118 replies to this topic

[platypus]

The consensus of the best minds at the time was that the Earth is flat.

That consensus was based on what? Scripture by Aristotle? These days we have this thing called the scientific method that has profoundly increased our understanding on just about anything!

[Lallante]

The consensus of the best minds at the time was that the Earth is flat.

That was before there was what could be described as an independant body of scientists applying the scientific method.

[platypus]

Ah, right, only the people whose job and self-esteem depend on AGW alarmism can be unbiased in evaluating its validity. Never mind that they don't have any accurate data to base their analysis on - they don't need data, they're experts.

Only people who are active in the field can have an in-depth understanding of the issues.

[Lallante]

Ah, right, only the people whose job and self-esteem depend on AGW alarmism can be unbiased in evaluating its validity. Never mind that they don't have any accurate data to base their analysis on - they don't need data, they're experts.

Next time you need medical treatment following a heart attack, get a second opinion from a dentist because the doctor will be biased towards treating you with medicine or surgery.

[Alex Libman]

Only people who are active in the field can have an in-depth understanding of the issues.

So ethnic issues in sociology should be trusted to the Nazis, and issues concerning child sexuality to NAMBLA?

The field of climatology is suffering from a very bad case of selection bias. People who think the sky is not falling don't choose that career, or don't stay the course as professors flunk them out for not sharing their tree-hugger ideology, or don't complete a doctorate, or aren't picked for the top research positions, almost all of which are paid for by governments.

Next time you need medical treatment following a heart attack, get a second opinion from a dentist because the doctor will be biased towards treating you with medicine or surgery.

It's all about setting up proper incentives - something that medical ethics boards should be very concerned with. I could get a second and a twenty second opinion from independent cardiologists who would have more to lose by lying to me than they would have to gain by giving me a biased diagnosis. That's not the case with climatology: pretty much everyone who has a government job stands to benefit from AGW alarmism, and all non-governmental climatologists (the overwhelming majority of which don't agree with the alarmist agenda) are called "not scientists" or "corporate shills" and excluded from the criteria of the consensus.

[platypus]

The field of climatology is suffering from a very bad case of selection bias. People who think the sky is not falling don't choose that career, or don't stay the course as professors flunk them out for not sharing their tree-hugger ideology, or don't complete a doctorate, or aren't picked for the top research positions, almost all of which are paid for by governments.

And the proof of that is....where? It certainly is not in the scientific literature (don't try to evoke a global scientific conspiracy covering dozens of fields in Earth Science please). Being paid by the government indirectly is often preferable to being paid by lobbyists or corporations.

BTW are there many libertarians who are worried about climate or the environment?

That's not the case with climatology: pretty much everyone who has a government job stands to benefit from AGW alarmism, and all non-governmental climatologists (the overwhelming majority of which don't agree with the alarmist agenda) are called "not scientists" or "corporate shills" and excluded from the criteria of the consensus.

Yeah, right, so now being paid for being an expert is evidence that anything one says is bullshit? Only amateur activists can be unopinionated? Do you realise how wacky that sounds?

[JLL]

The consensus of the best minds at the time was that the Earth is flat.

That was before there was what could be described as an independant body of scientists applying the scientific method.

Just because we have the scientific method does not mean people use it.

EDIT: Compare this with the "saturated fat clogs artheries" consensus, which was invented way after the scientific method.

Edited by JLL, 28 April 2010 - 04:59 PM.

[eternaltraveler]

Ah, right, only the people whose job and self-esteem depend on AGW alarmism can be unbiased in evaluating its validity. Never mind that they don't have any accurate data to base their analysis on - they don't need data, they're experts.

Only people who are active in the field can have an in-depth understanding of the issues.

If this is the case why the constant comparisons between evolution and climatology? Any high school biology teacher is more than capable of having an in depth understanding of the evolutionary process. This question is not entirely directed toward you.

[platypus]

Ah, right, only the people whose job and self-esteem depend on AGW alarmism can be unbiased in evaluating its validity. Never mind that they don't have any accurate data to base their analysis on - they don't need data, they're experts.

Only people who are active in the field can have an in-depth understanding of the issues.

If this is the case why the constant comparisons between evolution and climatology? Any high school biology teacher is more than capable of having an in depth understanding of the evolutionary process. This question is not entirely directed toward you.

Similarly any high school physics teacher can understand that adding CO2 to the atmosphere of a planet affects the energy-balance of that planet. The big picture is simple, details are not.

[Alex Libman]

And the proof of that is....where? It certainly is not in the scientific literature (don't try to evoke a global scientific conspiracy covering dozens of fields in Earth Science please). Being paid by the government indirectly is often preferable to being paid by lobbyists or corporations.

Read up on Group Psychology 101. Selection bias is not a "conspiracy" in any cartoonishly villainous sense that you want to ascribe to it! It is a natural phenomenon that you should understand very well if you claim to have even the slightest understanding of evolution.

BTW are there many libertarians who are worried about climate or the environment?

All libertarians are very worried about their environment, that is the piece of it that is rightfully theirs to worry about (i.e. private property).

Similarly any high school physics teacher can understand that adding CO2 to the atmosphere of a planet affects the energy-balance of that planet.

That isn't what we're debating here.

[platypus]

And the proof of that is....where? It certainly is not in the scientific literature (don't try to evoke a global scientific conspiracy covering dozens of fields in Earth Science please). Being paid by the government indirectly is often preferable to being paid by lobbyists or corporations.

Read up on Group Psychology 101. Selection bias is not a "conspiracy" in any cartoonishly villainous sense that you want to ascribe to it! It is a natural phenomenon that you should understand very well if you claim to have even the slightest understanding of evolution.

As usually you're high on ideology and low on facts. You mentioned something has been debunked lately - what exactly was that again? If you have good evidence that entire fields of science have made large errors you should publish or at least present it.

BTW are there many libertarians who are worried about climate or the environment?

All libertarians are very worried about their environment, that is the piece of it that is rightfully theirs to worry about (i.e. private property).

And what fairytale makes you believe such a limited view on responsibility does NOT destroy the enviroment??

[Alex Libman]

As usually you're high on ideology and low on facts. You mentioned something has been debunked lately - what exactly was that again? If you have good evidence that entire fields of science have made large errors you should publish or at least present it.

I have nothing unique to add to the growing body of evidence that puts AGW alarmism in context, but mere facts on paper cannot stand up in might to trillion-dollar institutions that stand to benefit from AGW lies. If churches of old could get away with their obvious lies for thousands of years, why would the new Church of Gaia be any different?

And what fairytale makes you believe such a limited view on responsibility does NOT destroy the enviroment??

If individuals want to destroy their property then they should be free to do so, but they would be liable for any damage they do to the property of others. The vast majority of people, however, do not wish to throw their livelihood away on mindless destruction. Pollution is a liability. Cleaning it up is an investment that raises the value of said land. Plants and animals are assets that have certain value to the people that own them. If wild jungle was more valuable than soy fields, then it would be more profitable to convert soy fields into jungle, not vice-versa. "Tragedy of the commons" is the real cause behind the vast majority of the environmental destruction that takes place today.

[platypus]

As usually you're high on ideology and low on facts. You mentioned something has been debunked lately - what exactly was that again? If you have good evidence that entire fields of science have made large errors you should publish or at least present it.

I have nothing unique to add to the growing body of evidence that puts AGW alarmism in context, but mere facts on paper cannot stand up in might to trillion-dollar institutions that stand to benefit from AGW lies. If churches of old could get away with their obvious lies for thousands of years, why would the new Church of Gaia be any different?

Sorry but only the science counts, I'm still waiting to see the debunkings. There is no "growing body of evidence"! I'm not saying that debunking cannot happen as that is how science works, it's just that so far the sceptics' case has been very weak, sorry. The sceptic blogs do not give an unbiased view of the state of the science, you'd better get properly informed before you start taking them seriously. By the way the conspiracy theories are quite laughable and frankly the industrial lobby can most probably make much more money by denying AGW than the other way around.

And what fairytale makes you believe such a limited view on responsibility does NOT destroy the enviroment??

If individuals want to destroy their property then they should be free to do so, but they would be liable for any damage they do to the property of others.

How do you discount the harm done to future owners of destroyed land for example? Loss of biodiversity? Future generations? You should think again your position to ownership, I do agree that people own their own bodies but letting them destroy the environment in any way they see fit is just madness.

[RighteousReason]

All the "conclusive evidence" that has ever been put forward for this AGW theory are computer models. There is no such thing actually happening out there in the real world.

And what if we do start finding evidence of AGW? Isn't it such a convenient coincidence that the only solutions that ever seem to be put forward always line up with a political agenda -- specifically the agenda to redistribute wealth? Doesn't it occur to you that maybe these people are just in it for the political ends and this has nothing to do with science or saving the world?

"Fear of AGW provides a way to engage everyone in the movement. Socialists of all stripes no longer have to spew Marxist notions that turn most people off; now, they can talk the science of global warming and hurricanes and massive floods and such, and, using fear, trample the average guy into their socialist goals of stifling capitalism, growth, and having the government take over the economy through this environmental back-door." - A Layman's Guide to Anthropogenic (Man-Made) Global Warming

"No matter if the science is all phony, there are collateral environmental benefits ... Climate change provides the greatest chance to bring about justice and equality in the world." - Christine Stewart, Canadian Environment Minister

January 2010

Winter Could Be Worst in 25 Years for USA...
CHILL MAP...
3 Deaths Due To Cold in Memphis...
PAPER: GAS SUPPLIES RUNNING OUT IN UK...
Vermont sets 'all-time record for one snowstorm'...
Iowa temps 'a solid 30 degrees below normal'...
Seoul buried in heaviest snowfall in 70 years...
Historic ice build-up shuts down NJ nuclear power plant...
Beijing -- coldest in 40 years...
Miami shivers from coldest weather in decade...

http://www.drudgereport.com/

Yet another ironic little story for you global warming kool-aid drinkers:


Snow on Sunday! 'Would be earliest measurable in Chicago'...

Some other classic ones:

"Snow blankets London for global warming debate" from 2008,



And also from January of this year,

"GORE HEARING ON WARMING MAY BE PUT ON ICE"



I love these. Here's a new one from today:

HOUSTON MAY SEE 'EARLIEST SNOWFALL EVER'...

These things have a knack for hitting in ironic places

four inches of snow fell on the Danish capital today, the first time in 14 years.

Snow, below average temps will greet Obama in Copehagen
December 17, 1:41 PM Columbia Independent Examiner Darren Pope

President Obama and other world leaders attending the final two days of the climate summit in Copenhagen will experience some unusual winter weather. A blizzard dumped 4 inches of snow on the Danish capital overnight.

“Temperatures will stay low at least the next three days,” Henning Gisseloe, an official at Denmark’s Meteorological Institute, told Bloomberg.com's Christian Wienberg in a telephone interview on Thursaday. Gisseloe is forecasting more snow in coming days. “There’s a good chance of a white Christmas.”
According to Weinberg's report on the Bloomberg.com website, Denmark hasn’t had a white Christmas for 14 years, and there have only been seven in the last century. Temperatures today fell as low as minus 4 Celsius (25 Fahrenheit). The Denmark MeteoroIogical Institute defines a white Christmas as 90 percent of the country being covered by at least 2 centimeters of snow on the afternoon of Dec. 24.

Yet another one:

Copenhagen (CNN) – In a strange twist, a Washington snowstorm is forcing Speaker Nancy Pelosi, D-California, to make an early departure from a global warming summit here in Denmark.

Pelosi told CNN that military officials leading her Congressional delegation have urged the 21 lawmakers to leave Copenhagen several hours earlier than scheduled on Saturday.

The Speaker said she has agreed to the new travel plan so that lawmakers can get back to Washington before much of the expected storm wallops the nation's capital.

http://boortz.com/nu...2/02022007.html

Friday - Februgly 2, 2007
WHY AM I SKEPTICAL ABOUT MAN-MADE GLOBAL WARMING?

A 21-page report from something called the "Intergovernmental Panel On Climate Change" has been released today...in Paris, no less...and as expected, it's predictions are dire. According to the report: "Warming of the climate system is unequivocal, as is now evident from observations of increases in global average air and ocean temperatures, widespread melting of snow and ice, and rising global mean sea level." Yeah right...we've heard all this before.

But the biggest bombshell here is this one: no matter what we do, global warming will not be reversed. It will go on for centuries, according to this report. The sea levels will continue to rise as polar ice caps melt. So I guess if Al Gore wins his Nobel Peace Prize, we'll still experience global warming. So much for riding to work everyday in your hybrid car...it's not doing a thing. The situation is futile, according to this report.

But really, it makes sense that the global warming crowd would come to this conclusion. After all, global warming is a religion. The anti-capitalist enviro-nazis don't ever want the problem to be solved. After all, if global warming were to be solved tomorrow, what would they blame the United States for? They'd have to find some other reason.

Sorry .. I'm still a skeptic. In no particular order here are just a few of the reasons why I'm not buying this man-made global warming scare:

The United Nations is anti-American and anti-Capitalist. In short .. I don't trust them. Not a bit. The UN would eagerly engage in any enterprise that would weaken capitalist economies around the world.

Because after the fall of the Soviet Union and worldwide Communism many in the anti-capitalist movement moved to the environmental movement to continue pursuing their anti-free enterprise goals. Many of the loudest proponents of man-made global warming today are confirmed anti-capitalists.

Because the sun is warmer .. and all of these scientists don't seem to be willing to credit a warmer sun with any of the blame for global warming.

The polar ice caps on Mars are melting. How did our CO2 emissions get all the way to Mars?

It was warmer in the 1930s across the globe than it is right now.

It wasn't all that long ago that these very same scientists were warning us about "global cooling" and another approaching ice age?

How much has the earth warmed up in the last 100 years? One degree. Now that's frightening.
Because that famous "hockey stick" graph that purports to show a sudden warming of the earth in the last few decades is a fraud. It ignored previous warming periods ... left them off the graph altogether.

The infamous Kyoto accords exempt some of the world's biggest CO2 polluters, including China and India.

The Kyoto accords can easily be seen as nothing less than an attempt to hamstring the world's dominant capitalist economies.

Because many of these scientists who are sounding the global warming scare depend on grant money for their livelihood, and they know the grant money dries up when they stop preaching the global warming sermon.

Because global warming "activists" and scientists seek to punish those who have different viewpoints. If you are sure of your science you have no need to shout down or seek to punish those who disagree.

What happened to the Medieval Warm Period? In 1996 the United Nations Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change issued a chart showing climatic change over a period of 1000 years. This graph showed a Medieval warming period in which global temperatures were higher than they are today. In 2001 the IPCC issued another 1000 year graph in which the Medieval warming period was missing. Why?

Why has one scientist promoting the cause of man-made global warming been quoted as saying "we have to get rid of the medieval warming period?"

Why is the ice cap on the Antarctic getting thicker if the earth is getting warmer?

In the United State, the one country with the most accurate temperature measuring and reporting records, temperatures have risen by 0.3 degrees centigrade over the past 100 years. The UN estimate is twice that.

There are about 160,000 glaciers around the world. Most have never been visited or measured by man. The great majority of these glaciers are growing, not melting.

Side-looking radar interferometry shows that the ise mass in the West Antarctic is growing at a rate of over 26 gigatons a year. This reverses a melting trend that had persisted for the previous 6,000 years.

Rising sea levels? The sea levels have been rising since the last ice age ended. That was 12,000 years ago. Estimates are that in that time the sea level has risen by over 300 feet. The rise in our sea levels has been going on long before man started creating anything but natural CO2 emissions.

Like Antarctica, the interior of Greenland is gaining ice mass.

Over the past 3,000 years there have been five different extended periods when the earth was measurably warmer than it is today.

During the last 20 years -- a period of the highest carbon dioxide levels -- global temperatures have actually decreased. That's right ... decreased.

Why did a reporter from National Public Radio refuse to interview David Deming, an associate professor at the University of Oklahoma studying global warming, after his testimony to the Senate Environment and Public Works Committee unless Deming would state that global warming was being caused by man?

Why are global warming proponents insisting that the matter is settled and that no further scientific research is needed? Why are they afraid of additional information?

On July 24, 1974 Time Magazine published an article entitled "Another Ice Age?" Here's the first paragraph:
"As they review the bizarre and unpredictable weather pattern of the past several years, a growing number of scientists are beginning to suspect that many seemingly contradictory meteorological fluctuations are actually part of a global climatic upheaval. However widely the weather varies from place to place and time to time, when meteorologists take an average of temperatures around the globe they find that the atmosphere has been growing gradually cooler for the past three decades. The trend shows no indication of reversing. Climatological Cassandras are becoming increasingly apprehensive, for the weather aberrations they are studying may be the harbinger of another ice age."

Hey ... I could go on. There's much more where that came from. But I need to get ready to go on the air. Just know that many of the strongest proponents of this "man-made" global warming stuff are dedicated opponents to capitalism and don't feel all that warm and fuzzy about the United States.

Edited by RighteousReason, 29 April 2010 - 01:41 PM.

[platypus]

All the "evidence" that has ever been put forward for this AGW theory are computer models. There is no such thing actually happening out there in the real world.

So "computer models" are melting glaciers, raising the sea level + warming the climate? Ich don't think so.

[bobdrake12]

So "computer models" are melting glaciers, raising the sea level + warming the climate? Ich don't think so.

I've lived near the ocean for 30 years and have not seen an indication of a rising sea level.

The lack of a rising would not prove the absence of global warming since it is a scientific fact that the volume of ice is greater than the same mass of liquid water.

Glaciers do melt in the summer. Some melt because they are under active volcanoes. Some melt because their specific region is warmer than before. And some were melting during solar cycle 23 because the global temperatures were going up.

But what is currently happening with our global temperatures?

They are down slightly since 1998. This is primarily due to intensity solar cyle 24 which NOAA now predicts will be the ”weakest since 1928”,

Per NOAA:

http://www.examiner....s-in-worst-case

In a report funded by NASA, NOAA (U.S. National Oceanic & Atmospheric Administration) has issued a formal, public prediction that “A new active period of Earth-threatening solar storms will be the weakest since 1928 and its peak is still four years away, after a slow start last December, predicts an international panel of experts led by NOAA's Space Weather Prediction Center. Even so, Earth could get hit by a devastating solar storm at any time, with potential damages from the most severe level of storm exceeding $1 trillion.”

Regarding the global temperatures currently going down I posted the article below earlier in this thread, but apparently you missed it, platypus:


http://article.natio...a/deroy-murdock

May 2, 2008 7:00 A.M.

Chill Out on Climate Hysteria
The Earth is currently cooling. (excerpt)

Dr. Phil Chapman wrote in The Australian on April 23. “All those urging action to curb global warming need to take off the blinkers and give some thought to what we should do if we are facing global cooling instead.”

Chapman neither can be caricatured as a greedy oil-company lobbyist nor dismissed as a flat-Earther. He was a Massachusetts Institute of Technology staff physicist, NASA’s first Australian-born astronaut, and Apollo 14’s Mission Scientist.

Chapman believes reduced sunspot activity is curbing temperatures. As he points out, “The reason this matters is that there is a close correlation between variations on the sunspot cycle and Earth’s climate.”

Anecdotally, last winter brought record cold to Florida, Mexico, and Greece, and rare snow to Jerusalem, Damascus, and Baghdad. China endured brutal ice and snow. Dr. Oleg Sorochtin of the Russian Academy of Sciences’ Institute of Oceanology advised: “Stock up on fur coats and felt boots!”

NASA satellites found that last winter’s Arctic Sea ice covered 2 million square kilometers (772,204 square miles) more than the last three years’ average. It also was 10 to 20 centimeters (4 to 8 inches) thicker than in 2007. The ice between Canada and southwest Greenland also spread dramatically. “We have to go back 15 years to find ice expansion so far south,” Denmark’s Meteorological Institute stated.

“Snows Return to Mount Kilimanjaro,” cheered a January 21 International Herald Tribune headline, burying one of the climate alarmists’ favorite warming anecdotes.

While neither these isolated facts nor one year’s statistics confirm global cooling, a decade of data contradict the “melting planet” rhetoric that heats Capitol Hill and America’s newsrooms.




“The University of Alabama, Huntsville’s analysis of data from satellites launched in 1979 showed a warming trend of 0.14 degrees Centigrade (0.25 degrees Fahrenheit) per decade,” Joseph D’Aleo, the Weather Channel’s first director of meteorology, told me. “This warmth peaked in 1998, and the temperature trend the last decade has been flat, even as CO2 has increased 5.5 percent. Cooling began in 2002. Over the last six years, global temperatures from satellite and land-temperature gauges have cooled (-0.14 F and -0.22 F, respectively). Ocean buoys have echoed that slight cooling since the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration deployed them in 2003.”



As marine geologist Dr. Robert Carter of Australia’s James Cook University recently observed: “The real-world global average temperature...exhibits no significant increase since 1998, and the preliminary 2007 year-end temperature confirms the continuation of a temperature plateau since 1998, to which is now appended a cooling trend over the last three years.”

“I don’t make climate predictions because I don’t know what the Sun will do next,” says Dr. S. Fred Singer, University of Virginia emeritus professor of environmental sciences and founding director of the U.S. Weather Satellite Service. “But analysis of the best data of the past 30 years has convinced me that the human contribution has been insignificant — in spite of the real rise in atmospheric CO2, a greenhouse gas.”

These researchers are not alone. They are among a rising tide of scientists who question the so-called “global warming” theory. Some further argue that global cooling merits urgent concern.

Edited by bobdrake12, 30 April 2010 - 11:37 AM.

[bobdrake12]

And what if we do start finding evidence of AGW? Isn't it such a convenient coincidence that the only solutions that ever seem to be put forward always line up with a political agenda -- specifically the agenda to redistribute wealth? Doesn't it occur to you that maybe these people are just in it for the political ends and this has nothing to do with science or saving the world?]

Thanks for posting the videos, RighteousReason!

You bring up an interesting point regarding:

Doesn't it occur to you that maybe these people are just in it for the political ends and this has nothing to do with science or saving the world?

Power and money are great motivators for the elite especially if it is at our expense.

Check out this article:

http://www.firstthin...gore-hypocrite/

Global Warming Hysteria: Al Gore, Hypocrite (excerpt)
Thursday, April 29, 2010, 9:45 AM
Wesley J. Smith

Al Gore, the Puritan global warming hysteric, insists that we all reduce our living standards and dismantle prosperity in order to SAVE THE PLANET!!! But he never practices what he preaches. He flies on private jets, once took rapid transit into a city but had his luggage brought in by limo, and most egregiously, has multiple huge homes, his primary residence being a massive energy hog. And now he has purchased another mansion in the very tony Montecito, near Santa Barbara.

Per Lauren Beale, Los Angeles Times - April 28, 2010:

Former Vice President Al Gore and his wife, Tipper, have added a Montecito-area property to their real estate holdings, reports the Montecito Journal. The couple spent $8,875,000 on an ocean-view villa on 1.5 acres with a swimming pool, spa and fountains, a real estate source familiar with the deal confirms. The Italian-style house has six fireplaces, five bedrooms and nine bathrooms.

Gore has made more than $100 million pitching climate panic. But he acts in his personal life as if it is all a scam.

Edited by bobdrake12, 30 April 2010 - 10:56 AM.

[eternaltraveler]

it is a scientific fact that the volume of ice is greater than the same mass of liquid water

Yes, but any ice sitting in water displaces the same volume of water as it will become when it melts as the remainder sticks into the air.

[bobdrake12]

it is a scientific fact that the volume of ice is greater than the same mass of liquid water

Yes, but any ice sitting in water displaces the same volume of water as it will become when it melts as the remainder sticks into the air.

We have the tip of the ice berg and the balance in the water,

We also have ice on land which would result in an increase in water levels.

If there was a significant impact, the water levels would have gone up dramatically during the past 50 years because the global temperatures have generally been rising during that period. See charts below:





From 1980 through 2000, the average temperature went up ~0.4 degree C while the average water level went up ~5 cm.

1 centimeter = 0.393700787 inches

Thus, the water level went up about 2 inches during that time (if the charts are correct). The 2 inch change would not be noticable for a casual observer.

To gain further perspective, the global termperatures have generally been going up since the mini or little ice age around 1600 AD.

Edited by bobdrake12, 30 April 2010 - 12:39 PM.

[eternaltraveler]

We have the tip of the ice berg and the balance in the water

the entire iceberg would melt to encompass a volume as liquid equal to the underwater portion of the iceberg

We also have ice on land which would result in an increase in water levels.

that is the portion that you worry about increasing water levels, yes.

Edited by eternaltraveler, 06 May 2010 - 07:51 PM.

[bobdrake12]

We have the tip of the ice berg and the balance in the water

the entire iceberg would melt to encompass a volume as liquid equal to the underwater portion of the iceberg

We also have ice on land which would result in an increase in water levels.

that is the portion that you worry about increasing water levels, yes.

Yes, eternaltraveler.

Per the charts above, it wasn't significant per my post (if the charts are correct):

From 1980 through 2000, the average temperature went up ~0.4 degree C while the average water level went up ~5 cm.

Of greater concern is what could happen during solar cycle 24.

Edited by bobdrake12, 07 May 2010 - 04:42 AM.

[Alex Libman]

Those "concerns" should be for insurance companies assessing long-term risk to low-elevation property, and if the risk is significant then the price incentive would naturally encourage people to build homes in areas where they would be unaffected (if the risk was real of course).

[bobdrake12]

Those "concerns" should be for insurance companies assessing long-term risk to low-elevation property, and if the risk is significant then the price incentive would naturally encourage people to build homes in areas where they would be unaffected (if the risk was real of course).

The water level rising 2" over 20 years should be of no concern unless you are involved in profiteering off of carbon credits.

Solar cycle 24 is beyond our technological control except for hardening our electronics.

[bobdrake12]

http://www.spaceands...e.net/id16.html

Space and Science Research Center
P.O. Box 607841 Orlando, FL 32860
www.spaceandscience.net
407-394-9089
Press Release SSRC 2-2010
Food and Ethanol Shortages Imminent as Earth Enters New Cold Climate Era
Monday, May 10, 2010 11:30 AM

The Space and Science Research Center (SSRC), the leading independent research organization in the United States on the subject of the next climate change, issues today the following warning of imminent crop damage expected to produce food and ethanol shortages for the US and Canada:

Over the next 30 months, global temperatures are expected to make another dramatic drop even greater than that seen during the 2007-2008 period. As the Earth’s current El Nino dissipates, the planet will return to the long term temperature decline brought on by the Sun’s historic reduction in output, the on-going “solar hibernation.” In follow-up to the specific global temperature forecast posted in SSRC Press Release 4-2009, the SSRC advises that in order to return to the long term decline slope from the current El Nino induced high temperatures, a significant global cold weather re-direction must occur. According to SSRC Director John Casey, “The Earth typically makes adjustments in major temperature spikes within two to three years. In this case as we cool down from El Nino, we are dealing with the combined effects of this planetary thermodynamic normalization and the influence of the more powerful underlying global temperature downturn brought on by the solar hibernation. Both forces will present the first opportunity since the period of Sun-caused global warming period ended to witness obvious harmful agricultural impacts of the new cold climate. Analysis shows that food and crop derived fuel will for the first time, become threatened in the next two and a half years. Though the SSRC does not get involved with short term weather prediction, it would not be unusual to see these ill-effects this year much less within the next 30 months.”

The SSRC further adds that the severity of this projected near term decline may be on the order of 0.9 C to 1.1 C from present levels. Surprising cold weather fronts will adversely impact all northern grain crops including of course wheat and the corn used in ethanol for automotive fuel.

In pointing out the importance and reliability of this new temperature forecast and its effects on North American crops, Director Casey adds,” The SSRC has been the only US independent research organization to correctly predict in advance three of the most important events in all of climate science history. We accurately announced beforehand, the end of global warming, a long term drop in the Earth’s temperatures and most importantly the advent of a historic drop in the Sun’s output, a solar hibernation. The US government’s leading science organizations, NASA and NOAA have completely missed all three, as of course have United Nations climate change experts. It is only because of the amount of expected criticism we received because of our strong opposition to the Obama administration’s climate change policies and our declaration of the end of global warming, that the SSRC is not more fully accepted for its leadership role in climate change forecasting. The facts and reliability surrounding our well publicized predictions however stand as testament to the SSRC’s proven ability to understand the nature of global climate change. In view of the importance of this new forecast I have notified the Secretary of Agriculture to take immediate actions to prepare the nation’s agricultural industry for the coming crop damage.”

The SSRC places only one caveat on this forecast. Casey elaborates, “Only a stronger solar cycle with a period longer than the 206 year cycle can cause us to alter our projections. Although more research is needed in this area, none have yet shown themselves. The present hibernation is proceeding in almost lock step as the last one which occurred from 1793 to 1830. If it continues on present course, while the cold weather impacts on food and fuel announced today are certainly important, they do not compare with what is to follow later. At the bottom of the cold cycle of this hibernation in the late 2020’s and 2030’s there will likely be years with devastating to total crop losses in the Canadian and northern US grain regions.”

[bobdrake12]

[chris w]

Those "concerns" should be for insurance companies assessing long-term risk to low-elevation property, and if the risk is significant then the price incentive would naturally encourage people to build homes in areas where they would be unaffected (if the risk was real of course).

Yeah, but the little thingy here is that there are countries like Maledives and Tuvalu Islands http://www.spiegel.d...,341669,00.html literally running out of area right now, so I don't think that the natural free market price / cost fluctuations and incentives really apply somehow in their situation. But I'm sure they were stoned by the environmental alarmist lobby and are just seeing things like the ocean eating up the land.

Edited by chris w, 16 May 2010 - 01:10 PM.

[bobdrake12]

Those "concerns" should be for insurance companies assessing long-term risk to low-elevation property, and if the risk is significant then the price incentive would naturally encourage people to build homes in areas where they would be unaffected (if the risk was real of course).

Yeah, but the little thingy here is that there are countries like Maledives and Tuvalu Islands http://www.spiegel.d...,341669,00.html literally running out of area right now, so I don't think that the natural free market price / cost fluctuations and incentives really apply somehow in their situation. But I'm sure they were stoned by the environmental alarmist lobby and are just seeing things like the ocean eating up the land.

Thanks for the article, chris w,

Quoting from the article:

If global warming continues, say scientists, the country could sink beneath the ocean within 100 years.

Please note the word that I bolded is "could".

A lot of things *could* happen within 100 years.

Check out this article:

NASA: Solar cycle may cause “dangerous” global cooling in a few years time

Also play the videos up above forecasting global cooling.

We really don't know if the planet will be cooler or warmer the next 100 years.

Some are projecting monstrous solar storms resulting from solar cylce 24 while others foresee several decades of crushing cold temperatures and global famine.

http://www.examiner....d-global-famine

Solar cycle 24: solar flares & social collapse or ‘crushing cold temperatures and global famine'? (excerpt)

In an April 2, 2009 article, retired U.S. Navy physicist and engineer James A. Marusek writes: “The sun has gone very quiet as it transitions to Solar Cycle 24…. We are now at a crossroad. Two paths lie before us. Both are marked with a signpost that reads “Danger”! Down one path lies monstrous solar storms. Down the other path lies several decades of crushing cold temperatures and global famine.” “A quiet sun will cause temperatures globally to take a nose-dive. We will experience temperatures that we have not seen in over 200 years, during the time of the early pioneers.

In the video below, Dr. Kaku discusses the potential of a monsterous solar storm during Solar Cycle 24:

I respect Dr. Kaku and if he's concerned, I'm concerned.

Edited by bobdrake12, 16 May 2010 - 06:11 PM.

[Alex Libman]

HEADLINE: Global warming downgraded? UN now says case for saving species 'more powerful than climate change'...

This is exactly the type of gradual back-peddling I expected to happen once the facts became ever-more difficult to hide...

And, though some may find this surprising, I am a big fan of "saving species", which I have written about more extensively in the past. This is one of the less harmful things that governments can do to market their benevolence to the "green" demographic, and the private sector would be very effective in doing this as well, that is if all barriers to private animal ownership were removed.

Growing up in Soviet Moscow is a strange place to observe free market species protectionism in action, but one of the very few types of micro-businesses that Soviet citizens could have that slipped through the regulatory cracks were the buying and selling of exotic fish, presumably for small aquariums that would add a touch of beauty to the people's otherwise blah-colored commieblock lives. My father's apartment (my parents had separate apartments because the Soviet real estate bureaucracy was so inefficient it took almost two decades to "trade" two one-bedroom apartments for one two-bedroom one) could only be described as a secret tropical fish breeding factory, with several huge fish tanks as well as little aquariums everywhere. My father held a pretty important engineering job for the Soviet military-industrial complex, but he still preferred to spend a good fraction of his free time carrying water buckets between the bathroom and the fish tanks, and there were two refrigerators in that apartment: one for human food and one for worms 'n stuff. He would often go to a specific lake with a long specialized net to collect water parasites, breed them in jars, and feed them to the fishies. Getting back to my point, which is an elementary economics lesson: as a species of tropical fish become harder to find in Moscow, it will become more valuable, and thus more people would try to breed it. It was strange to watch the people who were brainwashed to hate capitalism inevitably discover the basic Laws of economics for themselves, with those who were better at it of course making a lot more money. It's also ironic that one of the world's coldest major cities would come to have a huge marketplace with hundreds of varieties of exotic fish, all of which were native to tropical countries where an average Soviet citizen couldn't even dream of traveling...

It is also interesting to note that even though the human economy grows exponentially, the number of (sub)species on this planet remains roughly the same: about one species for every 70 to 1000 humans on this planet. (That is based on the estimate that there are 2 to 100 million species, both known and unknown, with most sane scientists' predictions being a lot closer to the lesser number.) It is also important to keep in mind that the overwhelming majority of those species are insects and bacteria, which are a lot cheaper to preserve in live colonies, and it's of course getting ever-cheaper to preserve a sample of any species as DNA. In comparison, Amazon.com has sold more than 7.5 million different book titles at this early dawn of the Internet age, and some of those books take up a lot more shelf space than a sufficiently large number of "backup" copies of colonies of a particular insect, which can be fed / maintained robotically for ever-lower species preservation cost.

So I am now making this bold prediction: the extinction of (sub)species of life of this planet, which has been a fact of life since life began, will soon be a thing of the past! Interest from hobbyists like my father will probably be enough to save most species (especially as public awareness of science increases), and then there would be private universities, non-profit preservation funds, and so on. If there must be governments and if they must market themselves to the eco-nuts, then this is one of the less harmful things they can preoccupy themselves with, which need not clip the wings of the human civilization like the global warming hysteria threatened to. If the "environmentally devastating" construction of sailing ships was outlawed in Europe, the dodo birds would still have gone extinct soon enough, but there would be no one to write about the fact that they existed, appealing against such senseless destruction in the future, and to at least preserve their DNA. There will someday be living dodos -- and billions of newly engineered (sub)species -- on thousands of terraformed planets, moons, and space stations - all thanks to the progress of man!

[Alex Libman]

HEADLINE: Earth holds less biodiversity than thought

So about that nutty "100 million species" estimate I've mentioned in the previous post... I guess we now have 94.5 million fewer reasons to listen to the eco-nuts!

Sure, 5.5 million seem like a lot of varieties of fungus, plants, and bugs for humans to preserve, but comparing that to the number of different books and other inventory items you can buy on Amazon.com really puts things in perspective. And many of those products exist in millions of quantities - far, far more than we really need samples of a specific species, which can be preserved in terrariums and other *ariums in separate locations on different continents "just in case".