A "Global Warming" Weekend

[Riverwind]

Not really, its the consequences of the rate of change being to fast to cope with that we care about.

I suggest you read what you wrote. You agree that it is the consequences which are a concern - not the rate of change in itself. It has not been established that the current 'rate of change' is outside normal variability for climate. In fact, there is evidence from the ice cores that the kind of change we are seeing now is perfectly normal.

You don't seem to believe the same thing when dealing with economists.

I, for the most part, have ignored your endless attempts to divert discussion away from climate policy. However, it is worth noting that the argument that AGW is something to worry about is fundementally an economic argument and if you accept that premise then you are accepting the views of some economists. So the question becomes: why do you blindly accept the pronouncements of some economists but not others?

[Shady]

My vote would be under religion.

Good choice. It's probably more apt anyways.

[jbg]

Good choice. It's probably more apt anyways.

Cool It! - Answer to Gore's Hysterical "Inconvenient Truth is the first such thread started in Religion (link).

[Jade Dragon]

Not by anyone who knows anything about the subject.

Climate is too complicated for that. The fact that the Pacific Ocean had record high temperatures in summer 2009 resulted in one of the coldest summers here on the eastern prairies. It means more storms, including winter storms, and more extreme weather, including extreme cold.

(http://news.mongabay.com/2009/0818-ocean.html)

Western Prairies too, Bubber. We had a miserable spring and summer, although August was surprisingly warm.

[Michael Hardner]

If you believe that then you must believe the scientific consensus in the 70s said that the planet was heading into an ice age.

This is false. Why do you keep repeating it, when you have much better arguments to submit ?

[Riverwind]

This is false. Why do you keep repeating it, when you have much better arguments to submit ?

I suggest you re-read the context. I think you will find my meaning was different that you assumed.

eyeball said:

Weren't we all supposed to be doomed to poverty if CFC's were phased out?

I responded:

If you believe that then you must believe the scientific consensus in the 70s said that the planet was heading into an ice age.

[Michael Hardner]

I suggest you re-read the context. I think you will find my meaning was different that you assumed.

Yes, I was wrong. I missed that subtlety, sorry.

[eyeball]

I suggest you read what you wrote. You agree that it is the consequences which are a concern - not the rate of change in itself.

Why? I know what I said which is; if the rate of change is too fast for things like animals and plants to cope with, THAT is a big consequence, and a bad one.

It has not been established that the current 'rate of change' is outside normal variability for climate. In fact, there is evidence from the ice cores that the kind of change we are seeing now is perfectly normal.

Established? What does that mean? You won't accept anything less than 110% certainty when it comes to AGW science. There is plenty of evidence that the change we're seeing right now is not perfectly normal, like bears and frogs wandering about in the middle of January and as predicted, more extreme weather just about everywhere you look as a result of an increasingly warming climate.

I, for the most part, have ignored your endless attempts to divert discussion away from climate policy. However, it is worth noting that the argument that AGW is something to worry about is fundementally an economic argument and if you accept that premise then you are accepting the views of some economists.

Of course I'm accepting the views of some economists, especially those who accept that you cannot talk about a human economy without accounting for the natural capital and ecosystems that underwrite it. The economists you apparently subscribe to don't even recognize that the environment exists, to them the environment is an externality and quite literally outside our concern. As near as I can tell these people are either insane or as you would put it, blind.

So the question becomes: why do you blindly accept the pronouncements of some economists but not others?

I'm not accepting anything anyone says with my eyes closed. In fact, and as I've said before, I'm definitely convinced that a few climate scientists are crooked but I'm not ready to ignore the vast amount of consensus that still exists around the threat that climate change poses, especially not when it seems I'm swatting insects all year long now instead of just part of the year like I used to.

Above all else though I am especially not going to ignore the certainty that many if not most economists are just as guilty of fudged numbers, publication bias, and the very same sort of fundamentalist faith and grant seeking pandering to establishment thinking that you find so repulsive in climate scientists.

[Shady]

Why? I know what I said which is; if the rate of change is too fast for things like animals and plants to cope with

You're lying, or misinformed. Over the last several years, there hasn't been any warming. And there definitely hasn't been any warming that's "too fast for things."

That's why in those hacked emails, AGW scientists were concerned that they couldn't figure out why temperatures weren't rising.

[Michael Hardner]

That's why in those hacked emails, AGW scientists were concerned that they couldn't figure out why temperatures weren't rising.

My understanding is that they couldn't figure out why temperatures weren't rising in the tree ring models.

[eyeball]

You're lying, or misinformed. Over the last several years, there hasn't been any warming. And there definitely hasn't been any warming that's "too fast for things."

That's why in those hacked emails, AGW scientists were concerned that they couldn't figure out why temperatures weren't rising.

I guess the bears and such hereabouts didn't get the memo.

[Riverwind]

Why? I know what I said which is; if the rate of change is too fast for things like animals and plants to cope with, THAT is a big consequence, and a bad one.

How do you know it is too fast? Where is your evidence supporting this 'too fast' meme? When look at the temperature record I see many times when temperatures changed much faster than 0.7 degC/century in the past 10000 years. The suggests to me that the ecosystems are far more adaptable than you seem to thing.

Established? What does that mean? You won't accept anything less than 110% certainty when it comes to AGW science.

I don't expect 100% but I do expect a lot more than the wild a** guesses from someone with a PhD. Unfortnately, wild a** guesses is all climate science is and the guys with the PhDs making these guess are starting to make lawyers look like paragons of virtue.

extreme weather just about everywhere you look as a result of an increasingly warming climate.

Where your evidence there this is more 'extreme' weather? Once you establish that we are actually experiencing more extremes you will have to demonstrate that there is a link to the warming. I am really getting tied of environmentalist propoganda being waved around as scientific 'truth'.

Of course I'm accepting the views of some economists, especially those who accept that you cannot talk about a human economy without accounting for the natural capital and ecosystems that underwrite it.

Lovely talk but ultimately meaningless since we can't put a price on any of these things. The economists who have tried to put price on it have a nasty habit of deciding what policies they want to start with and then making whatever up numbers are required to make those policies sound rational. Edited January 25, 2010 by Riverwind

[Moonlight Graham]

B.S as usual you don't know the difference between weather and climate.....I can tell you right now with 100% accuracy and no computer model that Chad will have a desert climate 200yrs from now...

LOL no you can't predict that 100%. About 6000 years ago during the Holocene maximum, the desert east of the Nile in Egypt (one of the most desolate places on earth currently) was rather lush savanna, and the desert west of the Nile had areas of oases.

The Sahara desert has gone through changes of wetter and drier periods through history. But Chad is located in some of the driest portions of the Sahara. Will it still be desert in 200 years? Extremely likely. Can you predict it with 100% certainly? Impossible.

But i was talking about temperatures in climate. Can you tell me if Chad will be warmer or cooler than it is today in 200 years? 20 years? No you can't.

[eyeball]

How do you know it is too fast? Where is your evidence supporting this 'too fast' meme?

The bears...bugs...frogs...salamanders...slugs...etc etc I've seen this mid January...and more mid-January's this last decade than the previous 2.5 decades before that I've lived here. People I know who've lived here longer than that don't recall starving bears wandering around here in mid January with any regularity either.

Thank you for saying supporting because I realize these are just observations and not proof. It's not my fault my observations are pretty much in line with what AGW theory and predictions have said to expect.

As for extreme weather, my observation of stronger storms and more persistently strong winds along the coast this last decade seem to find support amongst what I hear from other skippers, again many who've lived and worked at sea far longer than me. In addition, many people from all around the world I've met as a tour boat skipper also report "more of what they're used to" as far as their own local weather goes. Local weather conditions are something I do pay a fair bit of attention to and again, its not my fault these observations match AGW predictions.

As for cheatin' lyin' scientists and economists who couldn't tell shit from Shinola and probably wouldn't even if they could...we've got those hereabouts too and even though I don't have any proof I think I can still safely predict "more of what I'm used to" from these too.

[Riverwind]

Thank you for saying supporting because I realize these are just observations and not proof. It's not my fault my observations are pretty much in line with what AGW theory and predictions have said to expect.

None of you observations support anything other than the claim that it is getting warmer. You have no evidence that getting warmer is a bad thing and that species cannot adapt. A few starving bears says nothing about the ability of the species to adapt.

As for extreme weather, my observation of stronger storms and more persistently strong winds along the coast this last decade seem to find support amongst what I hear from other skippers, again many who've lived and worked at sea far longer than me.

Memories of weather are the most useless source of information. Even more useless than an IPCC report. To justify your claim you first need to quantify what 'extreme' weather means and then measure it. Edited January 26, 2010 by Riverwind

[eyeball]

None of you observations support anything other than the claim that it is getting warmer. You have no evidence that getting warmer is a bad thing and that species cannot adapt. A few starving bears says nothing about the ability of the species to adapt.

Memories of weather are the most useless source of information. Even more useless than an IPCC report. To justify your claim you first need to quantify what 'extreme' weather means and then measure it.

You're hopeless.

[eyeball]

I might as well be talking to a creationist.

[Riverwind]

You're hopeless.

I am hopeless because I point out you have zero evidence to support your assertions? Your factless mantra that 'warming is bad' is indistiguishable from the mantra that 'jesus saves'. It is an assertion of your religious beliefs. Nothing else.

is a fun take on economic theory. Edited January 26, 2010 by Riverwind

[Oleg Bach]

Weather had a predictable flow to it as I remember. In the last 30 years I have noticed that the flow has changed and is no longer predictable. With unpredictablity comes violence..we have more violent weather than ever before..clashes of off beat cold with extreme and inapproprate coldness..it's like there are more and more opposing forces on the move..and with oppostion comes war..the world has been force to war with itself and we will get caught in the cross fire.

[Oleg Bach]

Planetary warming and cooling is taking place all at once..so we do not have global warming - just a very paniced planet that does not know if it is coming or going. When hot meets cold you have a problem if this happens more often than it is natrually supposed to happen - we have un-naturaled the earth..for some reason we hate the planet. For some reason we behave like a rat minded infant biting at our mothers breasts.

[wyly]

LOL no you can't predict that 100%. About 6000 years ago during the Holocene maximum, the desert east of the Nile in Egypt (one of the most desolate places on earth currently) was rather lush savanna, and the desert west of the Nile had areas of oases.

The Sahara desert has gone through changes of wetter and drier periods through history. But Chad is located in some of the driest portions of the Sahara. Will it still be desert in 200 years? Extremely likely. Can you predict it with 100% certainly? Impossible.

But i was talking about temperatures in climate. Can you tell me if Chad will be warmer or cooler than it is today in 200 years? 20 years? No you can't.

yes I can 100%...

in 20 yrs 1,000,000%

[Shady]

The bears...bugs...frogs...salamanders...slugs...etc etc I've seen this mid January

Big f'ing deal. I've been digging out of massive snowfall after massive snowfall over the last month and a half. Not to mention, most of this continent has set record cold temperatures this winter. But we're suppose to ignore all of that because you've seen some bugs? Like I said, BFD.

[wyly]

Big f'ing deal. I've been digging out of massive snowfall after massive snowfall over the last month and a half. Not to mention, most of this continent has set record cold temperatures this winter. But we're suppose to ignore all of that because you've seen some bugs? Like I said, BFD.

1st for the zillionth time you're talking about weather yet again, not climate...

2nd, increased snowfall is a result of "warm" moist air, how can a anyone claim to be a Canadian and not know cold arctic is dry and brings very little snow...you lack even the most basic understanding of weather yet you think you have the ability to understand climate?...

[Moonlight Graham]

yes I can 100%...

in 20 yrs 1,000,000%

well, i guess you have a magic crystal ball i don't know about. Any scientist would never make a 100% prediction on something like that. Even Vegas wouldn't make odds 100% on that. Probability dude.

[wyly]

well, i guess you have a magic crystal ball i don't know about. Any scientist would never make a 100% prediction on something like that. Even Vegas wouldn't make odds 100% on that. Probability dude.

Vegas will, it's a sure thing...go bet your house that Chad will still have a desert climate in 20years and they won't take the bet because Chad will still be a desert in 20yrs...bet your house that Chad won't be a desert in 20 yrs and they'll take your bet, and in 20 years they'll take your house...probablility dude is 100%... Edited January 28, 2010 by wyly