Global Warming

[Augustine2004]

Can either of you, Grim or Augustine, tell me what Glenn Morton'sposition is on whether the Earth has warmed or cooled over the last 100 years? He's argued both vociferously in the past week.

Do either of you know for sure? Getting him to give a straight answer is like nailing Jello to a wall.

:Gasp: A definite scientist]!? And does the data really allow an induction that looks firm? Or, to borrow your metaphor, isn't it really more like Jello, so far?

[Tiggy]

OK , so neither of you fine gentlemen can figure out Morton's position on the Earth's temperature history over the last 100 years.

Don't feel bad. He's flip-flopped back and forth so many times I have no idea what he's arguing either.

- T

[Augustine2004]

Tiggy, so you think the data is good enough to make a high-probability induction from. Your position would then be . . . wait! Don't tell me. Aha! Yes, you think we're going to fry, if we don't drown first!

[Tiggy]

Tiggy, so you think the data is good enough to make a high-probability induction from. Your position would then be . . . wait! Don't tell me. Aha! Yes, you think we're going to fry, if we don't drown first!

I haven't gotten anywhere near that point yet.

All I want is agreement from your side on the basic facts

Has the Earth's mean temperature warmed, cooled, or stayed the same over the last 100 years?

and

If it has changed in either direction, by how much and how do you know?

Can you provide those answers? I've been asking all the AGW deniers for weeks now but no one will answer.

- T

[Augustine2004]

Has the Earth's mean temperature warmed, cooled, or stayed the same over the last 100 years?

and

If it has changed in either direction, by how much and how do you know?

A rough estimate is that it’s about the same. I am not familiar with the data, and have not tried hard to evaluate its quality. Therefore, I’m not going to say any more than that.

A proper procedure is to measure the input of energy into a sphere that is always centered on earth (co-traveling) and has a radius large enough to enclose the van Allen belts. Then measure the output from the interior of the sphere. Those measurements will have to be made with enough precision and accuracy so that we can discern daily trends. We simply don't have that technical ability. Nowhere near.

[Bill the Cat]

Guess what else happened Glenn. When the world was 6 deg.C hotter during the interglacial periods, ice everywhere else in the world melted and sea levels rose by up to 130 meters



What would happen if the sea level rose 130 meters today Glenn?

There were no human civilizations 340K years ago. Today over a billion people live in coastal or river plane areas. What will happen to them if the sea level rises 130 Meters? Or even 10 meters?

BTW, did the Earth's climate warm or cool over the last 100 years? You're claimed both, and seem to switch your mind about every few hours.

Which is your view of the correct assessment today?

- T

Nothing we do will stop that from happening Tiggy. The earth has proven that it will oscillate from cool to hot and back. It WILL get hotter in the future, as it has done several times before, and the ocean WILL rise, no matter what we do.

[Tiggy]

Nothing we do will stop that from happening Tiggy. The earth has proven that it will oscillate from cool to hot and back. It WILL get hotter in the future, as it has done several times before, and the ocean WILL rise, no matter what we do.

But if we can make that happen later rather than sooner by reducing our inputs to the problem, we'll have more time to prepare and come up with technical solutions, benefit more people.

To me that's a worthwhile thing to do, but I've always been more of a long term planner and not a 'live for today, screw tomorrow' guy.

- T

[grmorton]

I tried to figure out whom to believe–Tiggy or Glenn. What reasons? Glenn says repeatedly to look at the data. Good advice, except he himself showed that the quality of the data is not necessarily good.

The quality of the data IS a data point. Data that is unbelievable and tainted can't be used for anything.

[grmorton]

Why? I'm not him.

Glenn? Can you satisfy the ID-ten-T error?

Yeah. The ID-ten-T error is one of reading comprehension. here is what can't be comprehended.

The world has warmed. It is only a tiny part due to CO2. Most of it is due to the sun being active last century--something that has changed now which is why the last 2 years have been cold. Why does the sun exert this influence when everyone says the energy output variations are not very large? Probably through cloud formation via cosmic ray influx, or lack of influx.

I don't think that position is like jello as some claim. But then ID-ten-T errors are rarely comprehended by those who are making them.

[Augustine2004]

But if we can make that happen later rather than sooner by reducing our inputs to the problem, we'll have more time to prepare and come up with technical solutions, benefit more people.

To me that's a worthwhile thing to do, but I've always been more of a long term planner and not a 'live for today, screw tomorrow' guy.

Central control and command? No way that is going to help. Have you even the foggiest why the USSR collapsed? Why our economy collapsed? If we let our government force us to 'reduce' we won't have any money to deploy technological solutions if any. More people will starve than otherwise.

[grmorton]

For those still wondering, look at what's being revealed about the programs and coding.
http://pajamasmedia.com/blog/climate...he-real-story/

Oh my gosh. I loved two parts of that pajamas blog

I think there’s a good reason the CRU didn’t want to give their data to people trying to replicate their work.

It’s in such a mess that they can’t replicate their own results.

http://pajamasmedia.com/blog/climate...-real-story/2/

and

As a result, it looks like they found themselves trapped. They had the big research organizations, the big grants — and when they found themselves challenged, they discovered they’d built their conclusions on fine beach sand.

But the tide was coming in.
http://pajamasmedia.com/blog/climate...-real-story/2/

I think Harry must have hanged himself. Someone should go through the police files.

[Challenger Grim]

Central control and command? No way that is going to help. Have you even the foggiest why the USSR collapsed? Why our economy collapsed? If we let our government force us to 'reduce' we won't have any money to deploy technological solutions if any. More people will starve than otherwise.

We can stop it if we all vote for COBRA! I hear their commander has a weather control machine.

[Tiggy]

Central control and command? No way that is going to help. Have you even the foggiest why the USSR collapsed? Why our economy collapsed? If we let our government force us to 'reduce' we won't have any money to deploy technological solutions if any. More people will starve than otherwise.

So why can't we find a good middle ground, a compromise solution that reduces pollution and doesn't over-stress the lower classes? That's what I've been working at for years. That's what 99% of the environmentally aware folks I know are doing too. But I keep running into idiots who scream you're an enviro-wacko bully trying to away their freedom if you vote for a $0.02 surtax on gas to pay for cleaner / alternative energy solutions.

- T

[Tiggy]

We can stop it if we all vote for COBRA! I hear their commander has a weather control machine.

COBRA my butt, I'm going after this

- T

[Augustine2004]

So why can't we find a good middle ground, a compromise solution that reduces pollution and doesn't over-stress the lower classes? That's what I've been working at for years. That's what 99% of the environmentally aware folks I know are doing too. But I keep running into idiots who scream you're an enviro-wacko bully trying to away their freedom if you vote for a $0.02 surtax on gas to pay for cleaner / alternative energy solutions.

Yeah, the old idea that a middle way between total socialism and pure capitalism is optimal. Historically, nations tended toward total socialism (the State controls everything and makes all decisions) until things become so bad people revolt, like in the French Revolution. Lenin and his minions did try something called War Communism. They had to fall back to something called New Economic Policy, which allowed some degree of private property. If you have a solution that really works to keep the State bounded within sorta reasonable limits, I would be stunned and joyful. I might even support the State if it's much smaller than the USFG. Actually, we have no evidence that any sort of State, any size, does more good than bad. Maybe more bad, because by definition the State has to use force to get people to obey its edicts. Taxes won't work unless the State can use force to collect them. Otherwise, the people would freely contribute--or not. If the people want an environment that is cleaner than now and are willing to make sacrifices, what do we need the State for? The free market will try to give people what they want anyway. There's a company that developed a fluorescent bulb claimed to nearly eliminate the mecury problem of the current compact fluorescent.bulb design. Not only does the company have a possible technological solution, it and others (stores, e.g.) are deploying it. If the people are largely indifferent or hostile, but the State is able to impose its edicts, you can bet your bibby slimy political fat cats like Al Gore are going to find ways to benefit.