Resisting Climate Hysteria

[sails]

.. For example 12 years ago scientists wouldn't have foreseen that the rapid warming of the arctic would push colder. moist air southwards to Europe and intensify extreme winter weather...

I thought AGWers have been proclaiming the science is settled. If it is settled, how come they are still learning?

Why did they resort to such lies stating it is settled when it wasn't? Why haven't they apologised about claiming it was settled when now you post they didn't foresee some things. Unbelievable.

And Bas, do you have a vested financial interest in carbon tax or global warming? I don't recall you answering that question and I think it is valid given the repetitive spamming you keep dishing up here.

 

[wayneL]

Spooly we're a bit behind over here. TV program this week on how the melting ANTarctic is going to drown us all.

 

[basilio]

I thought AGWers have been proclaiming the science is settled. If it is settled, how come they are still learning?

Why did they resort to such lies stating it is settled when it wasn't? Why haven't they apologised about claiming it was settled when now you post they didn't foresee some things. Unbelievable.

And Bas, do you have a vested financial interest in carbon tax or global warming? I don't recall you answering that question and I think it is valid given the repetitive spamming you keep dishing up here.

Are you serious Sails ? There is almost never any certainty including science. Every field of science is discovering and learning new things every day.

As far as Global warming goes? This comes down to some solid scientific principles, observed facts and continued research.

The basic scientific principal at the heart of Global warming is the effects of CO2 and other Greenhouse Gases to hold heat in the atmosphere. In fact we wouldn't have a temperate climate on earth if it wasn't for the CO2 component.

So if there is a substantial increase in CO2 and other Greenhouse gases ( methane for example) we would expect the earths temperature to rise.

Current observations have show an increase in the earths temperature as CO2 levels have risen. Climate researchers have extended our knowledge of earths historic climate through drilling in the ice cores of Antarctica. This tells us how CO2 levels climate have changed in the past and the consequent effect this has had on temperatures.

The overwhelming view of climate scientists is that the unrestrained increase in CO2 and other greenhouse gases will cause increases in global temperature. The understanding of biologists and earth scientists is that our current ecosystems and physical environment will be drastically changed if average earth temperatures are raised by any significant figure. We already have .7C degrees increase. A further 1.5 degrees is considered very dangerous. Increases of 2-3-4C degrees will cause havoc to all current ecosystems and make most of the earth uninhabitable for humans.

Of course at this stage we also have total meltdown of the ice caps and increases in sea levels of 80 plus metres.

How certain are scientists about the degree of global warming to come ? It depends on
1) How high the concentration of greenhouse gases rise
2) How much effect will these GG gases have on the temperature. This is called climate sensitivity.

The climate sensitivity of CO2 is still not accurately known.If it proves to be on the lower level of expectations then temperatures will rise more slowly than anticipated. Of course if CO2 levels just keep going up temperatures will follow. And it will all get very messy

If you want a metaphor consider the following.

If you jump off a 1 metre high wall certain things might happen to you. Or they might not.

Make the jump 5 metres and the first statement still holds. We don't know exactly what will happen if people jump off tall buildings. But we are sure it will be messy and potentially lethal. Or you might be lucky.
What risks are we prepared to take ? How much absolute certainty do we need of what will happen if we jump off a tall building ?

__________________________________________________________
My interest in "global warming"? Just wanting to survive in a benign world. Just wanting to see my children grow up in at least a similar environment to the one I have enjoyed.

Reference to Antarctic Ice Cores and Environmental Change
http://www.chem.hope.edu/~polik/warming/IceCore/IceCore2.html

 

[basilio]

For example 12 years ago scientists wouldn't have foreseen that the rapid warming of the arctic would push colder. moist air southwards to Europe and intensify extreme winter weather.

Did you just make this up?

Nope.It was reported in Science Daily

Arctic Ice Melt Is Setting Stage for Severe Winters

June 6, 2012 ”” The dramatic melt-off of Arctic sea ice due to climate change is hitting closer to home than millions of Americans might think.

http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2012/06/120606132420.htm

 

[basilio]

Bazinga Sails !!

That was very clever post your wrote lamenting the fact that scientists just didn't know everything about the climate and couldn't foresee the future.

As I finished writing (yet another) explanation of the basics of AGW I realised there was no way you could have been as silly/naive to actually believe what you said. You were just successfully winding me up.

Well done

 

[sails]

Are you serious Sails ? There is almost never any certainty including science. Every field of science is discovering and learning new things every day.

Gillard has said herself that the science is settled. Are you calling her a liar now?

Read it for yourself here:
http://www.theaustralian.com.au/nat...-gillard-advised/story-fn59niix-1226061130074

And I didn't ask for another bucket load of spam - so didn't read the rest of your post...sorry...

 

[sails]

That was very clever post your wrote lamenting the fact that scientists just didn't know everything about the climate and couldn't foresee the future.

As I finished writing (yet another) explanation of the basics of AGW I realised there was no way you could have been as silly/naive to actually believe what you said. You were just successfully winding me up.

Well done

Sorry Bas, you need to go to comprehension school. I was not winding you up. The questions I asked were genuine and the sheer nonsense of all this simply makes me believe even more it is nothing but hot air.

Did you answer my question if you have a vested financial interest causing you to continually spam us here?

And you can stop spamming with the large letters too...

 

[basilio]

I was trying to be "nice" Sails. To seriously argue that scientists should know everything about a topic ie climate change and be able to forsee the future is not credible.

With regard to the science being settled on AGW ? The case for AGW is as a solid as the most basic understandings of science to date. I outlined those in detail.

How far it will go ? What will be the final impacts ? How will it all turn out ? I addressed that in my final sentence.

What risks are we prepared to take ? How much absolute certainty do we need of what will happen if we jump off a tall building ?

My financial interest in AGW ? Zilch beyond a desire to live in a benign world.

And by the way this Forum is for all people to read and contribute. If you don't want to see my stuff put me on ignore.

 

[medicowallet]

I know some psychiatrists I can probably get you into fast Basil


Your post, grossly misrepresenting AGW realist scientists by highlighting that the science is settled on CO2 causing warming is just crazy, loopy, and downright stupidity.

Of course all scientists know that CO2 is a greenhouse gas, it is just that the use of it in models is flawed at the moment, and hence the horrendously inaccurate predictions/projections of the IPCC and the "good scientists"

also stating that CO2 was the driving force for temperature rises in the past is misleading as well, and anyone with any barely basic understanding of geology knows this to be true.

MW
(probably wasting my time)

 

[explod]

sails;754932]I thought AGWers have been proclaiming the science is settled. If it is settled, how come they are still learning?

Is the chart of a stock on the ASX settled, no we follow the chart. Where has anyone claimed it is settled?

Why did they resort to such lies stating it is settled when it wasn't? Why haven't they apologised about claiming it was settled when now you post they didn't foresee some things. Unbelievable.

Produce some evidence that they claimed it was settled, science does not make such claims.

And Bas, do you have a vested financial interest in carbon tax or global warming? I don't recall you answering that question and I think it is valid given the repetitive spamming you keep dishing up here.

What is you definition of spamming?

Highlighting a point is not. Of course some points you do not want to read, understand or take in.

You re Unbelievable

 

[wayneL]

Produce some evidence that they claimed it was settled,

ROTFLMAO
Are you really Rip Van Winkle????

science does not make such claims.

Indeed!!!!!

 

[white_goodman]

Is the chart of a stock on the ASX settled, no we follow the chart. Where has anyone claimed it is settled?

If im bullish am I an ASX denier?

 

[explod]

ROTFLMAO

In plain language what does this mean ?

 

[explod]

If im bullish am I an ASX denier?

I do not put my hard earned into feelings of being bullish. I follow the actual action.

Bullish is a following emotion as the event is established. The global warming problems in my view by what is happening around us is a chart on the move up. the degree heat gain over the last century is one key to that. So it is something that needs to be given attention (as we are giving it here).

If it might be a problem then we need to get our powder dry. Not sit back like old gawks and laugh at those who are trying to at least define things.

 

[wayneL]

In plain language what does this mean ?

http://www.acronymfinder.com/ROTFLMAO.html

 

[explod]

http://www.acronymfinder.com/ROTFLMAO.html

Very smart and sophisticated ole pal.

On the floor, yep the intelligence level I suspected.

But it would sure suit for your esteemed cheer squad.

 

[wayneL]

Very smart and sophisticated ole pal.

On the floor, yep the intelligence level I suspected.

But it would sure suit for your esteemed cheer squad.

Is it usually for you to go ad hom when embarrassed?

It was humourous that you denied they said the science is settled IMNTBCHO.

Such Acronyms are used to denote humour.

YMMV.

 

[basilio]

Your post, grossly misrepresenting AGW realist scientists by highlighting that the science is settled on CO2 causing warming is just crazy, loopy, and downright stupidity.

Of course all scientists know that CO2 is a greenhouse gas, it is just that the use of it in models is flawed at the moment, and hence the horrendously inaccurate predictions/projections of the IPCC and the "good scientists"

also stating that CO2 was the driving force for temperature rises in the past is misleading as well, and anyone with any barely basic understanding of geology knows this to be true.

MW

If you have read my posts MW you would be aware that I have extensive knowledge of the various impacts on climate on earth. In fact I discussed this a few times. The long cycles that precipitated the Ice Ages are a clear example.

As you saw however very few people on this forum want to read anything longer than a paragraph with simple words. And if it has anything to do with science its a gonner.

I focused on the current role of CO2 and GG gases because almost all current science shows this is the major factor driving our current temperature increases. If you look at the research one can see how other climatic factors - sun activity, El Niño/La Nina effects, volcanoes are identified and their effect noted. But currently GG forcing is the dominant factor

I also recognised that science isn't complete and that for example, we are still unsure exactly how much forcing CO2 has on the temperature.

You chose to believe the impact will be quite small - far less than the current spread of probabilities.

I hope you are right.

 

[white_goodman]

Very smart and sophisticated ole pal.

On the floor, yep the intelligence level I suspected.

But it would sure suit for your esteemed cheer squad.

coming from an intellectual pygmy, scathing

 

[explod]

coming from an intellectual pygmy, scathing

There are many of us fools who make too much noise,

however, the biggest fools take notice.