"Over half of the world's reefs have already completely disappeared or are rapidly declining. Most of this so far had been due to pollution and overexploitation, but an increasing percent is due to the warming and increasingly acidic waters"
{{citation needed}} - and something recent at that.
(although you bring in pollution, overexploatation and warm water - which is a cyclic phenomena - and yet try to blame it on global warming)
Regarding ocean "acidification", and don't forget to mention how we could measure it with three significant digits hundreds of years ago, it's neither historically nor recently a problem: http://www.whoi.edu/page.do?pid=7545&tid=282&cid=63809&ct=162
The only reason one could have for believing there is a problem is by being blissfully ignorant on geological levels of CO2 in the oceans as well as temperature changes.
Ok, so here's another one. What are coral islands really? What's the carbon levels in the sea as well as atmosphere over the geological timescales corals have existed?
Yeah, exactly. The corals are going nowhere, and no, the seas aren't going acidic either.
Old consoles/computers could do 240p at 60fps, even on TV sets that were meant to display 480i at 30fps. It's not that hard to figure out how it was done, you should try it. Remember, there's a lot of old C64/Amiga/Atari hackers on Slashdot and we programmed these things to do wonders;)
How about greater range for malaria and dengue-fever carrying mosquitoes?
Thanks, now we know you don't know much about the subject:) Those mosquitoes can already habitate in "our" areas of the world - and they did so before we eradicated them (and that's why we don't have them any more - NOT due to climate). http://www.historyforkids.org/learn/science/medicine/malaria.htm (and yes, link chosen on purpose).
This is common knowledge, for those who spends a lite time researching their beliefs. Apparently, you don't - the rest of your post is equally ill-informed.
3 has not been established, unless you mean temperatures of tenths of degrees which no one cares about. You need water vapor and mythical positive forcings (which, when measured, have turned out to be negative) to get to any temperatures that would cause changes worth talking about.
The good Lord, say what you want about his writings, actually summed up the state of science on that really nicely a week ago:
You neither know the first nor the second fact with any scientific certainty whatsoever, of course. Granted, you do qualify one of the statements with "probably", I'll give you that.
We do not have trustworthy numbers on whether the rise in temperatures from the 70's to 00 was any faster than earlier in the 20th century, in the 19th century, during the MWP, the Roman.. the... oh.. yeah, all those other warm periods that were warmer than today.
The CRU's is just one of the three most widely used datasets. NASA's and NOAA's are the other two. And there are a number of lesser-used datasets. And they're all assembled in different ways, and often from different data sources.
You should really look this up for yourself. I promise you're in for a surprise.
I think that most people are willing to 2) agree that burning these fuels (indiscriminately) is both wasteful and polluting.
No, why on earth would people be willing to accept that?
Cheap energy is the single biggest reason for the incredible technological development we've seen since the industrial revolution. THAT SAME TECHNOLOGY has gotten rid of most of the pollution we used to have, fixed "a few" diseases, raised the standard of living, put more people above the poverty line than ever etc etc.
That same technology can do the same for the rest of the world as well. At the same time, we're (still thanks to a cheap energy source!) able to further our technological progress and thus we're soon (two decades) able to use other forms of energy cheaply as well.
We want to get to that point as FAST as possible. Not as slow as possible.
what are we supposed to do, just accept rising sea levels, melting glaciers and the sahara desert growing 25%?
The Sahara desert was a savannah just a few thousand years ago*. It's currently getting _greener_ - not expanding**. A warmer atmosphere leads to increased precipitation, and maybe it changes a few winds around as well which would rectify the current desert-anomaly, if you'd so choose.
if you don't believe the earth is heating up, you still have to admit the earth has had historic swings in climate, and that we earthlings will have to intervene at some point, correct?
Depends. We're currently nowhere near as "hot" as we've been in recent times***, thus, why should we do anything at all?
IF anything, we should prepare to mitigate the looming ice age.
... as are the global warming people at CRU, according to their own emails. You know, the lead authors of IPCC reports. Oh, and yeah, the IPCC chairman himself is making (and stands to make) a lot of money from the fossil fuel (now renamed to "green tech") industry.
Regarding surfacestations they do list the station ratings, which disprove the quote. Only 10% of the stations would fit the description - including both urban and rural.
Regarding the new fangled religion of "climatologists", I'd have to say that very few are. When it comes to the history of the earth (which includes climate), paleogeologists, atmospheric physicists etc are more than likely to have the required knowledge. When dealing with simple statistics (which is how all three hockeysticks got broken) it seems the climatologists do not have the required statistical knowledge - while an economist (as an example) could well have.
If you study your own links, you see that they use adjusted data, called homogenized, and is a fitting description. If you first modify rural data to fit urban data it's not surprising that you won't find big differences afterwards.
Example quotes:
Quality-controlled mean monthly temperature data for U.S. in situ stations were obtained from the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration/National En- vironmental Satellite, Data, and Information Service/ National Climatic Data Center (NOAA/NESDIS/ NCDC) archives.
... and a direct falsification to:
urban meteorological observations are more likely to be made within park cool islands than industrial regions
And on the contrary to what you suggest, many who do statistics on these datasets, and do not agree with how the adjustments are based, are scientist. Why would you even claim otherwise?
... and will stay that way. The "acidification" everyone's talking about is a (possible - again - the error bars are huge for the old values) shift from 8.179 to 8.104 over a period of 250 years.
(And, as I've already shown, the shell building creatures in the oceans have no problems with this)
Slashdot Mirror
"Over half of the world's reefs have already completely disappeared or are rapidly declining. Most of this so far had been due to pollution and overexploitation, but an increasing percent is due to the warming and increasingly acidic waters"
{{citation needed}} - and something recent at that.
http://www.uq.edu.au/news/?article=17983
(although you bring in pollution, overexploatation and warm water - which is a cyclic phenomena - and yet try to blame it on global warming)
Regarding ocean "acidification", and don't forget to mention how we could measure it with three significant digits hundreds of years ago, it's neither historically nor recently a problem: http://www.whoi.edu/page.do?pid=7545&tid=282&cid=63809&ct=162
The only reason one could have for believing there is a problem is by being blissfully ignorant on geological levels of CO2 in the oceans as well as temperature changes.
You should believe observations over hypothesises, if available.
(You're free to source the same information I gave you from other historical records, of course)
Right, and since we were talking about the human mind and other forms of biological evolution, elaborate on this "entire solution space" you mention ;)
(But yes, you're correct in your comment on an iterative approach failing real world applications)
Ok, so here's another one. What are coral islands really? What's the carbon levels in the sea as well as atmosphere over the geological timescales corals have existed?
Yeah, exactly. The corals are going nowhere, and no, the seas aren't going acidic either.
How do you know the maximum you've found is truly global - outside of a (very) constrained test environment?
Sorry, but no.
Old consoles/computers could do 240p at 60fps, even on TV sets that were meant to display 480i at 30fps. It's not that hard to figure out how it was done, you should try it. Remember, there's a lot of old C64/Amiga/Atari hackers on Slashdot and we programmed these things to do wonders ;)
With HDTV, we got 720p/60Hz etc.
the most optimized solution
Nitpick: No, think local vs global maxima.
How about greater range for malaria and dengue-fever carrying mosquitoes?
Thanks, now we know you don't know much about the subject :) Those mosquitoes can already habitate in "our" areas of the world - and they did so before we eradicated them (and that's why we don't have them any more - NOT due to climate). http://www.historyforkids.org/learn/science/medicine/malaria.htm (and yes, link chosen on purpose).
This is common knowledge, for those who spends a lite time researching their beliefs. Apparently, you don't - the rest of your post is equally ill-informed.
3 has not been established, unless you mean temperatures of tenths of degrees which no one cares about. You need water vapor and mythical positive forcings (which, when measured, have turned out to be negative) to get to any temperatures that would cause changes worth talking about.
The good Lord, say what you want about his writings, actually summed up the state of science on that really nicely a week ago:
http://scienceandpublicpolicy.org/images/stories/papers/commentaries/climate_lies.pdf
You neither know the first nor the second fact with any scientific certainty whatsoever, of course. Granted, you do qualify one of the statements with "probably", I'll give you that.
We do not have trustworthy numbers on whether the rise in temperatures from the 70's to 00 was any faster than earlier in the 20th century, in the 19th century, during the MWP, the Roman .. the ... oh .. yeah, all those other warm periods that were warmer than today.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DFbUVBYIPlI
Please point to NOAA's "raw" data. Then look at their source. Then check to see where _that_ source has their "raw" data.
Hint: It's not in electronic format easily available to you.
The CRU's is just one of the three most widely used datasets. NASA's and NOAA's are the other two. And there are a number of lesser-used datasets. And they're all assembled in different ways, and often from different data sources.
You should really look this up for yourself. I promise you're in for a surprise.
... and neither is it proof that they are, of course.
I see your userid and raise you "lack of?". On the contrary, they're not uncommon seen over a timespan of eight years.
At that date, the subject matter became part of Slashdot.
On 9/11, Slashdot was the only news site to handle the increase in traffic when people all over the world tried to find out what had happened.
I think that most people are willing to
2) agree that burning these fuels (indiscriminately) is both wasteful and polluting.
No, why on earth would people be willing to accept that?
Cheap energy is the single biggest reason for the incredible technological development we've seen since the industrial revolution. THAT SAME TECHNOLOGY has gotten rid of most of the pollution we used to have, fixed "a few" diseases, raised the standard of living, put more people above the poverty line than ever etc etc.
That same technology can do the same for the rest of the world as well. At the same time, we're (still thanks to a cheap energy source!) able to further our technological progress and thus we're soon (two decades) able to use other forms of energy cheaply as well.
We want to get to that point as FAST as possible. Not as slow as possible.
what are we supposed to do, just accept rising sea levels, melting glaciers and the sahara desert growing 25%?
The Sahara desert was a savannah just a few thousand years ago*. It's currently getting _greener_ - not expanding**. A warmer atmosphere leads to increased precipitation, and maybe it changes a few winds around as well which would rectify the current desert-anomaly, if you'd so choose.
if you don't believe the earth is heating up, you still have to admit the earth has had historic swings in climate, and that we earthlings will have to intervene at some point, correct?
Depends. We're currently nowhere near as "hot" as we've been in recent times***, thus, why should we do anything at all?
IF anything, we should prepare to mitigate the looming ice age.
Sources:
*) http://www.livescience.com/history/060720_sahara_rains.html
**) http://surveying-mapping-gis.blogspot.com/2006/01/greening-of-sahel.html
***) http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DFbUVBYIPlI
Lindzen is paid by the fossil fuel industry
Not credible as a researcher
Oh.
Sources:
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2009/12/04/climategate-cru-looks-to-big-oil-for-support/
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2009/12/21/pacharuris-carbon-choo-choo-off-the-rails/
Could you please source that number?
(No, I'm not confusing the aspects)
Regarding surfacestations they do list the station ratings, which disprove the quote. Only 10% of the stations would fit the description - including both urban and rural.
Regarding the new fangled religion of "climatologists", I'd have to say that very few are. When it comes to the history of the earth (which includes climate), paleogeologists, atmospheric physicists etc are more than likely to have the required knowledge. When dealing with simple statistics (which is how all three hockeysticks got broken) it seems the climatologists do not have the required statistical knowledge - while an economist (as an example) could well have.
:(
If you study your own links, you see that they use adjusted data, called homogenized, and is a fitting description. If you first modify rural data to fit urban data it's not surprising that you won't find big differences afterwards.
Example quotes:
Quality-controlled mean monthly temperature data for U.S. in situ stations were obtained from the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration/National En- vironmental Satellite, Data, and Information Service/ National Climatic Data Center (NOAA/NESDIS/ NCDC) archives.
urban meteorological observations are more likely to be made within park cool islands than industrial regions
And on the contrary to what you suggest, many who do statistics on these datasets, and do not agree with how the adjustments are based, are scientist. Why would you even claim otherwise?
Feel free to provide links to support your claim.
Which begs the question for the climate change deniers - where is the smoking gun?
It seems to be everywhere you compare rural raw data with either adjusted data or urban data.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=F_G_-SdAN04
pH of the oceans is about 8
(And, as I've already shown, the shell building creatures in the oceans have no problems with this)
Btw; I'm quite sure I do science for a living ;)