The copenhagen diagnosis, extreme events

[Old Rocks]

LOL. Well, Ernie, I read the report. That, after all, was the purpose of the site, to disseminate the report.

 

[skookerasbil]

The Copenhagen stuff is fixed..................

Meanwhile.............in other "extreme" climate news............

C3: ? Are Severe Weather Events Due To Global Warming


I thought this was best

Pre-CO2 Hysteria: Rare, Monster Hurricane Strikes NY/NE In 1938 - Experts Say A 2011 Re-Do Possible

Read here. Could the rare, massive hurricane again strike the New York and New England region as one did in 1938? That disaster was the result of a combination of a Pacific La Niña phase and a warm Atlantic Multidecadal Oscillation (AMO) phase. Unfortunately for 2011, those same climatic conditions exist, and it has nothing to do with human CO2 emissions.

If this 2011 combination of climate factors persist, the U.S. east coast will be extremely vulnerable throughout the hurricane season, including major metropolitan areas that rarely experience the full wrath of a hurricane.

And, if this type of disaster plays out in 2011, what is the likelihood that Obama and Democrats will blame human CO2 emissions? 100 percent?

"At 2:30 p.m., the 50-mile wide eye of the [1938] storm is over Long Island with a central pressure of an unprecedented 27.94 inches. Wind gusts estimated as high as 150 and 200 mph are pounding parts of Long Island and the offshore waters.....As the eye of the storm approaches Long Island, south coast residents watch as a thick bank of “fog” twenty-five to forty feet high rolls in towards the south-facing coast. But what they think is a fog bank is really the storm surge, a virtual mountain of water that is associated with the extremely strong winds and low pressure near the center of the storm. Many die on Long Island as this wall of water smashes ashore. Huge waves, of 30 feet or more atop the storm surge add to the destructive power. The storm tide completely engulfs Fire Island. The impact of the storm surge is so great, that it actually shows up on the earthquake seismographs at Fordham University in New York City and Sitka, Alaska.....the great Hurricane speeds to New England, again with a killer storm surge. Storm tides of 14 to 18 feet are experienced across most of the Connecticut coast with 18 to 25 foot tides from New London to Cape Cod. In Narragansett Bay, a storm surge of 12 to 15 feet destroys most coastal homes, marinas and yacht clubs.....Just over an hour later, the storm was devastating the city. Providence reports 100 mph sustained winds with gusts to 125 mph. But the real killer is the water. Downtown Providence is submerged under a storm tide of nearly 20 feet. The storm tide carries boats and houses into the capital, flooding downtown buildings, where workers are just preparing to leave for the day. Having no idea what a storm surge is, many workers do not evacuate and are trapped and drown where they work."

 

[Old Rocks]

Im sure they will just trash the information because of their deep seeded hate for science

I'm a Chemical Engineer with a masters degree, so I think when it comes to science I have knowledge above your average person.

its not a hate of science, is a distrust of people who try to use science for poltical change.

Given the absorption specta of GHGs has no political affiliations, I fail to see it as a political subject except as those that would lose money from decreasing our GHG production influence the politics in order to ignore the reality of what is happening.

You might note that I make very few statements without backing them up from scientific literature. I am not a scientist, I am a millwright. So my opinion, with no backing from people who are scientists, has no weight, nor should it have.

 

[martybegan]

Im sure they will just trash the information because of their deep seeded hate for science

I'm a Chemical Engineer with a masters degree, so I think when it comes to science I have knowledge above your average person.

its not a hate of science, is a distrust of people who try to use science for poltical change.

Given the absorption specta of GHGs has no political affiliations, I fail to see it as a political subject except as those that would lose money from decreasing our GHG production influence the politics in order to ignore the reality of what is happening.

You might note that I make very few statements without backing them up from scientific literature. I am not a scientist, I am a millwright. So my opinion, with no backing from people who are scientists, has no weight, nor should it have.

GHG's do not have politcal affiliations, those who are the most concerned about them do, and often they are of a philosophy that the only solution is a massive increase in government regulation, and control over people's day to day lives.

I do feel for those who are concerned about climate change, and are attempting to change how our county operates. They face the task of basically re-defining technological progress. In the past 200 years technologies have replaced others by being a combination of cheaper, easier, faster, or more productive. They old technology phases itself out as more people use the newer. This is how we went from horses to cars, ice blocks to refrigerators, and candles/lamps to light bulbs.

The current technological wave is different. Here we are often replacing technologies with ones that have a downside compared to what it is replacing. The market itself could not support these technologies, because there is no concrete advantage to them. Electric cars have range/power issues compared to ICE cars. CFL's have light quality and capital cost issues compared to incandescents, solar plants are at the whim of the sun compared to an oil/nuke plant. While these new technologies do have some advantages, they are not enough to supplant the old technologies.....unless the government steps in and makes it happen.

The benefit from environmentally friendly technologies is often abstract, as compared to the disadvantages, which are often right in the face of the person using them.

For me its less about the money, and more about the eroding freedom when government gets down to the details of what type of light bulb I have to put in my house.

 

[Old Rocks]

OK, Marty, I see where you are coming from. However, at some point, a point far too late given the lead time on the effects of GHGs, we are going to wake up to the fact that our effect is creating conditions that are destroying the life that we are trying to build for ourselves.

In and of itself, this extreme event proves nothing. However, given the drumbeat of weather related disasters in the last few years, I think we are seeing a pattern. A pattern that was predicted in many of the papers by the scientists that study climate and weather.

 

[martybegan]

OK, Marty, I see where you are coming from. However, at some point, a point far too late given the lead time on the effects of GHGs, we are going to wake up to the fact that our effect is creating conditions that are destroying the life that we are trying to build for ourselves.

In and of itself, this extreme event proves nothing. However, given the drumbeat of weather related disasters in the last few years, I think we are seeing a pattern. A pattern that was predicted in many of the papers by the scientists that study climate and weather.

If and when that point comes, we will adjust. Humanity has adjusted through far worse disasters, with a fraction of the knowledge and technology we have today.

My skepticism on AGW comes from my familiarity and use of modeling for wastewater treatment plant design. Those are far simpler models and even then they spit out absolute crap unless you define the parameters very stringently. For AGW climate models, the system is infintely more complex, as is the system.

While I know you have an issue with skeptics such as myself, my issue with some supporters is that they treat skeptcism as almost a form of heresy. Couple that with the common tactic of blaming every warm streak or storm season on AGW, even cooler weather in some places, it almost seems supporters will try anything to make you beleive they are right. i am not saying you do this, it is what I see in the media.

If the price we have to pay to maybe prevent what may be happening is regulating how we live down to the smallest detail, giving government more control to tell us how to live our lives, then maybe I want the super duper bad crap to happen first, so I know we have no other option. It would be tragic comedy if we did all this crap to find out we were wrong.

 

[westwall]

OK, Marty, I see where you are coming from. However, at some point, a point far too late given the lead time on the effects of GHGs, we are going to wake up to the fact that our effect is creating conditions that are destroying the life that we are trying to build for ourselves.

In and of itself, this extreme event proves nothing. However, given the drumbeat of weather related disasters in the last few years, I think we are seeing a pattern. A pattern that was predicted in many of the papers by the scientists that study climate and weather.

Yes let us look at the drumbeat of weather disasters shall we? Oh looky here. They happen ALL THE TIME! Amazing! And this is JUST IN THE NETHERLANDS!

838 December 26: A large part of the northwest of the Netherlands (in that time the land belonged to Frisia - now called Friesland) was flooded by a storm. Lack of good dikes was an important cause of this flood disaster. Bishop Prudentius of Troyes describes this flood; he said there were 2437 victims. This flood is also described in the Annales Xantenses.
1014 September 28: for the first time the partially closed coast line of the Netherlands was breached. Walcheren suffered a particularly large amount of damage. It took years before people managed to get their lives back on track. The chronicle of the Quedlinburg abbey in Saxony reports that thousands of people died.
1042 November 2: flood mentioned in Annales Blandiniensis (Ghent), probably only affecting the Flemish coast and in particular the region of the Yser mouth.
1134: The Zwin opens as a channel connecting Bruges with the North Sea.
1163: The Netherlands experienced several floods this year. This caused dike breaches along the Maas. As a result the mouth of the Oude Rijn at Katwijk, which was already almost entirely silted up, was entirely closed by sediment carried around by the flood.
1170: First All Saints' flood (Allerheiligenvloed). Large parts of the north of the Netherlands and the Zuiderzee region were inundated. A channel from the North Sea was opened into the fresh water Lake Flavo (Almere lake), and it became the salt water Zuiderzee. This flood marked the beginning and spread of the North Sea, Zuiderzee and Waddenzee. Two factors causing this sea enlargement were important: first was the sea area increase, second the presence of large peat areas, which were easily washed away.
1196: St. Nicholas' FloodDutch text (Sint-Nicolaasvloed). Large parts of the north of the Netherlands and the Zuiderzee region were inundated. Where the storm flood of 1170 made a beginning, this storm worsened it, washing away large peat areas. The result of this storm was destruction of peat areas in West Friesland and enlarging the Waddenzee and the Almere which became the Zuiderzee.
1212: Noord-Holland suffered a large flood with approximately 60,000 victims.
1214: Storm flood affecting all parts of the Netherlands. Much erosion of peat areas.
1219 January 16: St. Marcellus' Flood (Sint-Marcellusvloed). Large parts of the north of the Netherlands and the Zuiderzee region were inundated, killing an estimated 36000 people. This was the 4th large flood in 50 years. This had enormous consequences on the development of the two large inner seas in the Netherlands, the Zuiderzee and the Waddenzee.
1248 20 November, 28 December, and 4 February 1249: The coastal dunes were breached (likely at Callantsoog), flooding parts of North Holland. Also flooding occurred in Friesland and Groningen.
1277: A flood drowned the Reiderland: see Drowned villages in Groningen province.
1280: Large parts of the north of the Netherlands were inundated. This flood created the Lauwerszee.
1282: A storm broke through the coastal dunes around Texel and let sea water flood into what is now the Waddenzee and IJsselmeer.
1287 December 14: St. Lucia's flood.
1362: Grote Mandrenke strikes in January, causing the "Great Drowning of Men." Hurricane-force winds drove enormous waves atop an incredible storm surge that carved a huge inland sea into the Netherlands, killing at least 25,000 inhabitants. The salt sea swallowed sixty parishes in the Danish diocese of the bishops of Slesvig. This storm also demolished much infrastructure in England.
1404: First St. Elizabeth's Flood. See St. Elizabeth's flood (1404).
1421 November 18: Second St. Elisabeth's Flood. See St. Elizabeth's flood (1421).
1530: St. Felix's Flood (Sint-Felixvloed).
1570 November 1: Second All Saints' flood (Allerheiligenvloed).
1675: This affected mainly the north of the Netherlands. It flooded part of Terschelling; the surroundings of Stavoren and Hindeloopen; the Mastenbroek by Kampen; the area between Schagen and Den Helder; Noord-Holland east of Alkmaar; the surroundings of Amsterdam; a very large area around the Haarlemmermeer.
1703 December 7 to 9 (or according to the old English calendar which still applied in 1703, 27 November): Great Storm of 1703. This storm caused a flood killing thousands of victims. There are no wind measurements available, but a wealth of reports and diaries make it clear that this storm was extremely serious. The storm reached its peak in the night and led to enormous damage and numerous dike breaches. It was heaviest in an area of approximately 500 kilometres wide in Wales, central and southern England, the North Sea, the Low Countries, and the north of Germany. At many places there was talk of a high storm surge. Seamen reported tornadoes. Other sources wrote about a terrible storm and these well agree with each other. The air was full of lightning. The English journalist and writer Daniel Defoe (the writer of Robinson Crusoe) wrote concerning the "most terrible storm which the world ever saw". The storm was according to Defoe so dreadful that there was no pen to describe it. There had already been a storm for two weeks, but this was the peak. The south of Friesland was flooded from several dike breaches. A Zeelandish captain wrote in a letter to the admiralty of Zeeland that the storm could not be withstood. The Dutch fleet was hit hard, but the British fleet bore the heaviest blows. Dozens of war ships sailed to the English coasts where thousands of victims died. Meteorologists have tried to reconstruct the chart of this storm. Above Scandinavia the air pressure was high at the beginning of December 1703, but in the Bay of Biscay south west of the United Kingdom there were two depressions. The first depression went up the North Sea, the second went to Scotland. The venom, however, was in a new block which appeared at Ireland. This increasingly drew in strong activity around the middle and from Britain further to the east. The storm blew on the south side of the depression where the south of Britain had a hurricane, wind strength 12. The barometers plummeted dramatically: according to calculations the air pressure must have decreased to 950 millibars, a rare low for Britain. A powerful anticyclone which came immediately ensured enormous air pressure differences, as a result of which it blew terribly this way.
1717 December 24/25 night: Christmas flood (Kerstvloed): see Christmas flood 1717.
1820 January 23: This flood inundated large parts of the Alblasserwaard, after a number of dike breaches. Also the lock between the Linge and the canal from Steenenhoek to Gorinchem succumbed on 26 January during the events of this calamity. An area of approximately 1300 km² came under water during this calamity.
1825 February 3 to 5: The provinces of Groningen, Friesland and Overijssel were flooded through serious dike breaks, as a result of which more than 800 people lost their lives. At 17 February 1825 the government set up a relief commission to provide government assistance for the flood disaster. Accounts of this commission are kept in the national archives in Den Haag. In memory of this flood, the book Gedenkboek van Neerlands watersnood in februari 1825 ("Memorial Book of the Dutch Flood Disaster of February 1825") was published.
1836: Two hurricane-driven floods by the Haarlemmermeer lake: One in November reached the gates of Amsterdam. One on Christmas Day flooded Leyden. As a result, in May 1840 men started to drain and reclaim the Haarlemmermeer.
1916 January 13 and 14: Flood disaster around the Zuiderzee. At dozens of places the dikes broke. Afterwards work started on the Zuiderzeewerken and the establishment of the storm flood service.
1953 January 31/February 1 night: See North Sea flood of 1953.

Floods in the Netherlands - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

 

[wirebender]

Thus far we have about 950 tornados sited in April. A resounding record for the month. A confirmation of the predictions in the Copenhagen Diagnosis;

The Copenhagen Diagnosis 2009

Correction. 600+ for April, over 950 for the total year for the US. Still a record, considering the previous high was about 250.

Another blog? Is that all you have? Here, have a look at some peer reviewed material that gives an entirely different picture than your wacko hand wringing.

http://www.jpands.org/vol14no4/goklany.pdf

MIT Press Journals - Review of Economics and Statistics - Abstract

tech7sabs

Access : No upward trends in the occurrence of extreme floods in central Europe : Nature

Can We Detect Trends in Extreme Tropical Cyclones?

Multi-Science Publishing - Journal Article

AMS Journals Online - Human Factors Explain the Increased Losses from Weather and Climate Extremes^*

 

[Old Rocks]

OK, Marty, I see where you are coming from. However, at some point, a point far too late given the lead time on the effects of GHGs, we are going to wake up to the fact that our effect is creating conditions that are destroying the life that we are trying to build for ourselves.

In and of itself, this extreme event proves nothing. However, given the drumbeat of weather related disasters in the last few years, I think we are seeing a pattern. A pattern that was predicted in many of the papers by the scientists that study climate and weather.

If and when that point comes, we will adjust. Humanity has adjusted through far worse disasters, with a fraction of the knowledge and technology we have today.

My skepticism on AGW comes from my familiarity and use of modeling for wastewater treatment plant design. Those are far simpler models and even then they spit out absolute crap unless you define the parameters very stringently. For AGW climate models, the system is infintely more complex, as is the system.

While I know you have an issue with skeptics such as myself, my issue with some supporters is that they treat skeptcism as almost a form of heresy. Couple that with the common tactic of blaming every warm streak or storm season on AGW, even cooler weather in some places, it almost seems supporters will try anything to make you beleive they are right. i am not saying you do this, it is what I see in the media.

If the price we have to pay to maybe prevent what may be happening is regulating how we live down to the smallest detail, giving government more control to tell us how to live our lives, then maybe I want the super duper bad crap to happen first, so I know we have no other option. It would be tragic comedy if we did all this crap to find out we were wrong.

Sceptics I welcome. In fact, I would love to see one of you prove the projections of what is now happening wrong.

As for the rest of what you said, the super dooper bad crap is reserved for your children and grandchildren.

 

[Old Rocks]

Thus far we have about 950 tornados sited in April. A resounding record for the month. A confirmation of the predictions in the Copenhagen Diagnosis;

The Copenhagen Diagnosis 2009

Correction. 600+ for April, over 950 for the total year for the US. Still a record, considering the previous high was about 250.

Another blog? Is that all you have? Here, have a look at some peer reviewed material that gives an entirely different picture than your wacko hand wringing.

http://www.jpands.org/vol14no4/goklany.pdf

MIT Press Journals - Review of Economics and Statistics - Abstract

tech7sabs

Access : No upward trends in the occurrence of extreme floods in central Europe : Nature

Can We Detect Trends in Extreme Tropical Cyclones?

Multi-Science Publishing - Journal Article

AMS Journals Online - Human Factors Explain the Increased Losses from Weather and Climate Extremes^*

You are overdoing the part of playing the village idiot, Bender, old boy.

The Copenhagen Diagnosis is written by 26 leading scientists in this field.

You can get the most recent update here for $50. You can get the orginal at the site at the end of this post for free.
Elsevier: The Copenhagen Diagnosis by 26 Leading Scientists Earth and Environmental Science Books and ebooks Online

A synthesis of more than 200 timely, up-to-date, and peer-reviewed papers that serves as an interim evaluation of climate science midway through the IPCC Assessment Report cycle


Authored by 26 of the world’s leading climate scientists, most of whom are also contributing authors to the IPCC Assessment Reports.


Covers a broad range of topics evaluated by the IPCC, including greenhouse gas emissions, the global carbon cycle, sea level rise, and future climate projections.


Topical boxes summarize each chapter and address commonly held misconceptions surrounding the science of climate change.



The Copenhagen Diagnosis

 

[skookerasbil]

Thus far we have about 950 tornados sited in April. A resounding record for the month. A confirmation of the predictions in the Copenhagen Diagnosis;

The Copenhagen Diagnosis 2009

Correction. 600+ for April, over 950 for the total year for the US. Still a record, considering the previous high was about 250.

Another blog? Is that all you have? Here, have a look at some peer reviewed material that gives an entirely different picture than your wacko hand wringing.

http://www.jpands.org/vol14no4/goklany.pdf

MIT Press Journals - Review of Economics and Statistics - Abstract

tech7sabs

Access : No upward trends in the occurrence of extreme floods in central Europe : Nature

Can We Detect Trends in Extreme Tropical Cyclones?

Multi-Science Publishing - Journal Article

AMS Journals Online - Human Factors Explain the Increased Losses from Weather and Climate Extremes^*

You are overdoing the part of playing the village idiot, Bender, old boy.

The Copenhagen Diagnosis is written by 26 leading scientists in this field.

You can get the most recent update here for $50. You can get the orginal at the site at the end of this post for free.
Elsevier: The Copenhagen Diagnosis by 26 Leading Scientists Earth and Environmental Science Books and ebooks Online

A synthesis of more than 200 timely, up-to-date, and peer-reviewed papers that serves as an interim evaluation of climate science midway through the IPCC Assessment Report cycle


Authored by 26 of the world’s leading climate scientists, most of whom are also contributing authors to the IPCC Assessment Reports.


Covers a broad range of topics evaluated by the IPCC, including greenhouse gas emissions, the global carbon cycle, sea level rise, and future climate projections.


Topical boxes summarize each chapter and address commonly held misconceptions surrounding the science of climate change.



The Copenhagen Diagnosis

The IPCC is junk science central. Every guy who resigns from that fraudulent organization says the data is canned.


Heres the definitive proof on the IPCC being a total snow job..........find out what "consensus" really means.............oh, and even the EPA disagree's with the IPCC conclusions, although that fact has been buried...........


[ame="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rnN73jU1avs"]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rnN73jU1avs[/ame]

 

[westwall]

Thus far we have about 950 tornados sited in April. A resounding record for the month. A confirmation of the predictions in the Copenhagen Diagnosis;

The Copenhagen Diagnosis 2009

Correction. 600+ for April, over 950 for the total year for the US. Still a record, considering the previous high was about 250.

Another blog? Is that all you have? Here, have a look at some peer reviewed material that gives an entirely different picture than your wacko hand wringing.

http://www.jpands.org/vol14no4/goklany.pdf

MIT Press Journals - Review of Economics and Statistics - Abstract

tech7sabs

Access : No upward trends in the occurrence of extreme floods in central Europe : Nature

Can We Detect Trends in Extreme Tropical Cyclones?

Multi-Science Publishing - Journal Article

AMS Journals Online - Human Factors Explain the Increased Losses from Weather and Climate Extremes^*

You are overdoing the part of playing the village idiot, Bender, old boy.

The Copenhagen Diagnosis is written by 26 leading scientists in this field.

You can get the most recent update here for $50. You can get the orginal at the site at the end of this post for free.
Elsevier: The Copenhagen Diagnosis by 26 Leading Scientists Earth and Environmental Science Books and ebooks Online

A synthesis of more than 200 timely, up-to-date, and peer-reviewed papers that serves as an interim evaluation of climate science midway through the IPCC Assessment Report cycle


Authored by 26 of the world’s leading climate scientists, most of whom are also contributing authors to the IPCC Assessment Reports.


Covers a broad range of topics evaluated by the IPCC, including greenhouse gas emissions, the global carbon cycle, sea level rise, and future climate projections.


Topical boxes summarize each chapter and address commonly held misconceptions surrounding the science of climate change.



The Copenhagen Diagnosis

No, it's written by 26 scientists sucking on the public teat and they would rather pander this crap then do real work, which actually requires real effort.

 

[skookerasbil]

 

[Old Rocks]

Well, Walleyes, the Nobel Committee certainly has a differant opinion of their work. Have you considered submitting any of your work to them?

 

[westwall]

Well, Walleyes, the Nobel Committee certainly has a differant opinion of their work. Have you considered submitting any of your work to them?

It's spelled "different" and you don't "submit" your work to them silly person, you are recommended to the committee and they figure out if you are worthy of their prize. It may surprise you but there is no category for geology in the Nobel Foundation. The theories abound as to why Nobel excluded geology, the most popular is a geologist was having a dalliance with his wife.

If you're going to attempt an insult at least have the common sense to do a little research so that it strikes home, this was a swing and a whiff!

 

[wirebender]

You are overdoing the part of playing the village idiot, Bender, old boy.

And yet, it is me who is backing up my argument with actual peer reviewed data as opposed to you who depends on hysterical handwringing blogs.

Authored by 26 of the world’s leading climate scientists, most of whom are also contributing authors to the IPCC Assessment Reports.

That bit of data alone should start sounding alarm bells as the IPCC assessment reports are abject failures. Here, have a look at some peer reviewed science regarding the IPCC and its assesments.

Multi-Science Publishing - Journal Article

ScienceDirect - The Electricity Journal : Alarmist Misrepresentations of the Findings of the Latest Scientific Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change

Britain and the International Panel on climate change: The impacts of scientific advice on global warming part 1: Integrated policy analysis and the global dimension - Environmental Politics

Multi-Science Publishing - Journal Article

Multi-Science Publishing - Journal Article

Multi-Science Publishing - Journal Article

AMS Journals Online - Tropical Cyclones and Global Climate Change: A Post-IPCC Assessment

Covers a broad range of topics evaluated by the IPCC, including greenhouse gas emissions, the global carbon cycle, sea level rise, and future climate projections.

Since the IPCC is no credible, what difference does it make?

 

[wirebender]

Well, Walleyes, the Nobel Committee certainly has a differant opinion of their work. Have you considered submitting any of your work to them?

The nobel committee gave algore and obama peace prizes. I asked you before what either of them did to deserve such a prize. You had no answer then and I bet you have no answer now. The nobel foundation has exposed itself as no more than policial whores.

 

[martybegan]

OK, Marty, I see where you are coming from. However, at some point, a point far too late given the lead time on the effects of GHGs, we are going to wake up to the fact that our effect is creating conditions that are destroying the life that we are trying to build for ourselves.

In and of itself, this extreme event proves nothing. However, given the drumbeat of weather related disasters in the last few years, I think we are seeing a pattern. A pattern that was predicted in many of the papers by the scientists that study climate and weather.

If and when that point comes, we will adjust. Humanity has adjusted through far worse disasters, with a fraction of the knowledge and technology we have today.

My skepticism on AGW comes from my familiarity and use of modeling for wastewater treatment plant design. Those are far simpler models and even then they spit out absolute crap unless you define the parameters very stringently. For AGW climate models, the system is infintely more complex, as is the system.

While I know you have an issue with skeptics such as myself, my issue with some supporters is that they treat skeptcism as almost a form of heresy. Couple that with the common tactic of blaming every warm streak or storm season on AGW, even cooler weather in some places, it almost seems supporters will try anything to make you beleive they are right. i am not saying you do this, it is what I see in the media.

If the price we have to pay to maybe prevent what may be happening is regulating how we live down to the smallest detail, giving government more control to tell us how to live our lives, then maybe I want the super duper bad crap to happen first, so I know we have no other option. It would be tragic comedy if we did all this crap to find out we were wrong.

Sceptics I welcome. In fact, I would love to see one of you prove the projections of what is now happening wrong.

As for the rest of what you said, the super dooper bad crap is reserved for your children and grandchildren.

The problem is that most of the projections made are vague, and often include terms like "may" and "could". We "may" see more storms, It "Could" lead to droughts. Add in the fact that you cannot truly separate natural occurances with certainty and you get where we are today. The results you are trying to warn people about are trends, averages and scenarios. it would be far easier to warn a person on an asteriod hurtling towards us, as it has a defintive timeframe. "The rock is going to smack us at 7:55 AM tuesday".

As for future generations, maybe they need something to rally around, besides seeing who can beat who on the latest call of duty XI virtua-game-cube-360-station.

Honestly I am more afraid of overreaching, but well intended people than the planet. At least for the planet its not personal, its business. If fighting AGW means giving up freedoms we take for granted, then fit me with waders for when the oceans start rising.

 

[westwall]

If and when that point comes, we will adjust. Humanity has adjusted through far worse disasters, with a fraction of the knowledge and technology we have today.

My skepticism on AGW comes from my familiarity and use of modeling for wastewater treatment plant design. Those are far simpler models and even then they spit out absolute crap unless you define the parameters very stringently. For AGW climate models, the system is infintely more complex, as is the system.

While I know you have an issue with skeptics such as myself, my issue with some supporters is that they treat skeptcism as almost a form of heresy. Couple that with the common tactic of blaming every warm streak or storm season on AGW, even cooler weather in some places, it almost seems supporters will try anything to make you beleive they are right. i am not saying you do this, it is what I see in the media.

If the price we have to pay to maybe prevent what may be happening is regulating how we live down to the smallest detail, giving government more control to tell us how to live our lives, then maybe I want the super duper bad crap to happen first, so I know we have no other option. It would be tragic comedy if we did all this crap to find out we were wrong.

Sceptics I welcome. In fact, I would love to see one of you prove the projections of what is now happening wrong.

As for the rest of what you said, the super dooper bad crap is reserved for your children and grandchildren.

The problem is that most of the projections made are vague, and often include terms like "may" and "could". We "may" see more storms, It "Could" lead to droughts. Add in the fact that you cannot truly separate natural occurances with certainty and you get where we are today. The results you are trying to warn people about are trends, averages and scenarios. it would be far easier to warn a person on an asteriod hurtling towards us, as it has a defintive timeframe. "The rock is going to smack us at 7:55 AM tuesday".

As for future generations, maybe they need something to rally around, besides seeing who can beat who on the latest call of duty XI virtua-game-cube-360-station.

Honestly I am more afraid of overreaching, but well intended people than the planet. At least for the planet its not personal, its business. If fighting AGW means giving up freedoms we take for granted, then fit me with waders for when the oceans start rising.

Exactly. A prediction tells you, "if X occurs then Y will follow". "Could" or "may" is the language of psychics, con men and now climatologists.