billvon 2,406 #51 May 27, 2010 >>I do not believe anybody out there is arguing that the climate is >> not changing. Your own words: "If their point is like mine, warming has paused and we don't know why." So it sounds like people DO think the climate isn't changing, although they don't know why. >"since the climate is not warming significantly, there is no immediate >reason for concern.". . .I bolded the language of subjective argument. Right. Which again is what I was claiming. There are people who claim that the climate is essentially not changing, at least at any level we'd care about. >It is ironic that those who are the most ignorant of the subject are usually >the MOST likely to pick up the inconsistencies. The deniers are largely a >group of people who say, "Hey. Global warming leads to more floods? And >more droughts. And to more frequent and intense blizzards as well as less >frequent and less intense snowfall? Non-doctors might say the same thing about fevers. "Hey, fever leads to being too warm - AND to the chills? It indicates disease - AND it helps fight disease? Stupid alarmist doctors; they obviously don't have a clue what fever is and just want to line their wallets with your healthcare dollars. Al Gore is probably involved." The truth in both medicine and climate is, of course, a lot less simplistic. >The problem is that the increases in global temperature - the curve - >began well before there would be any appreciable effect of the industrial >era. See graphs below. >The popular media has been dominated by the "alarmist" camp >for decades now! You'd have to dismiss FOX News, Michael Crichton, Rush Limbaugh, Glen Beck, Ann Coulter, Sean Hannity and Sarah Palin as popular media for that to be true. And given that FOX is currently the most popular news show out there, and given their nonstop coverage of the 'lying climate scientists' issue, saying that the "media is dominated by alarmists" is a hard sell. Personally I think the news is dominated by extremists on both sides. Not because there's much validity to either position, but because extremism sells. "Arctic to melt and flood Manhattan!" and "Climate scientists lie and Al Gore buys!" both sell commercials; the latest tree-ring proxy data from Argentina doesn't. >Why can the position not progress to "the effects will not be as bad >as the lay public have been told." More accurately, they will likely be not as bad as the alarmists claim and not as benign as the deniers claim. And if their position does progress from "the effects will all be good; no bad news here!" to "the effects won't be _too_ bad" then they themselves will have also progressed, from deniers to more centrist thinkers. Let's hope that happens. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
rhaig 0 #52 May 28, 2010 so are we supposed to look at the graphs of the last 100 years or the last thousand years. Because whenever the AGW opponents post graphs, it's "too narrow a time scope" so I have to ask for definitions from your lot. What's not to narrow? One that shows a warming trend?-- Rob Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
turtlespeed 212 #53 May 28, 2010 Quoteso are we supposed to look at the graphs of the last 100 years or the last thousand years. Because whenever the AGW opponents post graphs, it's "too narrow a time scope" so I have to ask for definitions from your lot. What's not to narrow? One that shows a warming trend? I believe that 10 million years would be enough.I'm not usually into the whole 3-way thing, but you got me a little excited with that. - Skymama BTR #1 / OTB^5 Official #2 / Hellfish #408 / VSCR #108/Tortuga/Orfun Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
billvon 2,406 #54 May 28, 2010 >so are we supposed to look at the graphs of the last 100 years or the last >thousand years. Look at whatever graphs you like. >Because whenever the AGW opponents post graphs, it's "too narrow a >time scope" so I have to ask for definitions from your lot. Why bother? Some people's minds are made up, and all the data in the world won't change them. Look at any graph you like. If you'd like to look into the science behind them, journals like Science and Nature are great. If you just want a political position to spout, Glen Beck is a great source of predigested ones. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
kallend 1,635 #55 May 28, 2010 In April the average temperature in the tropical North Atlantic was 1.38 Celsius degrees above average, or about 2.5 Fahrenheit degrees, by far the largest anomaly ever recorded. That is significant, said Fred Schmude, a forecaster with the Houston-based private weather company ImpactWeather, because scientists have tracked these waters for 62 years. In those 744 months, the recorded value has exceeded the long-term average by 1 or more Celsius degrees just five times. Three of those five times have occurred in February, March and April of this year. “Not only are we breaking records, but we are shattering them,” Schmude said.... The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
rushmc 18 #56 May 28, 2010 This does not help AGW propoents case either http://legaltimes.typepad.com/blt/2010/05/foia-suit-seeks-nasas-global-warming-data-.html"America will never be destroyed from the outside, if we falter and lose our freedoms, it will be because we destroyed ourselves." Abraham Lincoln Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
airdvr 198 #57 May 28, 2010 Quote Houston-based private weather company ImpactWeather No possible conflict of interest there Please don't dent the planet. Destinations by Roxanne Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
billvon 2,406 #58 May 28, 2010 >No possible conflict of interest there Fair enough. For a more impartial read, we should go with public organizations like NASA-GISS. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
airdvr 198 #59 May 28, 2010 Quote >No possible conflict of interest there Fair enough. For a more impartial read, we should go with public organizations like NASA-GISS. As soon as they fork over the data on that sunshine request Please don't dent the planet. Destinations by Roxanne Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
billvon 2,406 #60 May 28, 2010 >As soon as they fork over the data on that sunshine request Excellent dodge sir! Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
turtlespeed 212 #61 May 28, 2010 According to this guy, the Earth has had at least 10 Ice ages and it always warmed before it happened. looks like we MAY have another one coming in the next century or so.I'm not usually into the whole 3-way thing, but you got me a little excited with that. - Skymama BTR #1 / OTB^5 Official #2 / Hellfish #408 / VSCR #108/Tortuga/Orfun Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
airdvr 198 #62 May 28, 2010 Quote>As soon as they fork over the data on that sunshine request Excellent dodge sir! What? The data is questionable.Please don't dent the planet. Destinations by Roxanne Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
billvon 2,406 #63 May 28, 2010 >looks like we MAY have another one coming in the next century or so. Maybe. Perhaps we shouldn't be so eager to force such an event to happen. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
billvon 2,406 #64 May 28, 2010 >What? The data is questionable. So public entities can't be trusted. Private entities can't be trusted either unless they agree with you. Got it. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
airdvr 198 #65 May 28, 2010 Quote >What? The data is questionable. So public entities can't be trusted. Private entities can't be trusted either unless they agree with you. Got it. Look...I don't know shit about AGW. Never claimed to. I rely on someone more intelligent than I am to sift through the BS. But that someone has to at least appear to have nothing to gain from then answer being 1 or 2. All I've seen from the AGW crowd has been linked to folks who would benefit from AGW.Please don't dent the planet. Destinations by Roxanne Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
rehmwa 2 #66 May 28, 2010 Quote>public entities can't be trusted. Private entities can't be trusted either unless they agree with you. that's towing the party line (as well as many here) (pick a party) ... Driving is a one dimensional activity - a monkey can do it - being proud of your driving abilities is like being proud of being able to put on pants Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
rushmc 18 #67 May 28, 2010 Quote Quote >public entities can't be trusted. Private entities can't be trusted either unless they agree with you. that's towing the party line (as well as many here) (pick a party) YaWhy not? You have!"America will never be destroyed from the outside, if we falter and lose our freedoms, it will be because we destroyed ourselves." Abraham Lincoln Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
mnealtx 0 #68 May 28, 2010 Quote>No possible conflict of interest there Fair enough. For a more impartial read, we should go with public organizations like NASA-GISS. Before or after the 'deniers' showed them where their data was wrong?Mike I love you, Shannon and Jim. POPS 9708 , SCR 14706 Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
kallend 1,635 #69 May 28, 2010 Quote Quote Houston-based private weather company ImpactWeather No possible conflict of interest there So what in his comment on the data was incorrect? Are you saying that having the highest recorded temperature anomalies in several consecutive months is not breaking records?... The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
billvon 2,406 #70 May 28, 2010 >Before or after the 'deniers' showed them where their data was wrong? Right on cue; your knee is in good shape. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
airdvr 198 #71 May 28, 2010 Quote Quote Quote Houston-based private weather company ImpactWeather No possible conflict of interest there So what in his comment on the data was incorrect? Are you saying that having the highest recorded temperature anomalies in several consecutive months is not breaking records? If they've been measuring for 60 years? Wow! A nanosecond on the timeline.Please don't dent the planet. Destinations by Roxanne Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
turtlespeed 212 #72 May 28, 2010 Quote>looks like we MAY have another one coming in the next century or so. Maybe. Perhaps we shouldn't be so eager to force such an event to happen. Why not? Then the glacier people and the Global warming people will finally STFU! OH - wait - no they won't then they will start a global cooling climate change melodrama, which will then be followed by YET another warming melodrama. The simplest fact, that no one wants to get, is that the world is self healing. If you understand that and still think that humans can hurt Mother Earth, you have bigger problems than your beliefs. What is really at stake here is the arrogance that the human race thinks it can control these things. We really need to get over ourselves. I tell you what when you can stop volcanos from erupting, every time, all the time - then you will have affected the climate.I'm not usually into the whole 3-way thing, but you got me a little excited with that. - Skymama BTR #1 / OTB^5 Official #2 / Hellfish #408 / VSCR #108/Tortuga/Orfun Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
kallend 1,635 #73 May 28, 2010 Quote Quote Quote Quote Houston-based private weather company ImpactWeather No possible conflict of interest there So what in his comment on the data was incorrect? Are you saying that having the highest recorded temperature anomalies in several consecutive months is not breaking records? If they've been measuring for 60 years? Wow! A nanosecond on the timeline. Not really. Changes over a human lifespan tend to be rather important to us. And how does that relate to a "conflict of interest" exactly?... The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
billvon 2,406 #74 May 28, 2010 >Then the glacier people and the Global warming people will finally STFU! That's true. AND the skiing will get much better. >The simplest fact, that no one wants to get, is that the world is self healing. Absolutely. We just have to let it heal. >If you understand that and still think that humans can hurt Mother Earth, >you have bigger problems than your beliefs. Oh, we can't seriously damage it; cockroaches will always survive. And if you take insects, plants, algae and bacteria, you've accounted for 99.9% of the life on Earth. We won't affect them, beyond forcing them to evolve a bit faster. We do, however, have the ability to make life miserable for ourselves. Anyone who visited Los Angeles during the 1970's knows this to be true. That's something we should avoid. >I tell you what when you can stop volcanos from erupting, every time, >all the time - then you will have affected the climate. That's true. But when we put out hundreds of times more greenhouse gas as volcanoes do, then we affect it far more than volcanoes do. To put it another way, if volcanoes erupted a hundred times more often than they do, or each one was a hundred times as violent, then they'd approach our level of climate impact. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
airdvr 198 #75 May 28, 2010 Quote Quote Quote Quote Quote Houston-based private weather company ImpactWeather No possible conflict of interest there So what in his comment on the data was incorrect? Are you saying that having the highest recorded temperature anomalies in several consecutive months is not breaking records? If they've been measuring for 60 years? Wow! A nanosecond on the timeline. Not really. Changes over a human lifespan tend to be rather important to us. And how does that relate to a "conflict of interest" exactly? I guess your having to ask that question is what concerns me the most. We're making decisions based on 60 years of data. Just a little reminder http://www.zunal.com/myaccount/uploads/1017_timeline.jpgPlease don't dent the planet. Destinations by Roxanne Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
