Let's say Hansen is right???? What do we do?

[Old Rocks]

Let's say Hansen is right???? Let's give him the benefit of being right in this thread. We really do see warming at .25-.3c per decade all the way to 2100. What would you suggest us do? Let's say we get 3 to 4c warmer than today by 2100.

A few idea's
-Build sea walls around cities that are within 5 feet of sea level.
-Move cities, towns, etc to higher ground
-Work on toughing up grains, etc to sustain themselves through drought and flood

What else do we do?

Let's say Hansen's personal wealth depends on the continuation of the grand extortion scheme called "global warming. Let's be reasonable about it. Ice core samples indicate incredible shifts in global weather. We even number the ice ages. Do global warming scientists think the world was created in the late 1800's when the industrial revolution started? There are reasonable weather theories that indicate that the earth is emerging from a geological span of time that included an ice age. Ten thousand years is nothing in geological terms but modern scientists who depend on left wing funding can't seem to think in geological terms. Isn't it reasonable for the US to table the global warming argument for ten or twenty years while we fix the economy or is global warming more of a political issue than a geological one?

I think you just proved it's a political issue. The basic science is solid. We know the properties of CO2. We know the concentration has been going up. Put two and two together. The problem with discussing past cycles is, they're only valid if underlying conditions haven't changed. What's happening now is that humans put more CO2 into the atmosphere in days than all the volcanoes on earth do in a normal year. That hasn't happened before, so citing the past doesn't really tell us much.

Perhaps you don't realize that geological processes happen on multiple time scales. The Milankovic cycles operate on scales of tens of thousands of years. The variaton in in CO2, 180 to 300 ppm normally occurs on that scale. However, in the last 150 years, we have matched the increase that normally takes about 10 to 12 thousand years from glacial to interglacial. That is an increase of the normal rate of change of about 4 orders of magnitude.

Now here on the West Coast the speed of subduction is about the same as the growth rate of your fingernails. And ever so often the stress hits the point that the subducting plate lurches 15 to 40 feet. Now suppose we increased the speed of the subduction by a factor of several thousand. How often would we get great quakes then?

We truly have little idea of what the total affects of increasing the GHGs at the rate we are will be. Already the melt of the Arctic Sea Ice has taken us by surprise. The affects on the jet stream were not predicted in advance, and we had no idea that the permafrost could melt as quickly as it is doing.

And what is already in the pipeline is going to occur, no matter what we do in the next decade.

 

[Old Rocks]

A few other failures
1# Not making a strong case for man's expansion into space. Could of easily made a strong case with all the resources out there. Sadly, they let the other side defined the issue and killed the program.
2# Failure to to focus on a cheap "space plane" that we could use cheaply to get back and forth from the surface to space. I sit here laughing at all the idiots talking about all resources on earth, and only earth alone. Let's be honest, we're NOT going to pick up 7 billion humans to the first world levels without doing so.
3# Too hell with using one big missile one time to go to the moon...Why not make a real ship that we can use over and over again? Long term it makes sense!

Some of the failings of nasa!

You are talking cubic dollars. I would go for it, and vote a tax increase for my own income to achieve it. But most will not. The lessons of what we got from the Apollo program are understood by far too few on either side of the poltical spectrum.

 

[westwall]

Let's say Hansen is right???? Let's give him the benefit of being right in this thread. We really do see warming at .25-.3c per decade all the way to 2100. What would you suggest us do? Let's say we get 3 to 4c warmer than today by 2100.

A few idea's
-Build sea walls around cities that are within 5 feet of sea level.
-Move cities, towns, etc to higher ground
-Work on toughing up grains, etc to sustain themselves through drought and flood

What else do we do?

Slowing down emissions isn't even considered?

The warmists have allready said it's too late...or didn't you hear about all those "tipping points" we've passed? Of course they continually revise history so I'm sure there will be ever new "tipping points" to be reached. Now, though they'll choose some time so far in the distance they can't be proven wrong.

 

[westwall]

Let's say Hansen is right???? Let's give him the benefit of being right in this thread. We really do see warming at .25-.3c per decade all the way to 2100. What would you suggest us do? Let's say we get 3 to 4c warmer than today by 2100.

A few idea's
-Build sea walls around cities that are within 5 feet of sea level.
-Move cities, towns, etc to higher ground
-Work on toughing up grains, etc to sustain themselves through drought and flood

What else do we do?

1. Stop smoking; it's never too late;
2. Invest in green energy (Why do some conservatives worry so much about the fiscal debt and its impact on our kids and theirs, and less about the environmental pollution and its effect on the health of our kids and theirs?).
3. Colonize the moon and Mars. Expensive, you bet, doable, Gingrich thinks so.

You can either waste money on supposedly green tech or you can invest in the space program and get some real measurable benefit. Your choice.

 

[westwall]

Let's say Hansen is right???? Let's give him the benefit of being right in this thread. We really do see warming at .25-.3c per decade all the way to 2100. What would you suggest us do? Let's say we get 3 to 4c warmer than today by 2100.

A few idea's
-Build sea walls around cities that are within 5 feet of sea level.
-Move cities, towns, etc to higher ground
-Work on toughing up grains, etc to sustain themselves through drought and flood

What else do we do?

Let's say Hansen's personal wealth depends on the continuation of the grand extortion scheme called "global warming. Let's be reasonable about it. Ice core samples indicate incredible shifts in global weather. We even number the ice ages. Do global warming scientists think the world was created in the late 1800's when the industrial revolution started? There are reasonable weather theories that indicate that the earth is emerging from a geological span of time that included an ice age. Ten thousand years is nothing in geological terms but modern scientists who depend on left wing funding can't seem to think in geological terms. Isn't it reasonable for the US to table the global warming argument for ten or twenty years while we fix the economy or is global warming more of a political issue than a geological one?

I think you just proved it's a political issue. The basic science is solid. We know the properties of CO2. We know the concentration has been going up. Put two and two together. The problem with discussing past cycles is, they're only valid if underlying conditions haven't changed. What's happening now is that humans put more CO2 into the atmosphere in days than all the volcanoes on earth do in a normal year. That hasn't happened before, so citing the past doesn't really tell us much.

Proveably untrue.

 

[westwall]

Some ideas. One, move the cities that are less than 25' above sea level. While a 3' sea level rise by 2100 (and it could be more), add a storm surge such as we saw in Jersey and New York on top of that, and you add several orders of magnitude more damage.

Question. How many models must fail before the reality of the abject failure of climate science sinks in with you? Did you hang on to a belief in the tooth fairy, the easter bunny, and santa for an abnormally long time as well?

OK. Name the abject failures? I can name a few. Failure to realize that the affects on the Arctic would be far greater than even the most pessimistic model predicted. Failure to realize the effect of the loss of ice on the movements of the jett stream. Failure to predict the rapid melting of the permafrost, and how much GHGs that would release. Failure to predict how rapidly China and India's industry would develop, and the increase in GHGs and aerosols that would ential.

You see, the failures have not been that the scientists were too alarmist, but rather they were far too conservative in their estimates of the affects of the rise in global temperatures.

Care to show us how the Arctic is ice free. I seem to recall a prediction that that would be happening real, real soon...several years ago. Seems to be more ice than there was back in the 80's. Care to explain that Lucy?

 

[westwall]

Let's say Hansen's personal wealth depends on the continuation of the grand extortion scheme called "global warming. Let's be reasonable about it. Ice core samples indicate incredible shifts in global weather. We even number the ice ages. Do global warming scientists think the world was created in the late 1800's when the industrial revolution started? There are reasonable weather theories that indicate that the earth is emerging from a geological span of time that included an ice age. Ten thousand years is nothing in geological terms but modern scientists who depend on left wing funding can't seem to think in geological terms. Isn't it reasonable for the US to table the global warming argument for ten or twenty years while we fix the economy or is global warming more of a political issue than a geological one?

I think you just proved it's a political issue. The basic science is solid. We know the properties of CO2. We know the concentration has been going up. Put two and two together. The problem with discussing past cycles is, they're only valid if underlying conditions haven't changed. What's happening now is that humans put more CO2 into the atmosphere in days than all the volcanoes on earth do in a normal year. That hasn't happened before, so citing the past doesn't really tell us much.

Perhaps you don't realize that geological processes happen on multiple time scales. The Milankovic cycles operate on scales of tens of thousands of years. The variaton in in CO2, 180 to 300 ppm normally occurs on that scale. However, in the last 150 years, we have matched the increase that normally takes about 10 to 12 thousand years from glacial to interglacial. That is an increase of the normal rate of change of about 4 orders of magnitude.

Now here on the West Coast the speed of subduction is about the same as the growth rate of your fingernails. And ever so often the stress hits the point that the subducting plate lurches 15 to 40 feet. Now suppose we increased the speed of the subduction by a factor of several thousand. How often would we get great quakes then?

We truly have little idea of what the total affects of increasing the GHGs at the rate we are will be. Already the melt of the Arctic Sea Ice has taken us by surprise. The affects on the jet stream were not predicted in advance, and we had no idea that the permafrost could melt as quickly as it is doing.

And what is already in the pipeline is going to occur, no matter what we do in the next decade.

You need to look up your glacial stages there olfraud. You are WAY off on your timeline.

Wisconsin 12-110 ka
Sangamonian 110-130 ka
Illinoian 130-200 ka
Pre-Illinioan 1 200-300 ka
2 300-455 ka
3 455-620 ka

Etc. etc. etc.

 

[westwall]

A few other failures
1# Not making a strong case for man's expansion into space. Could of easily made a strong case with all the resources out there. Sadly, they let the other side defined the issue and killed the program.
2# Failure to to focus on a cheap "space plane" that we could use cheaply to get back and forth from the surface to space. I sit here laughing at all the idiots talking about all resources on earth, and only earth alone. Let's be honest, we're NOT going to pick up 7 billion humans to the first world levels without doing so.
3# Too hell with using one big missile one time to go to the moon...Why not make a real ship that we can use over and over again? Long term it makes sense!

Some of the failings of nasa!

You are talking cubic dollars. I would go for it, and vote a tax increase for my own income to achieve it. But most will not. The lessons of what we got from the Apollo program are understood by far too few on either side of the poltical spectrum.

I disagree. The people would willingly support a renewed space program if they knew what the eventual goal was and were an integral part of it. Detail what the benefits are and what the end goal is and the people will support it.

 

[SSDD]

I think you just proved it's a political issue. The basic science is solid.

You warmers sure have a damned strange notion of what constitutes proof....for anything. The science is not solid. That proof exists in the fact that for all the billions spent by climate science so far, you still can't link to a single bit of hard proof that CO2 drives the climate to even a small degree.

We know the properties of CO2.

We know it absorbs and emits IR in a very small bandwidth. The rest remains unproven hypothesis. Don't confuse what we know with what we guess, or what we wish, or even what we want.

We know the concentration has been going up. Put two and two together.

You have to put the right 2 and 2 together though. 2 eggs and 2 brussels sprouts make 4 but they don't make a good breakfast. Steadily rising atmospheric CO2 and steadily rising temperatures make a pretty good hypothesis but the temperatures are not steadily rising. Even the "consesnsus" now admits that there has been essentially no warming now for 16 years and they are coming arround to admitting that there might have been some cooling during that time.

The ice has been melting back for 15,000 years now without an increase in CO2 and ice corse leave no rational doubt that CO2 follows temperature, not the other way around.

Simply grabbing one random 2 and another random 2 (especially a politically motivated 2) does not equal a rational hypothesis....especially when observation continues to tell you that it is wrong.


As to disregarding cycles because conditions have not remained the same....that is patently rediculous. Do you believe underlying conditions remain the same for millions of years so that large cycles can continue? Large cycles continue inspite of minor underlying conditions and a trace gas in the atmosphere is most certainly a minor underlying condition. Can you prove that the trace gas you so fear is a greater influence than the large cycles and able to, in fact, alter them? If you can prove that, then we can reasonably disregard well known cycles. If you can't prove it, then why would we disregard well known cycles?

 

[SSDD]

OK. Name the abject failures? I can name a few. Failure to realize that the affects on the Arctic would be far greater than even the most pessimistic model predicted.

Do you really believe any of this? Surely you know that it is becoming more well known that wind and currents are responsible for arctic ice loss, not a trace gas in the atmosphere. Your claims seem to be universally the results of computer models as opposed to actual observational data.

Failure to realize the effect of the loss of ice on the movements of the jett stream.

Are you sure that the ice loss is causing the change in the jet stream? Considering the new evidence surfacing, it is more likely that the changes in the jet stream are causing the ice loss. You seem to accept computer model output over direct observation

Failure to predict the rapid melting of the permafrost, and how much GHGs that would release.

Do you think that the said same permafrost didn't melt during the medieval warm period,or the roman warm period, or the minoan warm period, or the holocene maximum? Were there catastrophic results during those periods, or were they periods of rapid advancement for man?

And then there is the observational fact that the claimed rapid release of GHG's from the permafrost is not having the claimed effect. Again, model output is not real data.

Failure to predict how rapidly China and India's industry would develop, and the increase in GHGs and aerosols that would ential.

And still temperatures remain static and more and more scientists are predicting that we are about to enter a prolonged cooling period.

You see, the failures have not been that the scientists were too alarmist, but rather they were far too conservative in their estimates of the affects of the rise in global temperatures.

What I see is that you apparently are a fearful old grannie who believes that computer models can do no wrong. I also see that you haven't taken a good hard look at reality anytime lately.

Here are some papers documenting the abject failure of computer models to predict anything. Those models fail because they make assumptions regarding atmospheric physics and the properties of gasses that are wrong. Till they get the physics right in the models, they will continue to fail.

New paper shows no "hot spot" as predicted by climate models, invalidates AGW (published in Geophysical Research Letters )

New paper finds the data do not support the theory of man-made global warming [AGW] (published in European Geosciences Union journal Earth System Dynamics)

New paper shows models significantly underestimate cooling from clouds (published in Geophysical Research Letters )

New paper finds models have it wrong again & predict excessive droughts (published in Nature)

New paper finds clouds cool the climate (published in Environmental Research Letters )

Whoops: paper finds supposed positive feedback from low clouds in models is exaggerated 50% (published in Geophysical Research Letters )

New paper predicts decreased global tropical cyclones over the 21st century (published in Geophysical Research Letters)

New paper suggests the Amazon has become wetter over past 100 years (published in the online Proceedings of National Academy of Sciences.)

New paper finds climate change projections fail to consider the 'enormous thermal inertia of the ocean' (published in Climatic Change )

New paper finds CO2 rapidly increased during the last ice age (published in Geophysical Research Letters )

New paper finds clouds over the Pacific have a strong negative-feedback cooling effect (published in Geophysical Research Letters )

Article in nature says extreme weather events can't currently be attributed to global warming (published in Nature)

Antarctic sea ice reaches record high while IPCC models predicted the opposite (published in The Journal of Climate )

New paper shows negative feedback from clouds 'may damp global warming' (published in The Journal of Climate )

Paper finds 'warming since 1850 is mainly the result of natural climatic variations' (published in Global and Planetary Change )

New paper shows no 'average' change in El Ninos due to CO2 (published in Geophysical Research Letters )

New paper finds climate models are unable to simulate effects of large volcanic eruptions (published in Journal of Geophysical Research )

New paper finds another mechanism by which the Sun controls climate (published in Journal of Geophysical Research )

Paper finds droughts & floods due to natural variability, not man-made greenhouse gases (published in Journal of Climate )

Paper finds Arctic sea ice extent 8,000 years ago was less than half of the 'record' low 2007 level (published in Science)

(published in PNAS )

[url=http://hockeyschtick.blogspot.com/2012/08/new-paper-finds-unjustified-assumptions.htmlNew paper finds unjustified assumptions on clouds in most climate models[/url] (published in Earth System Dynamics)

[url=http://hockeyschtick.blogspot.com/2012/08/new-paper-finds-sea-level-rise-has.html]New paper finds sea level rise has greatly decelerated over past 10 years (published in Coastal Engineering )

I could go on and on with this but you should get the point. The list of things models have accurately predicted would be much easier to list. It would consist of a single word.....zero.

 

[konradv]

We know the properties of CO2. We know the concentration has been going up. Put two and two together. The problem with discussing past cycles is, they're only valid if underlying conditions haven't changed. What's happening now is that humans put more CO2 into the atmosphere in days than all the volcanoes on earth do in a normal year. That hasn't happened before, so citing the past doesn't really tell us much.

Proveably untrue.

Then prove it. Does CO2 absorb IR? Does CO2 re-emit IR? Has the concentration in the atmosphere been going up? Do humans put out more CO2 than volcanoes?

http://www.agu.org/pubs/pdf/2011EO240001.pdf

 

[SSDD]

Then prove it. Does CO2 absorb IR? Does CO2 re-emit IR? Has the concentration in the atmosphere been going up? Do humans put out more CO2 than volcanoes?

CO2 concentrations are going up, but temperatures have been flat for a over a decade and a half and the data strongly suggests a cooling trend for the next 3 or 4 decades. That is hard, obseved evidence that the AGW hypothesis is simply not correct.

 

[konradv]

Then prove it. Does CO2 absorb IR? Does CO2 re-emit IR? Has the concentration in the atmosphere been going up? Do humans put out more CO2 than volcanoes?

CO2 concentrations are going up, but temperatures have been flat for a over a decade and a half and the data strongly suggests a cooling trend for the next 3 or 4 decades. That is hard, obseved evidence that the AGW hypothesis is simply not correct.

Why couldn't the cause be natural cycles blunting the effect of AGW? You're quick to jump to that conclusion. Are natural cycles only invoked when they aid your thesis? That's intellectual dishonesty, "wirebender".

 

[SSDD]

Why couldn't the cause be natural cycles blunting the effect of AGW? You're quick to jump to that conclusion. Are natural cycles only invoked when they aid your thesis? That's intellectual dishonesty, "wirebender".

I have been saying all along that natural cycles are what's driving the climate. If CO2 has any effect at all on the climate, it is so small that it will never be separated out from the noise of natural variation. That being the case, the argument about CO2 is pointless.

 

[ScienceRocks]

I honestly don't know what to think about this issue.
-Yes there is physics supporting it
-but on the other hand where is this warming on the graphs?

 

[SSDD]

I honestly don't know what to think about this issue.
-Yes there is physics supporting it
-but on the other hand where is this warming on the graphs?

As more physicists enter the argument, the less the physics seem to support the AGW claims. I have placed my bets with the atmospheric thermal effect as described by Nikolov. It is predicted by the ideal gas laws, it has been proven experimentally, and when the model is applied to every other body in the solar system with an atmosphere, the predicted temperatures almost exactly match the observed temperatures as opposed to the greenhouse model which can't even get close to the actual temperature of any other body in the solar system with an atmosphere.

 

[IanC]

the skeptical side has 'true believers' that are just as fervent as the ones on the warmist side.

 

[IanC]

[

I think you just proved it's a political issue. The basic science is solid.

You warmers sure have a damned strange notion of what constitutes proof....for anything. The science is not solid. That proof exists in the fact that for all the billions spent by climate science so far, you still can't link to a single bit of hard proof that CO2 drives the climate to even a small degree.

We know the properties of CO2.

We know it absorbs and emits IR in a very small bandwidth. The rest remains unproven hypothesis. Don't confuse what we know with what we guess, or what we wish, or even what we want.

We know the concentration has been going up. Put two and two together.

You have to put the right 2 and 2 together though. 2 eggs and 2 brussels sprouts make 4 but they don't make a good breakfast. Steadily rising atmospheric CO2 and steadily rising temperatures make a pretty good hypothesis but the temperatures are not steadily rising. Even the "consesnsus" now admits that there has been essentially no warming now for 16 years and they are coming arround to admitting that there might have been some cooling during that time.

The ice has been melting back for 15,000 years now without an increase in CO2 and ice corse leave no rational doubt that CO2 follows temperature, not the other way around.

Simply grabbing one random 2 and another random 2 (especially a politically motivated 2) does not equal a rational hypothesis....especially when observation continues to tell you that it is wrong.


As to disregarding cycles because conditions have not remained the same....that is patently rediculous. Do you believe underlying conditions remain the same for millions of years so that large cycles can continue? Large cycles continue inspite of minor underlying conditions and a trace gas in the atmosphere is most certainly a minor underlying condition. Can you prove that the trace gas you so fear is a greater influence than the large cycles and able to, in fact, alter them? If you can prove that, then we can reasonably disregard well known cycles. If you can't prove it, then why would we disregard well known cycles?

please fix the quotes incorrectly attributed to me

 

[MisterBeale]

Thus, there isn't a whole lot we can do about it, but be prepared. The global elite that wish to try to institute a global tax to get rich off of a bad situation are using a natural global phenomenon to increase their power. If the masses don't get educated, and don't educate each other, we stand a very real chance of losing our freedom and liberty.

We need to fight back against the propaganda and their paid stooges. They own academia via their foundations.

http://www.appinsys.com/globalwarming/earthmagneticfield.htm

http://www.globalwarmingclassroom.info/earth_magnetosphere.htm

http://www.globalwarmingclassroom.info/video/ElNino-LaNinoOscillations/ElNino-LaNinoOscillations.html

http://www.google.com/hostednews/afp/article/ALeqM5h2eLthVbBG2KB428zgeirvoWrHIw

http://www.c3headlines.com/peer-reviewed-studies/

 

[SSDD]

the skeptical side has 'true believers' that are just as fervent as the ones on the warmist side.

If you are referrring to me, it is true that I believe nikolov is right but my belief is based on far more than my political leanings or even what I know, or think I know about physics. I believe he is correct for 3 main reasons. His atmospheric thermal effect is predicted by the laws of physics, his hypothesis has been proven expermimentally in a laboratory, and it works when applied to other bodies with atmospheres.

The greenhouse effect hypothesis can't even boast 1 of those reasons to believe. In fact, it can't boast any reason at all to believe as it remains completely unproven via any experiment whatsoever and more, the reality of observation snubs its nose at the greenhouse effect hypothesis every hour of every day.

If someone comes along with a hypothesis and can offer stronger proofs than Nikolov, then I will probably be swayed by the evidence but it will be hard evidence that sways me. It certainly won't be a flop like the greenhouse effect that convinces me. Literally tens of billions and maybe hundreds of billions have been spent on that practical joke and still not an iota of anything that could be construed as hard evidence in support of it.

People who support that hypothesis are indeed the true believers as they place their allegience to it on belief alone.