Sheesh! The stereotyping is strong with you. I'm right there with pixelpusher on everything including being a left wing liberal. I don't want government just for the sake of government, I just want it to take care of the things that can't be handled well outside of a government framework.
That's ignoring any exposure related issues, predatory marine life, or drowning. Dehydration, starvation, and miscellaneous death causes would have happened over 3-7 days if it was a soft landing.
In the Southern Indian Ocean like that I imagine the water is cold enough that hypothermia would kill anyone within a few hours.
Much of the global warming skepticism has been fueled lately by the decade long pause in the global warming average.
An interesting thing about that is if you statistically analyze the temperature trends since 1998 it's about as likely that the rising temperature trend has continued as before as it is that there is a "pause". The period is just too short to come to statistically valid conclusion on the question.
Can't predict tomorrow's weather, but can predict what will happen in 90 years.
If I start throwing dice I can't predict what the next roll will be but I can predict with good accuracy what the results of 10,000 rolls will be. Climate is the average results of thousands of weather events which is much more predictable than any individual weather event.
A paper in Nature last September was a study of 117 of the most-cited CO2 climate warming models. 114 of them not only overestimated warming, the average (mean) amount they exaggerated warming (versus actual observed temperatures) was MORE THAN 100%.
One wonders why you don't apply as much skepticism to that paper as you apparently do to papers you don't like? Did you even read the full paper or just skim it for information to support your position? There were a bunch of caveats in there that you totally ignore. Even if the models are 100% wrong it's still warming. The fundamental evidence for AGW doesn't depend on climate models. Models are not expected to be exactly right, just useful. They are tools to explore our understanding and we don't have anything else that does it better.
The reason is simple: their theory [drroyspencer.com] is fundamentally flawed. [principia-scientific.org]
Not that nonsense of Pierre Latour's again. Dr. Roy Spencer is right and Latour flunks thermodynamics.
Even if you take some of the worst case predictions they're talking about something like 5C over 100 years,...
The difference between the depths of the Little Ice Age and mid-20th Century temperatures was only about 1 degree C. Even another 2C probably wouldn't be pretty.
You left out the step where it changed from "climate change" to "global warming". Gilbert Plass published several papers in the 1950's on carbon dioxide and climate change.
The muskeg will give off both CO2 and methane as it thaws depending on whether it breaks down aerobically or anaerobically respectively.
But your basic point is right. The further north you go the less suitable the land is for agriculture regardless of the temperature and it would take at minimum hundreds of years for it to become suitable.
Not quite. The Antarctic Ice Cap generally refers to the Antarctic ice sheet which is the land based ice on the Antarctic continent. That is melting although not especially fast. What has grown by a few percent is the maximum sea ice surrounding Antarctica and that won't go on forever.
A recent study was done on 117 of the most common climate models cited by the pushers of CO2-based warming, 114 of those 117 made warming projections that were higher than the actual observed warming over those years. The average amount they were above actual observations was more than 100%.
100% compared to what? How well did the scenarios driving those warming projections match the real world forcings? Did you take into account the uncertainty range that came along with the model projections? It would be useful it provided a cite to your recent study.
You are right that way to many people are crying wolf about individual weather events when the ultimate answer will be found in the long term accumulation of statistics about them. But then you come back with the simplistic "it was the idiot greens stopping dredging" which is doing the same thing. The answers are seldom that simple.
The definition by the World Meteorological Organization of 30 years as the classical climate period has been around a long time. It was in effect when Hansen started his modeling in the late 1970's. That's why climatologists use that time period. I don't expect it to change.
So you're saying we have to retire the word "denier" because it can only be associated with Holocaust denial now. Language evolves but it hasn't gone that far now.
Really, riverat, would you enjoy "climate science nazi" as an appellation?
Water off a ducks back.
Igw is right - none of the models predicted "the pause".
Climate models are not expected to predict short term variations like that. What they are expected to predict is the climate, that is the long term averages of weather and its variability. In this case long term generally means 30 years. If some models had predicted "the pause" it would have just been an unexpected coincidence.
You go on about falsification all the time but climate science is complex and requires an equally complex falsification. Perhaps the simplest test you could use would be if the slope of the 30 year running mean temperature curve's slope becomes negative despite increasing CO2 and barring confounding factors such as a lot of volcanic activity.
Even such notable climate contrarians as the Pielkes, Sr. and Jr, Richard Lindzen and Roy Spencer will tell you that more CO2 means warming. They just disagree on how much warming there will be.
Club of Rome publication "The Limits to Growth" (1972)
Oh, it started long before that.
Svante Arrhenius, 1896
if the quantity of carbonic acid [CO2] increases in geometric progression, the augmentation of the temperature will increase nearly in arithmetic progression.
Or Gilbert Plass:
Plass, G.N., 1956, Infrared Radiation in the Atmosphere, American J. Physics 24, p. 303-21. Plass, G.N., 1956, Carbon Dioxide and the Climate, American Scientist 44, p. 302-16. Plass, G.N., 1956, Effect of Carbon Dioxide Variations on Climate, American J. Physics 24, p. 376-87. Plass, G.N., 1956, The Carbon Dioxide Theory of Climatic Change, Tellus VIII, 2. (1956), p. 140-154. Plass, G.N., 1959, Carbon Dioxide and Climate, Scientific American, July, p. 41-47.
If you don't like being called a climate science denier it would help to not make statements like "The predictions form[sic] the models old enough (15+ years old) to be tested have been falsified." They have not been falsified and it's apparent from that statement that you really don't understand much about how climate models work, what they are expected to predict in the first place and that your expectations of them are unrealistic.
Nevertheless the word "denier" goes way back and is too commonly used in a variety of situations to be appropriated by one particular flavor of denial. When the context is climate the full appellation would be "climate science denier".
Slashdot Mirror
Sheesh! The stereotyping is strong with you. I'm right there with pixelpusher on everything including being a left wing liberal. I don't want government just for the sake of government, I just want it to take care of the things that can't be handled well outside of a government framework.
That's ignoring any exposure related issues, predatory marine life, or drowning. Dehydration, starvation, and miscellaneous death causes would have happened over 3-7 days if it was a soft landing.
In the Southern Indian Ocean like that I imagine the water is cold enough that hypothermia would kill anyone within a few hours.
Ok, just be prepared to pay for any damages you may cause like lighting a fire.
Fortunately we did something about ozone depletion due to CFC's so the problem isn't as bad as it could have been.
Much of the global warming skepticism has been fueled lately by the decade long pause in the global warming average.
An interesting thing about that is if you statistically analyze the temperature trends since 1998 it's about as likely that the rising temperature trend has continued as before as it is that there is a "pause". The period is just too short to come to statistically valid conclusion on the question.
Can't predict tomorrow's weather, but can predict what will happen in 90 years.
If I start throwing dice I can't predict what the next roll will be but I can predict with good accuracy what the results of 10,000 rolls will be. Climate is the average results of thousands of weather events which is much more predictable than any individual weather event.
I read the NIPCC Reports for laughs.
A paper in Nature last September was a study of 117 of the most-cited CO2 climate warming models. 114 of them not only overestimated warming, the average (mean) amount they exaggerated warming (versus actual observed temperatures) was MORE THAN 100%.
One wonders why you don't apply as much skepticism to that paper as you apparently do to papers you don't like? Did you even read the full paper or just skim it for information to support your position? There were a bunch of caveats in there that you totally ignore. Even if the models are 100% wrong it's still warming. The fundamental evidence for AGW doesn't depend on climate models. Models are not expected to be exactly right, just useful. They are tools to explore our understanding and we don't have anything else that does it better.
The reason is simple: their theory [drroyspencer.com] is fundamentally flawed. [principia-scientific.org]
Not that nonsense of Pierre Latour's again. Dr. Roy Spencer is right and Latour flunks thermodynamics.
Even if you take some of the worst case predictions they're talking about something like 5C over 100 years, ...
The difference between the depths of the Little Ice Age and mid-20th Century temperatures was only about 1 degree C. Even another 2C probably wouldn't be pretty.
You left out the step where it changed from "climate change" to "global warming". Gilbert Plass published several papers in the 1950's on carbon dioxide and climate change.
What I would is is that the IPCC report is a review of the literature which is a common scientific practice.
I'd join you but I don't think my liver could take the right wing's obsession with Al Gore.
The muskeg will give off both CO2 and methane as it thaws depending on whether it breaks down aerobically or anaerobically respectively.
But your basic point is right. The further north you go the less suitable the land is for agriculture regardless of the temperature and it would take at minimum hundreds of years for it to become suitable.
But there is a duck billed platypus. Can you explain that?
Huh? You lost me there.
Not quite. The Antarctic Ice Cap generally refers to the Antarctic ice sheet which is the land based ice on the Antarctic continent. That is melting although not especially fast. What has grown by a few percent is the maximum sea ice surrounding Antarctica and that won't go on forever.
A recent study was done on 117 of the most common climate models cited by the pushers of CO2-based warming, 114 of those 117 made warming projections that were higher than the actual observed warming over those years. The average amount they were above actual observations was more than 100%.
100% compared to what? How well did the scenarios driving those warming projections match the real world forcings? Did you take into account the uncertainty range that came along with the model projections? It would be useful it provided a cite to your recent study.
You are right that way to many people are crying wolf about individual weather events when the ultimate answer will be found in the long term accumulation of statistics about them. But then you come back with the simplistic "it was the idiot greens stopping dredging" which is doing the same thing. The answers are seldom that simple.
The definition by the World Meteorological Organization of 30 years as the classical climate period has been around a long time. It was in effect when Hansen started his modeling in the late 1970's. That's why climatologists use that time period. I don't expect it to change.
So you're saying we have to retire the word "denier" because it can only be associated with Holocaust denial now. Language evolves but it hasn't gone that far now.
Really, riverat, would you enjoy "climate science nazi" as an appellation?
Water off a ducks back.
Igw is right - none of the models predicted "the pause".
Climate models are not expected to predict short term variations like that. What they are expected to predict is the climate, that is the long term averages of weather and its variability. In this case long term generally means 30 years. If some models had predicted "the pause" it would have just been an unexpected coincidence.
You go on about falsification all the time but climate science is complex and requires an equally complex falsification. Perhaps the simplest test you could use would be if the slope of the 30 year running mean temperature curve's slope becomes negative despite increasing CO2 and barring confounding factors such as a lot of volcanic activity.
Even such notable climate contrarians as the Pielkes, Sr. and Jr, Richard Lindzen and Roy Spencer will tell you that more CO2 means warming. They just disagree on how much warming there will be.
Sounds to me like you're expecting a weather forecast, not a climate forecast.
Anyone remember how it all started?
Club of Rome publication "The Limits to Growth" (1972)
Oh, it started long before that.
Svante Arrhenius, 1896
if the quantity of carbonic acid [CO2] increases in geometric progression, the augmentation of the temperature will increase nearly in arithmetic progression.
Or Gilbert Plass:
Plass, G.N., 1956, Infrared Radiation in the Atmosphere, American J. Physics 24, p. 303-21.
Plass, G.N., 1956, Carbon Dioxide and the Climate, American Scientist 44, p. 302-16.
Plass, G.N., 1956, Effect of Carbon Dioxide Variations on Climate, American J. Physics 24, p. 376-87.
Plass, G.N., 1956, The Carbon Dioxide Theory of Climatic Change, Tellus VIII, 2. (1956), p. 140-154.
Plass, G.N., 1959, Carbon Dioxide and Climate, Scientific American, July, p. 41-47.
If you don't like being called a climate science denier it would help to not make statements like "The predictions form[sic] the models old enough (15+ years old) to be tested have been falsified." They have not been falsified and it's apparent from that statement that you really don't understand much about how climate models work, what they are expected to predict in the first place and that your expectations of them are unrealistic.
Nevertheless the word "denier" goes way back and is too commonly used in a variety of situations to be appropriated by one particular flavor of denial. When the context is climate the full appellation would be "climate science denier".