Latest AGW Guess

[Darlene]

From Science Daily, comes this piece that -almost- accepts the facts that the experts still don't know what's causing all this extreme weather.

Weather extremes in the summer -- such as the record heat wave in the United States that hit corn farmers and worsened wildfires in 2012 -- have reached an exceptional number in the last ten years. Human-made global warming can explain a gradual increase in periods of severe heat, but the observed change in the magnitude and duration of some events is not so easily explained.

Read more @ Trapped atmospheric waves triggering more weather extremes: Trend expected to continue -- ScienceDaily

Sounds like the result of HAARP technology (read the HAARP patents; the Alaska facility is not the only facility across the globe).

 

[elektra]

Alarmists weather reports sells more expensive solar and wind "energy" solutions.

Politicians making freinds and donars rich.

 

[Crick]

I think along those lines the true problem is that it is not the already rich being made richer. The objection of the Republican party to AGW is based almost entirely on maintaining donations from the friends in the oil and coal industries whose continued enrichment at the expense of the health of the rest of the world is threatened by this turn of events.

 

[Crick]

It puzzles me that you deniers can seemingly believe that every one of the thousands of climate scientists is willing to conspire to push complex lies in order to obtain grant money that DOES NOT GO INTO THEIR POCKETS but refuse to even consider the possibility that elements of the fossil fuel industry could participate in a scheme to push climate science disinformation. We saw this happen before with the tobacco industry and with the proponents of intelligent design. In the case of ID we have also seen the absurd accusation that all biological scientists were involved in a massive conspiracy to cover up the truth.

If I were to take two groups of randomly selected human beings and tell one group that if they performed a certain undesirable behavior, they would receive a given profit; and tell the second group that unless they attempted another certain undesirable behavior, their current incomes would be reduced by that same given amount, which group do you think would have the most motivation? Which group would have the highest percentage of participants?

Protecting what you HAVE is far more of a motivating factor that failing to get MORE.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

It puzzles me that you deniers can seemingly believe that every one of the thousands of climate scientists is willing to conspire to push complex lies in order to obtain grant money that DOES NOT GO INTO THEIR POCKETS but refuse to even consider the possibility that elements of the fossil fuel industry could participate in a scheme to push climate science disinformation. We saw this happen before with the tobacco industry and with the proponents of intelligent design. In the case of ID we have also seen the absurd accusation that all biological scientists were involved in a massive conspiracy to cover up the truth.

If I were to take two groups of randomly selected human beings and tell one group that if they performed a certain undesirable behavior, they would receive a given profit; and tell the second group that unless they attempted another certain undesirable behavior, their current incomes would be reduced by that same given amount, which group do you think would have the most motivation? Which group would have the highest percentage of participants?

Protecting what you HAVE is far more of a motivating factor that failing to get MORE.

It puzzles me that you deniers can seemingly believe that every one of the thousands of climate scientists is willing to conspire to push complex lies in order to obtain grant money

I distrust "climate scientists" because they constantly "adjust" the old data.
Because they keep changing their story. AGW=hotter, AGW=cooler, AGW=drought, AGW=floods, AGW=extreme weather.
As if we never had hot, cold, dry, wet, or extreme weather before.
And if all these things are the result of AGW, they should be pushing for massive nuke expansion, not expensive, unreliable solar and wind.
How many greens out there pushing for nuke plants? LOL!

Protecting what you HAVE is far more of a motivating factor that failing to get MORE.

Sure. That's why people don't want to reduce their life-style when they see Al Gore, one of the biggest (hehe) panic-mongers living an ever more extravagent lifestyle, while he lectures them that they need to cut back.
Sorry, not buying it.
When they start pushing for nukes and not higher taxes and ever larger government, maybe I'll take them seriously.
Especially that Nobel Prize winner, Michael Mann. LOL!

 

[Crick]

I distrust "climate scientists" because they constantly "adjust" the old data.
Because they keep changing their story. AGW=hotter, AGW=cooler, AGW=drought, AGW=floods, AGW=extreme weather.
As if we never had hot, cold, dry, wet, or extreme weather before.
And if all these things are the result of AGW, they should be pushing for massive nuke expansion, not expensive, unreliable solar and wind.
How many greens out there pushing for nuke plants? LOL!

The adjustments that have been made by several different bodies to climate records are all justified. That opinion has been expressed by a number of authorities on your side of the argument. Besides, how does such a viewpoint differ from the fantasy of a massive conspiracy. Virtually every climate scientist on the planet uses those records. That you hear no complaints from them about the practice means either that they agree it makes the data MORE accurate or they are all in a conspiracy to lie. I'll have to let you decide which is the more likely contention.

As knowledge of the climate - an extremely complex system - increases, there WILL be changes to our understanding of the relationship between various events and processes taking place. That is a sign of progress, not deception.

Some "greens" do push for increased use of nuclear power. I do. But many people around the world opposed nuclear power long before global warming became an issue and they have some valid arguments. Accidents such as Three Mile Island, Chernobyl and now Fukushima have certainly not increased the numbers of nuke power supporters and have filled their editorial quivers with points difficult to counter. I wager a significant number of AGW deniers also oppose increasing the use of nuclear power, particularly since they do not assign value to reducing our carbon footprint.

Sure. That's why people don't want to reduce their life-style when they see Al Gore, one of the biggest (hehe) panic-mongers living an ever more extravagent lifestyle, while he lectures them that they need to cut back.
Sorry, not buying it.
When they start pushing for nukes and not higher taxes and ever larger government, maybe I'll take them seriously.
Especially that Nobel Prize winner, Michael Mann. LOL!

What bearing does Al Gore have on the validity of AGW as a description of the behavior of our climate? None.

I am pushing for more nuclear power. I am pushing for increased taxes. And I do believe our governments (plural) need to act vigorously against AGW. Does all that mean you will take me seriously?

What is lacking here, Todd, is any refutation of the data which tells us that the world is getting warmer and that the cause is human GHG emissions. You seem to be rejecting the message because you don't like the messenger. That would be unwise.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

I distrust "climate scientists" because they constantly "adjust" the old data.
Because they keep changing their story. AGW=hotter, AGW=cooler, AGW=drought, AGW=floods, AGW=extreme weather.
As if we never had hot, cold, dry, wet, or extreme weather before.
And if all these things are the result of AGW, they should be pushing for massive nuke expansion, not expensive, unreliable solar and wind.
How many greens out there pushing for nuke plants? LOL!

The adjustments that have been made by several different bodies to climate records are all justified. That opinion has been expressed by a number of authorities on your side of the argument. Besides, how does such a viewpoint differ from the fantasy of a massive conspiracy. Virtually every climate scientist on the planet uses those records. That you hear no complaints from them about the practice means either that they agree it makes the data MORE accurate or they are all in a conspiracy to lie. I'll have to let you decide which is the more likely contention.

As knowledge of the climate - an extremely complex system - increases, there WILL be changes to our understanding of the relationship between various events and processes taking place. That is a sign of progress, not deception.

Some "greens" do push for increased use of nuclear power. I do. But many people around the world opposed nuclear power long before global warming became an issue and they have some valid arguments. Accidents such as Three Mile Island, Chernobyl and now Fukushima have certainly not increased the numbers of nuke power supporters and have filled their editorial quivers with points difficult to counter. I wager a significant number of AGW deniers also oppose increasing the use of nuclear power, particularly since they do not assign value to reducing our carbon footprint.

Sure. That's why people don't want to reduce their life-style when they see Al Gore, one of the biggest (hehe) panic-mongers living an ever more extravagent lifestyle, while he lectures them that they need to cut back.
Sorry, not buying it.
When they start pushing for nukes and not higher taxes and ever larger government, maybe I'll take them seriously.
Especially that Nobel Prize winner, Michael Mann. LOL!

What bearing does Al Gore have on the validity of AGW as a description of the behavior of our climate? None.

I am pushing for more nuclear power. I am pushing for increased taxes. And I do believe our governments (plural) need to act vigorously against AGW. Does all that mean you will take me seriously?

What is lacking here, Todd, is any refutation of the data which tells us that the world is getting warmer and that the cause is human GHG emissions. You seem to be rejecting the message because you don't like the messenger. That would be unwise.

Accidents such as Three Mile Island, Chernobyl and now Fukushima have certainly not increased the numbers of nuke power supporters and have filled their editorial quivers with points difficult to counter.

I heard that a warmer planet is the worst thing ever. Millions will be displaced. Famines, flooding and death.
Next to that, nuclear accidents are nothing. We can build much safer plants now. We already would have, if we hadn't stopped building new plants decades ago.

What bearing does Al Gore have on the validity of AGW

We're doomed, unless we reduce our standard of living by de-carbonizing our economy.
Al lives in a giant mansion and jets around the world on private planes.
I guess he's not as worried about CO2 as he says.

Does all that mean you will take me seriously?

Why do we need higher taxes?

What is lacking here, Todd, is any refutation of the data which tells us that the world is getting warmer

The world has been warmer before. We survived. Warmer is better than colder. I haven't seen a real cost benefit analysis that makes me want to cripple our economy.

 

[Crick]

Accidents such as Three Mile Island, Chernobyl and now Fukushima have certainly not increased the numbers of nuke power supporters and have filled their editorial quivers with points difficult to counter.

I heard that a warmer planet is the worst thing ever. Millions will be displaced. Famines, flooding and death.
Next to that, nuclear accidents are nothing. We can build much safer plants now. We already would have, if we hadn't stopped building new plants decades ago.

You should learn to beware people presenting binary choices. The universe and its contents are a continuum from every aspect. Nuclear power has tremendous advantages for reducing our GHG emissions. It also presents substantial risks and needs to be used with great caution. Looking for black and white answers in the grey of reality is a waste of time.

What bearing does Al Gore have on the validity of AGW

We're doomed, unless we reduce our standard of living by de-carbonizing our economy.
Al lives in a giant mansion and jets around the world on private planes.
I guess he's not as worried about CO2 as he says.

You left out a crucial portion of my statement. The spot immediately after this rhetorical query where I answered "NONE". And, of course, nothing you've said here disputes that in the least. Al Gore is completely irrelevant with respect to the scientific validity of AGW as an accurate description of the behavior of the Earth's climate.

Does all that mean you will take me seriously?

Why do we need higher taxes?

To pay for what the government needs to be doing.

What is lacking here, Todd, is any refutation of the data which tells us that the world is getting warmer

The world has been warmer before. We survived. Warmer is better than colder. I haven't seen a real cost benefit analysis that makes me want to cripple our economy.

[/quote]

The world has NOT been warmer in the course of human history. And I should hope "survival" is not your bare criterial. Four billion human beings could die tomorrow and that "we survived" would still be a true statement.

If you want to see a cost benefit analysis showing the pros and cons of acting to reduce emissions, go to http://ipcc-wg2.gov/AR5/images/uploads/WGIIAR5-Chap17_FGDall.pdf and download the PDF. It's not even very big. If the topic interests you, the IPCC has produced thousands of pages of expert cost/beneift analysis wrt global warming. Look for the reports of Working Groups II and III.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

Accidents such as Three Mile Island, Chernobyl and now Fukushima have certainly not increased the numbers of nuke power supporters and have filled their editorial quivers with points difficult to counter.

I heard that a warmer planet is the worst thing ever. Millions will be displaced. Famines, flooding and death.
Next to that, nuclear accidents are nothing. We can build much safer plants now. We already would have, if we hadn't stopped building new plants decades ago.

You should learn to beware people presenting binary choices. The universe and its contents are a continuum from every aspect. Nuclear power has tremendous advantages for reducing our GHG emissions. It also presents substantial risks and needs to be used with great caution. Looking for black and white answers in the grey of reality is a waste of time.

What bearing does Al Gore have on the validity of AGW

We're doomed, unless we reduce our standard of living by de-carbonizing our economy.
Al lives in a giant mansion and jets around the world on private planes.
I guess he's not as worried about CO2 as he says.

You left out a crucial portion of my statement. The spot immediately after this rhetorical query where I answered "NONE". And, of course, nothing you've said here disputes that in the least. Al Gore is completely irrelevant with respect to the scientific validity of AGW as an accurate description of the behavior of the Earth's climate.

Does all that mean you will take me seriously?

Why do we need higher taxes?

To pay for what the government needs to be doing.

What is lacking here, Todd, is any refutation of the data which tells us that the world is getting warmer

The world has been warmer before. We survived. Warmer is better than colder. I haven't seen a real cost benefit analysis that makes me want to cripple our economy.

The world has NOT been warmer in the course of human history. And I should hope "survival" is not your bare criterial. Four billion human beings could die tomorrow and that "we survived" would still be a true statement.

If you want to see a cost benefit analysis showing the pros and cons of acting to reduce emissions, go to http://ipcc-wg2.gov/AR5/images/uploads/WGIIAR5-Chap17_FGDall.pdf and download the PDF. It's not even very big. If the topic interests you, the IPCC has produced thousands of pages of expert cost/beneift analysis wrt global warming. Look for the reports of Working Groups II and III.[/QUOTE]

Looking for black and white answers in the grey of reality is a waste of time.

Sounds like something you should tell the warmers.

The world has NOT been warmer in the course of human history.

Yes it has. Despite adjustments to hide that fact.

And I should hope "survival" is not your bare criterial.

Mankind thrived during those warmer climatic optimums.
It's during cold periods that mass offs occur. Warmer is better.

 

[Crick]

Conditions within the range that have existed during the development of human culture - in particular modern human culture and infrastructure - is what we would like to see continue. Whether you like warm weather or not, mankind will not do well if the oceans rise 3 feet or more. Mankind will not do well if large portions of our currently arable land go dry from drought or are washed away by floods. Mankind will not do well if the drinking water supplies of a large portion of Earth's population vanish with the glaciers that have provided them for thousands of years.

I can quote you a heavily cited, peer reviewed study that states temperatures are higher now than at any time during the Holocene epic - a period going back much further than does human civilization - and that the rate of increase is higher now than it has been in a much longer period - indicating that the top of our current curve will be completely unprecedented.

 

[Crick]

You said you wanted to read a cost benefit analysis. Did you go to the link I provided?

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

Conditions within the range that have existed during the development of human culture - in particular modern human culture and infrastructure - is what we would like to see continue. Whether you like warm weather or not, mankind will not do well if the oceans rise 3 feet or more. Mankind will not do well if large portions of our currently arable land go dry from drought or are washed away by floods. Mankind will not do well if the drinking water supplies of a large portion of Earth's population vanish with the glaciers that have provided them for thousands of years.

I can quote you a heavily cited, peer reviewed study that states temperatures are higher now than at any time during the Holocene epic - a period going back much further than does human civilization - and that the rate of increase is higher now than it has been in a much longer period - indicating that the top of our current curve will be completely unprecedented.

Mankind will not do well if large portions of our currently arable land go dry from drought or are washed away by floods.

Great, what CO2 level will guarantee this won't happen?
How many trillions must we spend to get there?
How do you get China and India to go along?

 

[Crick]

Great, what CO2 level will guarantee this won't happen?

280 ppm

How many trillions must we spend to get there?

At least an order of magnitude less that we'll spend coping with the effects if we don't.

How do you get China and India to go along?

Mother nature will take care of that.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

You said you wanted to read a cost benefit analysis. Did you go to the link I provided?

I said I wanted a real one.
NGO numbers pulled out of someone's ass don't get there yet.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

Great, what CO2 level will guarantee this won't happen?

280 ppm

How many trillions must we spend to get there?

At least an order of magnitude less that we'll spend coping with the effects if we don't.

How do you get China and India to go along?

Mother nature will take care of that.

280 ppm

No droughts or flooding or loss of arable land at that level?
I'm pretty sure that's incorrect, but I'm willing to look at your proof.

At least an order of magnitude less that we'll spend coping with the effects if we don't.

I'm pretty sure that's incorrect, but I'm willing to look at your proof.

Mother nature will take care of that

Mother nature will make sure countries not reducing CO2 will be hurt while those countries reducing CO2 will be unharmed?
Wow, I'd really like to see your proof here. Thanks!

 

[Crick]

Go read AR5

 

[SSDD]

Great, what CO2 level will guarantee this won't happen?

280 ppm

Any idea how green the earth was prior to the beginning of the ice age we are still in? I suggest you take a look. Much more of the earth was verdant than at present and the atmospheric CO2 was in excess of 1000ppm. As usual, you really don't have a clue. How hard would it have been to take a minute and actually look up what the earth looked like prior to the present ice age?

At least an order of magnitude less that we'll spend coping with the effects if we don't.

Typical non answer...since the earth will be greener if it is warmer what problems are you talking about?

Mother nature will take care of that.

When do you think gaia will smite china and india?

 

[SSDD]

Go read AR5

AR5 is bullshit....got any real proof?

 

[Crick]

You're bullshit and of that I have proof up to my ears.

 

[SSDD]

You're bullshit and of that I have proof up to my ears.

Like you have proof of AGW? Laughable...absolutely laughable. 280ppm bhhhhahhghhhhhhahhhaaaaa