Yasi - Be scared, very scared of this storm

[SlowwHand]

[BlackCat]

Sloww, I know that it's good intent, but please stop

[SlowwHand]

OK, fine.

[MOBIUS]

Never heard about those nutcases before, so I of course thought that you would recognise the correct understanding of it. Hansen, Gore etc. are principal purpetors of this and you clearly are the same ilk.

But they sound like your kind of nutcases...

About the precautionary, well, did you read that link where, if we didn't do anything, then New York would now be sub sea ? (that's the Hansen link).

Ah, so you're one of those climate change deniers - someone who makes stuff up to bamboozle their opponents and generally waste their time...

The Hansen link doesn't say anything of the kind - that's why it's called 'Storms of my Grand children'

Being precautionary is rational, but if it's based on idiocy, then it's, well idiocy.

It's not based on idiocy, it's based on properly peer-reviewed science, as opposed to the tactics of the deniers who are paid by big oil to blatantly make stuff up and generally insult their opponents and waste their time - incidentally what you're guilty of in this very thread...

That is why I want you to read the link so you actually has an idea about what you are making inane claims about

You know, even some of the deniers are starting to wake up to things as the effects of climate change begin to become more and more apparent - even your compatriot, Bjørn Lomberg, is starting to shift his position and say sensible things.

Now I have you pegged, I have no respect for you whatsoever.

You OTOH have me dead wrong. I am a CCC 'Climate Change Cynic', as far as I'm concerned there are far too many dumb people on this planet to enact any kind of precautionary principle, so we're going to continue blundering head-long into whatever is waiting for us down the line. I am old enough that hopefully things shouldn't affect me too much and I have already taken action to mitigate a lot of the stuff that's going to come down the line anyway.

Between now and then, I am going to enjoy my life and fly where I want (Madrid next week!), generally emitting as much CO2 as I like. Humanity isn't bothering to save itself, so why should I?

[ricketyclik]

Well, I did it yesterday

http://climateclash.com/2011/01/15/g...y-temperature/

What is your point?

[BlackCat]

What is your point?

Uhmn, that was a response to :

Yeah, just as well for me that it hardly ever happens...

Which one?

First line is a comment to Mobby's first line, second are an answer to his question.

Do you really think that I would give Mobby a link to a place where I had made a mistake ?

Edit: or you ?

[BlackCat]

But they sound like your kind of nutcases...

Nah, They would probably demand my execution. IMHO yankys could solve many of their problems if they raised taxes 15-20 % for a starter.

Ah, so you're one of those climate change deniers - someone who makes stuff up to bamboozle their opponents and generally waste their time...

The Hansen link doesn't say anything of the kind - that's why it's called 'Storms of my Grand children'

What are you talking about ? The title is "The Coming Storm: Extreme Weather and Our Terrifying Future"

It's not based on idiocy, it's based on properly peer-reviewed science, as opposed to the tactics of the deniers who are paid by big oil to blatantly make stuff up and generally insult their opponents and waste their time - incidentally what you're guilty of in this very thread...

Yeah, if you don't agree with the AGW theory, then you are paid by oil/coal companies Now, please read those predictions that the dear Mr Hansen makes and then try to claim that it's sound science.

You know, even some of the deniers are starting to wake up to things as the effects of climate change begin to become more and more apparent - even your compatriot, Bjørn Lomberg, is starting to shift his position and say sensible things.

Lomborg has most of the time said sensible things including that the climate is changing, wich most of those that you call "deniers" already know, so nothing new.

Now I have you pegged, I have no respect for you whatsoever.

All that you have pegged is your lack of knowledge and your "religious" stance on climate

You OTOH have me dead wrong. I am a CCC 'Climate Change Cynic', as far as I'm concerned there are far too many dumb people on this planet to enact any kind of precautionary principle, so we're going to continue blundering head-long into whatever is waiting for us down the line. I am old enough that hopefully things shouldn't affect me too much and I have already taken action to mitigate a lot of the stuff that's going to come down the line anyway.

Between now and then, I am going to enjoy my life and fly where I want (Madrid next week!), generally emitting as much CO2 as I like. Humanity isn't bothering to save itself, so why should I?

You being a CCC doesn't really bother me, it's your lack of using that glimse of intelligence that you sometimes show, that annoys me.

[ricketyclik]

I'll try again:

If you are really interested in the subject, then I reccomend this :

http://climateclash.com/2011/01/15/g...y-temperature/

What's your point? The paper seems to support AGW.

True, except for one ting - the predictions about stronger and more frequent incidents hasn't come true.

Here is an interesting prediction made by one of the worst scaremongers :

New York are going to drown

Well yes, he is one of the worst of the scaremongers, quite a sensationalist. Increasing incidence of severe weather events, however, is happening.

I think that it would be a good idea that you check your sources one more time - we are not 8.000 years overdue - we are expecting an ice age sometimes in the next 10.000 years.

Oh, and just to be sure - the predictions of an ice age back in the 70'es wasn't made due to the normal ice age cycle, so CO2 hasn't saved us from an ice age. Fact is that high CO2 can't prevent an ice age.

I disagree based on what I've read. On orbital cycles we are actually IN an ice age, but with an expected balmy interlude, which has extended 400% (8,000 years) beyond its life expectancy.

Mind you, climate is a complicated science with many variables, so that info could well be wrong. As could specific modelling predictions studying AGW, I freely admit. What is undeniable - it's described in the very paper you linked to above - is that increased GG = increased heat = increased energy = more volatile climate.

What is less discussed, and the chief concern in my opinion, is the effect that temperature change will have on ecosystems, including our own agricultural one. Rapid change in temperature has been demonstrated in the paleological record to bring about severe reductions in biomass. That is the truly scary part of AGW; severe weather events only affect a few.

[BlackCat]

I'll try again:



What's your point? The paper seems to support AGW.

Sorry, I misunderstood you - yeah, the paper do, and it's actually a good paper, but did you bother to read the comments ? The Judith Curry site is also quite interesting - the level is pretty high and moderation low (the site is mildly AGW'ish, but encourages discussion based on science and including so called "deniers")

Well yes, he is one of the worst of the scaremongers, quite a sensationalist. Increasing incidence of severe weather events, however, is happening.

No, there are no evidence of increase in severe weather events. If you think that you know about one, please tell me

I disagree based on what I've read. On orbital cycles we are actually IN an ice age, but with an expected balmy interlude, which has extended 400% (8,000 years) beyond its life expectancy.

Please give some documentation on this. I'm pretty confused since it contradicts all that I know / have heard about it. Do you know about the Vostok ice core ?

http://www.daviesand.com/Choices/Precautionary_Planning/New_Data/

Edit: Note, I don't care much about the sites analysis, it's the grap that is relevant.

Mind you, climate is a complicated science with many variables, so that info could well be wrong. As could specific modelling predictions studying AGW, I freely admit. What is undeniable - it's described in the very paper you linked to above - is that increased GG = increased heat = increased energy = more volatile climate.

Yes and no. As is pointed out in the same doc is that we know too little about the overall system and that there are no guarantee that more CO2 automatically means higher temperature. (please note the fact that despite high CO2 there was a huge temperature drop in the above link - the CO2 stayed high for a long period, but couldn't raise the temperature)

What is less discussed, and the chief concern in my opinion, is the effect that temperature change will have on ecosystems, including our own agricultural one. Rapid change in temperature has been demonstrated in the paleological record to bring about severe reductions in biomass. That is the truly scary part of AGW; severe weather events only affect a few.

You forget one thing - clmiate has always being in change. Even if we could roll back all human CO2, the temperature would still be rising and ecosystems change.

[ricketyclik]

You forget one thing - clmiate has always being in change. Even if we could roll back all human CO2, the temperature would still be rising and ecosystems change.

What makes you say the temperature would still be rising? Is there an underlying warming influence at the moment besides AGW?

It is the rate of change that is of concern. Yes, rapid change has happened before, but is usually accompanied by huge initial biomass reduction. Change of more than a couple of degrees normally takes tens or hundreds of thousands of years, not a century.

I'll see if I can hunt down the orbital cycle stuff that said what I said above re. ice ages.

[BlackCat]

What makes you say the temperature would still be rising? Is there an underlying warming influence at the moment besides AGW?

No offense, but temperature started rising before humans started burning coal an oil and I don't see any reason why that isn't still working. Gimme some time to find the doc.

[BlackCat]

I'm lazy and drunk, so can you accept this :

http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/paleo/globalwarming/pollack.html

[ricketyclik]

No, there are no evidence of increase in severe weather events. If you think that you know about one, please tell me

Of course no one event can be attributed to AGW. As I stated earlier, it is the trend in increasing frequency that is the evidence. Google "increase in extreme weather events" to find more than the ones I quoted previously.

[ricketyclik]

I'm lazy and drunk, so can you accept this :

http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/paleo/globalwarming/pollack.html

Assuming it's accurate (it's only one source) it is in line with the theory that we began the warming process with CO2 and CH4 released as a result of the invention of agriculture, beginning about 10,000 years ago and ramping up ever since.

[BlackCat]

Of course no one event can be attributed to AGW. As I stated earlier, it is the trend in increasing frequency that is the evidence. Google "increase in extreme weather events" to find more than the ones I quoted previously.

Sure, if I do that, I get a lot of hits, but what I wanted was some kind of scientific documentation of it, and that you can't find.