at 2 degrees in 2100?
It isn't a question of me believing; it's a question of you believing that because something is happening it will continue to happen, unabated. This has not been the case historically with climate change, so it seems reasonable to question whether the pattern will be different this time.
Joe, have I suggested you read my post? Maybe I neglected to mention that.....
Now you're just backing away from the human cause to this and are back in full denier mode. 97% of scientists think your argument is bogus. See how nicely that works? No alarmist claim needed, it just shows that you're wrong. Kudos for recognizing early where this conversation logically leads once you accept the base line facts and switching positions early.
I assume you are responding to someone I am ignoring. But the 2 degree notion is of being on a path where the temp rise levels off because we take action to make sure that happens. Since we have NOT been taking the action necessary to make sure that happens, informed people are now talking about 3, 4 and even 6 degree increases - and maybe not leveling off even at those more dangerous levels.
Unless you'd rather spend your time arguing with the likes of LC, or whoever it is, you might want to check out this National Geographic video:
I get all that but I'm waiting for LC to realize he has painted himself into one corner or the other so we can dispense with this idea that he has a reasonable middle path before him.
Good luck. I used to think LC was an honest debater who sometimes got overly fascinated with word games and dueling definitions or, in the alternative, needed to get better informed. But I've learned that he does not deserve the benefit of doubt on various important issues that conflict with the corporate-authoritarian wing of American conservatism.
I'm glad you are fighting the fight. I felt like the Lone Ranger calling out LC over the years but you are doing a good job and some others are pitching in. He provides too much cover for the light-minded to stick to their wrong-headed talking points. Sorry I'm not joining in at present, but I needed the break.
Either you admit there is AGW or you deny it. If you admit it, you then have to deal with mankind's activity not slowing which means you have to come to grips with a solution of some stripe. So you can no longer claim we can solve this by doing nothing and still claim you are not a denier. You must pick a side.
Thanx for the Alec Baldwin video from 2007 which starts by saying that GW isn't a catastrophe.
Good heavens. I am not qualified to "pick a side." Is that how science works now?
I have said I'm open to the possibility that human activity has some effect on the climate. Why would that require me to embrace the doomsday scenario?
And speaking of backing oneself into a corner, I'm getting a bit tired of having statements and beliefs attributed to me just because they fit somebody else's argument. Please cite when I said "we can solve this by doing nothing."
Incidentally, I'm amused by the subthread in this thread. I don't have Parser on "ignore." Actually, I only have three people on "ignore." Two of them are Cyclone fans and the other is there because he said things about Mrs. LC that weren't very nice. So I'm reading the exchange between you two about me, and it struck me as similar to a couple of junior high girls going into the bathroom to badmouth a cheerleader they don't like. Funny as hell.
So you're on board with the science that there is man made climate change and there is a "this" to solve? If you're tired on not being understood clearly, make yourself clear. Lay out what you think is happening and what needs to be done. Don't beat around the bush.
A from what I read LC said he wasn't taking sides. Looks like the entire argument comes down to there were a lot of predictions that were made that didn't happen, creating doubt. I see a lot of experts on here who continue to try and convince us that may have some doubts but the predictions just aren't happening.
I am not beating about the bush. To the contrary, I am being extremely clear and specific. This is why I am tired of people claiming they don't understand.
1. I think the climate is changing. Why would I think otherwise? It changes all the time.
2. I think human activity may have some impact on this change. I lack the scientific expertise to know how much impact; on the one hand are people who think human activity is the primary cause of change, and on the other is history showing the climate has changed when human activity could not have been a contributing factor.
3. You think that, based on that position, I should be able to predict what is going to happen AND produce a plan for preventing it from happening. That's nuts.
The whole argument comes down to the AGW extremists being unable to grasp the concept of anyone not accepting everything they say, every day, without question.
I don't know why you claim to be misunderstood, these are basic denier positions which get correctly ascribed to you often. It's only when you deviate into rationality that you get confused with having science based positions. Its helpful to be able to put those fantasies to rest. When you decide to let the evidence seep into your thinking, let us know. Until then, 97% of scientists think you're wrong. No need to get catastrophic, you're wrong on the basics. See how great that stat is? Now you understand why we use it.
Christ on a crutch, the limited vocabulary skills on this board are surreal.
So 97% of scientists think I'm wrong to believe human activity may have a role in climate change? That's good to know.
And nice job ignoring my reply.
That's a typical sophist reply. Lets put this in terms you might understand. If a person isn't willing to act on a cause, they aren't really serious about that cause. I think thats one of your arguments.
OK, so we have finally established one thing: You have no idea what "sophist" means.
Let's try for another small step toward knowledge.
If you are referring to my comment about nuclear energy, I think that someone who opposes an obvious course of action to ameliorate the problem can't be taken seriously when saying the problem is a threat to humanity.
This, again, is not a difficult concept to grasp if you try. Imagine a school bus loaded with children headed toward a chasm. You are screaming that everyone is about to be killed. You demand that a bridge be built immediately, whatever the cost. But you oppose the driver applying the brake for fear the deceleration might cause one of the passengers to bump his head. In that scenario, I cannot take your concern about imminent disaster seriously.
My dear definitionally deficient man, let me help you out. A sophist is one who uses spurious arguments to make the unreasonable seem reasonable. You do this when you choose to redefine "denier" as one who denies climate change rather than one who denies the scientific consensus around man made climate change. You do this so that you can then claim you aren't part of this discredited group when you are in fact. You do this again when you define those who accept the scientific consensus as alarmists when they are in fact simply reasonably following the data and best expertise in the field. These are the hallmarks of sophistic argumentation.
I completely accept your nuclear/bus argument. When you decide that man is the cause you want to concern yourself with, you may enter the camp of the reasonable acceptors of the consensus and join the debate about what sort of "bridges" and "breaks" we should employ. At this moment, you can't even see the bus is moving, let alone headed for a chasm.
Thanks for clearing up your position.
Ah! So it is YOU who are the sophist! Because it is YOU who are using a spurious argument -- specifically, that 97% of scientists agree on the more extreme AGW projections, which simply isn't true. If that is the snake oil you're selling, I'm absolutely a denier and proud of it.
There you go again, mischaracterizing, a sophist to the end. I never mentioned extreme projections. We haven't even gotten to that point because as usual, the denier won't let that debate happen. What a beautiful unmasking.
It is certainly more than either one side of the other. There is broad middle where many of the often mis used 97% figure of scientists are at. They feel man kind does have something to do with GW but disagree about the predictions the left is making on where we are going. The left took the most extreme computer model and said its certain to come true. They did because they want two things above all else in life. More money and more power. This does both in spades. The bonus is, in their minds, it brings even closer the world wide socialist utopia leftists have dreams of
Nope, every one of those 97% is on the side that man is warming the environment. After you you accept that, we can then get to the point you are making about how bad that will be and what to do about it. There is no middle ground on the question of the reality of man's involvement. You either accept the scientific consensus or you deny it. What is your position?
I'll admit that I'm somewhat amazed that people think that we have no affect on the environment.
Because while the movie could be amazing, the reality would be pretty awful.
Some might argue that humanity doesn't deserve to be saved from a fate that it could avoid but, so far, chooses not to avoid. And doubly deserves that fate because of the truly horrible reasons it uses for not acting: venality, willful ignorance, and self-deception.
Unfortunately it will be the most innocent who will sustain the greatest harm and suffering. And even if you take God's diluvian position (drown them all!), are we justified in inflicting that harm on the rest of the world's species? Our actions are already causing extinctions at a rate not seen since prehistoric mass extinction events.
So have pity on Nature's marvelous wildlife even of you have lost patience with mankind. Maybe the next intelligent species to evolve can do a better job if we don't totally screw things up.
You didn't mention them, but that's what everybody is talking about when they trumpet the 97% figure -- we've had threads on that number. You have -- again -- tripped yourself with your false logic and assumptions. If we are only talking about 97% of scientists agreeing that the climate is changing and human activity is probably one of the reasons, then I'm not a denier because that's the position I've always had. But if I'm a denier, then you're misrepresenting what the 97% agreement is on.
Which is it? What, exactly are you claiming is the position of 97% of scientists?
I don't care about it really, the world will change and adapt the way it pleases. Climate change is of no concern to me. Let the libs whine and worry all they want. They are all going to die regardless, and the world will still be here long after we are all dead.
Accusing me of making assumptions while you make assumptions. Beautiful. When you are ready to deal with the man made causes, I'll believe you want the bus to stop.
Latest posts
-
OABCIG to Super Bowl TD: DeJean Integral to Eagles' Championship
- Latest: WaterlooChazz
-
-
-
-