It's up to you to believe that GW (don't you mean "climate change"?) will cause more intense hurricanes - that's one recent study. Other's claim the frequency will rise (which that one doesn't, however) - and some say there won't be any measurable difference at all.
"The main point that we want to emphasise is that there is no evidence in this study that we are seeing large greenhouse-gas-driven increases in Atlantic hurricane or tropical storm frequencies."
(Just a while back a hurricane moving eastwards over the Atlantic was brought up as a sign of AGW - but then we realised ship's records from the 17th century detailed such storms... )
In ~30-50 years you'll be able to get all those open areas, beaches, hikes and wild animals - perfectly simulated and you would be unable to tell them from the real thing.
I haven't got a problem with that. You obviously do. There's no way around that difference of opinion.
We are nowhere near running out of resources - and I think Asimov dealt with this quite nicely. There are probably those who think 12 entities are too many on a single planet, and those who don't have a problem with a trillion.
Yes you're guessing correctly, but there seems to be very little to reply to in your post. Anyway, the PDO doesn't cause global temperature trends, but it has most likely influenced north american temperatures ( http://wattsupwiththat.com/2008/09/26/nasa-jpl-heatwaves-its-the-asphalt-not-the-atmosphere/ ). Repeating myself - the so called global warming was really northern hemisphere warming, and has stopped (and is currently likely declining).
Now let's go find the best matching hypothesis for that data. CO2 isn't it - there's nothing in the climate models predicting a levelling of and the start of a decline while CO2 levels have continued to rise. It seems there might be a better match when looking at solar activity - possibly with ocean currents as secondary effects that need to be taken into account when looking for that elusive "perfect match".
Sure, there's something we can do about it. For one thing, we can cut carbon dioxide emissions.
We can also pray! The difference is that praying is cheaper, and will have the same (that is, zero) effect.
The rest of your post is hard to understand, but it seems you might want to read up on current science with regards to climate change. You're quite off the mark.
(The "market" - that is us consumers - are already voting with our wallets and each new day technological advancements are made that will lessen the impact of there being less oil pumped out of the ground)
(You're free to research the actual topics he's presenting as well, of course. I'll help with one of them: http://www.google.com/search?q=co2+radiative+forcing ). Please verify sources, we don't want you to mix up what's a source and what's someone presenting a few slides again:)
Dude. Absolutely nothing in your links point to credible data with regards to any human caused abnormal global warming. They don't even contain any data pointing to the observed events being abnormal in the timescale of a single millennia.
With regards to Vikings in Greenland. Even Wikipedia has a better grasp of the local climate there during the Medeival warm period than you display here;)
Yes, and if there's nothing we can do about it (likely) then... what's your point?
(Btw, the ice on Greenland is nowhere NEAR melting at a rate causing a raise of 20 feet. Science before alarmism please)
Lomborg details nicely how much good we can do with money with regards to possible GW effects instead of spending it on useless CO2-reducing economic disaster-schemes.
I assume you're joking (since global temperature wasn't even up for discussion there) - but the 1998 anomaly is well known to be because of a strong El Nino.
Yes they do, for the northern hemisphere, and no one is claiming there hasn't been any:) It's however not as dramatic as land temperatures would make us believe, and it also concides perfectly with what we already know is a warm trend compared to when before satellite measurements began.
That warm trend has now been broken, and temperatures are on their way down. This falsifies the CO2 hypothesis.
Why are you under the impression that ice in Greenland (land and sea based) melting is not normal? Feel free to add the whole arctic if you want:) We have numerous records during the whole 20th century about passages being open to the left and right and during the last millennia we have had the REASON for Greenland being called "green" as well as the Thames in London freezing over.
Please let me know what of all this you would accept as "normal";)
Nice summary, unfortunately you come of as a raving lunatic claiming that epicycles IS the only explanation mankind need and that it's BLASPHEMOUS to claim that there is some other kind of explanation!
I still like facts, and thus I'll happily wait for the CLOUD experiment at CERN with regards to Svensmark's hypothesis.
(While watching, remember that SC24 is so far nothing but a fizzle)
You're basically right, and the original poster (rightly) approximated that a doubling of CO2 in the atmosphere (which I'm not even sure mankind can accomplish!) resulting in an increase in temperature of 0.2 degrees C or so is "zero extra warming effect".
As a species, we are appropriating the majority of earth's productive capacity for our own survival
No. Such a statement is only true if you base your projections on there being absolutely no technological advancements whatsoever in ANY area in the future.
Not likely. In reality the technological development rate is accelerating.
Nah. It's simply a nice way to check who's seriously interested in the facts (that person will easily find the information) and who's just interested in yelling loudly about their latest populistic meme.
(That's currently "OH MY GOD CLIMATE CHANGE IS GOING TO KILL US ALL" btw, if that isn't obvious.. )
I'll take this as you having no constructive arguments then. Thanks for making that clear:)
Myself I like facts to support my arguments, and I'm also a strong believer in falsifiability in science. The "CO2 causes warming" argument has failed horribly for quite a few years now, and it's thus likely that it's a bad hypothesis.
Svensmark's hypothesis, on the other hand, looks increasingly more valid. Nice to see some tests being planned on that one soon.
Surface temperatures. You know - the stations extremely affected by urbanization. The link I gave is for satellite troposhpere temperatures, less affected by heat zones around cities but still an area where AGW should have a huge effect.
Slashdot Mirror
Yes .. ?
(I don't know if you were trying to be funny but that's exactly what it's about ... and technological advancements will solve it as well)
It's up to you to believe that GW (don't you mean "climate change"?) will cause more intense hurricanes - that's one recent study. Other's claim the frequency will rise (which that one doesn't, however) - and some say there won't be any measurable difference at all.
"The main point that we want to emphasise is that there is no evidence in this study that we are seeing large greenhouse-gas-driven increases in Atlantic hurricane or tropical storm frequencies."
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/7404846.stm
(Just a while back a hurricane moving eastwards over the Atlantic was brought up as a sign of AGW - but then we realised ship's records from the 17th century detailed such storms ... )
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/environment/article4449527.ece
No - there is absolutely not a worldwide consensus. If you really believe that you need to get out more :) With regards to the IPCC specifically; http://scienceandpublicpolicy.org/press/ipccprocessillusion.html
In ~30-50 years you'll be able to get all those open areas, beaches, hikes and wild animals - perfectly simulated and you would be unable to tell them from the real thing.
I haven't got a problem with that. You obviously do. There's no way around that difference of opinion.
We are nowhere near running out of resources - and I think Asimov dealt with this quite nicely. There are probably those who think 12 entities are too many on a single planet, and those who don't have a problem with a trillion.
Yes you're guessing correctly, but there seems to be very little to reply to in your post. Anyway, the PDO doesn't cause global temperature trends, but it has most likely influenced north american temperatures ( http://wattsupwiththat.com/2008/09/26/nasa-jpl-heatwaves-its-the-asphalt-not-the-atmosphere/ ). Repeating myself - the so called global warming was really northern hemisphere warming, and has stopped (and is currently likely declining).
Now let's go find the best matching hypothesis for that data. CO2 isn't it - there's nothing in the climate models predicting a levelling of and the start of a decline while CO2 levels have continued to rise. It seems there might be a better match when looking at solar activity - possibly with ocean currents as secondary effects that need to be taken into account when looking for that elusive "perfect match".
Stop treating AGW as a religion.
Sure, there's something we can do about it. For one thing, we can cut carbon dioxide emissions.
We can also pray! The difference is that praying is cheaper, and will have the same (that is, zero) effect.
The rest of your post is hard to understand, but it seems you might want to read up on current science with regards to climate change. You're quite off the mark.
(The "market" - that is us consumers - are already voting with our wallets and each new day technological advancements are made that will lessen the impact of there being less oil pumped out of the ground)
No, the link does not establish that.
No, he's the presenter in a video on Youtube.
(You're free to research the actual topics he's presenting as well, of course. I'll help with one of them: http://www.google.com/search?q=co2+radiative+forcing ). Please verify sources, we don't want you to mix up what's a source and what's someone presenting a few slides again :)
Link has been posted already. Why didn't you simply google?
No and no. There's neither an "edge" nor a "limit".
(I'll refrain from pointing out the usual obvious agendas when people bring up "uncontrolled breeding" ... )
Dude. Absolutely nothing in your links point to credible data with regards to any human caused abnormal global warming. They don't even contain any data pointing to the observed events being abnormal in the timescale of a single millennia.
With regards to Vikings in Greenland. Even Wikipedia has a better grasp of the local climate there during the Medeival warm period than you display here ;)
Yes, and if there's nothing we can do about it (likely) then ... what's your point?
(Btw, the ice on Greenland is nowhere NEAR melting at a rate causing a raise of 20 feet. Science before alarmism please)
Lomborg details nicely how much good we can do with money with regards to possible GW effects instead of spending it on useless CO2-reducing economic disaster-schemes.
I assume you're joking (since global temperature wasn't even up for discussion there) - but the 1998 anomaly is well known to be because of a strong El Nino.
Yes they do, for the northern hemisphere, and no one is claiming there hasn't been any :) It's however not as dramatic as land temperatures would make us believe, and it also concides perfectly with what we already know is a warm trend compared to when before satellite measurements began.
That warm trend has now been broken, and temperatures are on their way down. This falsifies the CO2 hypothesis.
You're free to assume that, of course, but it's your general knowledge that lacks out :)
(Link has been posted, albeit to a presentation instead of a single paper)
Why are you under the impression that ice in Greenland (land and sea based) melting is not normal? Feel free to add the whole arctic if you want :) We have numerous records during the whole 20th century about passages being open to the left and right and during the last millennia we have had the REASON for Greenland being called "green" as well as the Thames in London freezing over.
Please let me know what of all this you would accept as "normal" ;)
Nice summary, unfortunately you come of as a raving lunatic claiming that epicycles IS the only explanation mankind need and that it's BLASPHEMOUS to claim that there is some other kind of explanation!
I still like facts, and thus I'll happily wait for the CLOUD experiment at CERN with regards to Svensmark's hypothesis.
http://physicsworld.com/cws/article/news/3124
http://cloud.web.cern.ch/cloud/
Four parts, check the title and the related list to the right for the other three:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VDX2ExKYyqw
(While watching, remember that SC24 is so far nothing but a fizzle)
You're basically right, and the original poster (rightly) approximated that a doubling of CO2 in the atmosphere (which I'm not even sure mankind can accomplish!) resulting in an increase in temperature of 0.2 degrees C or so is "zero extra warming effect".
There is such a part? Please quote it :)
As a species, we are appropriating the majority of earth's productive capacity for our own survival
No. Such a statement is only true if you base your projections on there being absolutely no technological advancements whatsoever in ANY area in the future.
Not likely. In reality the technological development rate is accelerating.
Nah. It's simply a nice way to check who's seriously interested in the facts (that person will easily find the information) and who's just interested in yelling loudly about their latest populistic meme.
(That's currently "OH MY GOD CLIMATE CHANGE IS GOING TO KILL US ALL" btw, if that isn't obvious .. )
I'll take this as you having no constructive arguments then. Thanks for making that clear :)
Myself I like facts to support my arguments, and I'm also a strong believer in falsifiability in science. The "CO2 causes warming" argument has failed horribly for quite a few years now, and it's thus likely that it's a bad hypothesis.
Svensmark's hypothesis, on the other hand, looks increasingly more valid. Nice to see some tests being planned on that one soon.
Surface temperatures. You know - the stations extremely affected by urbanization. The link I gave is for satellite troposhpere temperatures, less affected by heat zones around cities but still an area where AGW should have a huge effect.
For more info on why you shouldn't trust surface data: http://surfacestations.org/
PDO warm shift. Feel free to extend the diagram to before 1979 - thus displaying more than just the warm side of a cycle.
... it is going down.
http://wattsupwiththat.files.wordpress.com/2008/09/uah_august2008.png