Tiger attacks in New York didn't stop in 1998 either.
"James Lovelock, the scientist that came up with the 'Gaia Theory' and a prominent herald of climate change, once predicted utter disaster for the planet from climate change, writing 'before this century is over billions of us will die and the few breeding pairs of people that survive will be in the Arctic where the climate remains tolerable.' Now Lovelock is walking back his rhetoric, admitting that he and other prominent global warming advocates were being alarmists. In a new interview with MSNBC he says: '"The problem is we don't know what the climate is doing. We thought we knew 20 years ago. That led to some alarmist books — mine included — because it looked clear-cut, but it hasn't happened," Lovelock said. "The climate is doing its usual tricks. There's nothing much really happening yet. We were supposed to be halfway toward a frying world now," he said. "The world has not warmed up very much since the millennium. Twelve years is a reasonable time it (the temperature) has stayed almost constant, whereas it should have been rising — carbon dioxide is rising, no question about that," he added.' Lovelock still believes the climate is changing, but at a much, much slower pace."
"as ecosystems ADJUST, funny how log lasting natural systems tend to be highly resilient and self-adjusting"
I've been pointing this out since 1985. Nobody listens.
In 2010 NASA and the NOAA bitch slaped the IPCC with this. "Your model is broken".
"8th December 2010 13:24 GMT - A group of top NASA and NOAA scientists say that current climate models predicting global warming are far too gloomy, and have failed to properly account for an important cooling factor which will come into play as CO2 levels rise." http://www.theregister.co.uk/2010/12/08/new_model_doubled_co2_sub_2_degrees_warming/
The rate of deforestation has increased. Go do a flyover of Borneo Island in the good and understand 95% of that island is unexplored. Now most of the trees are gone. Same in Brazil.
"We really need a private naming system for the Internet nowadays."
We had one. It was called the DNS.
At the end of the 1990s the/. community response was "Oh, Icann doesn't look to bad, let's give them a chance" despite it being all spelled out why it was the wosrt possible idea and what would happen and oh look it just did. Again.
You really do have to RTFA, especially when it's about net.policy.
Solar cells and silicone sealant share the same property: we have no idea how long they're good for.
Originally silicone cement had a 3 year warranty. Then none failed and they made it 10. Now it's 30. I have aquariums that are forty years old that have just a microscopically thin lawyer of silicone holding hundreds of gallons of water in a glass box. We have no idea how long the stuff will last, it could be a hundred years or more for all we know.
Solar panels started being deployed in the 70s. They all still work and were expected to give 10 years service. To be sure, efficiency diminishes over time, but that's a secondary consideration to the fact newer panels are much more efficient. Somebody can use those old panels though.
Sure, you say that now, but he's been held up as the figurehead for all this. When we said "he's not a scientist" your crowd babbled on about CO2 and how the facts mattered not the presenter. Now he admits he's lied and you throw him under a bus.
How bout the long string of failed alarmist predictions, how do you write those off?
Thank you for regurgitating Scott's blog. It is indeed vomit. With the subset data presented that is a valid conclusion, but only so when you look at that limited subset of data. It's not denialism to point out bad math.
But, even the alarmists have admitted to being alarmist:
"James Lovelock, the scientist that came up with the 'Gaia Theory' and a prominent herald of climate change, once predicted utter disaster for the planet from climate change, writing 'before this century is over billions of us will die and the few breeding pairs of people that survive will be in the Arctic where the climate remains tolerable.' Now Lovelock is walking back his rhetoric, admitting that he and other prominent global warming advocates were being alarmists. In a new interview with MSNBC he says: '"The problem is we don't know what the climate is doing. We thought we knew 20 years ago. That led to some alarmist books — mine included — because it looked clear-cut, but it hasn't happened," Lovelock said. "The climate is doing its usual tricks. There's nothing much really happening yet. We were supposed to be halfway toward a frying world now," he said. "The world has not warmed up very much since the millennium. Twelve years is a reasonable time it (the temperature) has stayed almost constant, whereas it should have been rising — carbon dioxide is rising, no question about that," he added.' Lovelock still believes the climate is changing, but at a much, much slower pace." http://www.independent.co.uk/opinion/commentators/james-lovelock-the-earth-is-about-to-catch-a-morbid-fever-that-may-last-as-long-as-100000-years-523161.html http://worldnews.msnbc.msn.com/_news/2012/04/23/11144098-gaia-scientist-james-lovelock-i-was-alarmist-about-climate-change?lite
That's not true. You can plant trees. Most of the problem with increased CO2 is because we've cut down nearly all the trees in the world.
Do the math. Figure out how much carbon dioxide you want to get rid of then figure out how many trees per person that works out to be. Of if each person planted, say, 1 quick growing but short lived tree (say, poplar) and 1 slow growing but long lived tree (say, oak) that would work even better. This is Freeman Dyson's idea.
I'm a bit alarmed that the alarmists are surprised to find out trees eat CO2. You'd sorta think guys that made a career out of CO2 would know what it does.
It sure is. Lawyers, accountants, politicians all love carbon credit trading "there's good business there". So, lawyers and researchers are being paid to hide the truth for decades. If it's shown not to be CO2, then all those businesses go *poof*.
The badly written article you cite is misleading in many ways. Here's one: it lists the NOAA as in support for the idea of global warming. This is the same NOAA that told the IPCC "your model is horribly flawed and your alarmist predictions are way off" and that "it's important to get this stuff right". In other words one of the "supporters" cited is actually in vehement disagreement with their conclusions, and rightly so because the IPCC model sorta left out the point plants eat CO2. This had been mentioned since the beginning of the global warming hysteria in 1985, but now NASA has said it maybe poeple will pay attention.
"8th December 2010 13:24 GMT - A group of top NASA and NOAA scientists say that current climate models predicting global warming are far too gloomy, and have failed to properly account for an important cooling factor which will come into play as CO2 levels rise."
Who ya gonna believe? Some whacko website that is trying to sell books or the guys that used a rocket powered sky-crane to drop an SUV on Mars?
Glaciation cycles are an example of one that's longer than a year.
If you look at the charts and graphs earth basically has two modes: coming out of an ice age and having an ice age. We're still coming out of an ice age so of course it's getting warmer. At what point did you think earth's climate was static? It doesn't work that way.
The next glaciation event seems on track for 300 years from now, so yeah the weather will be a bit weird for a while. Nothing you can do about it though except prepare. Evolution reward those who adapt the best, not the strongest.
The cause and schedule of glaciation and how it impacts clouds in general and climate specifically is explained here: http://rs79.vrx.net/opinions/ideas/climate/poles/ - note that this is the famous model that CERN validated then put a gag order on. The commercial forces behind carbon markets are very powerful, move in the shadows and leave no fingerprints.
Actually there is a paper that's done the math and pointed out unless CO rises even further, then we're not going to be able to grow enough food to feed everybody. So quit whining and enjoy the warm weather until peak carbon kicks in.
Slashdot Mirror
Tiger attacks in New York didn't stop in 1998 either.
"James Lovelock, the scientist that came up with the 'Gaia Theory' and a prominent herald of climate change, once predicted utter disaster for the planet from climate change, writing 'before this century is over billions of us will die and the few breeding pairs of people that survive will be in the Arctic where the climate remains tolerable.' Now Lovelock is walking back his rhetoric, admitting that he and other prominent global warming advocates were being alarmists. In a new interview with MSNBC he says: '"The problem is we don't know what the climate is doing. We thought we knew 20 years ago. That led to some alarmist books — mine included — because it looked clear-cut, but it hasn't happened," Lovelock said. "The climate is doing its usual tricks. There's nothing much really happening yet. We were supposed to be halfway toward a frying world now," he said. "The world has not warmed up very much since the millennium. Twelve years is a reasonable time it (the temperature) has stayed almost constant, whereas it should have been rising — carbon dioxide is rising, no question about that," he added.' Lovelock still believes the climate is changing, but at a much, much slower pace."
http://www.independent.co.uk/opinion/commentators/james-lovelock-the-earth-is-about-to-catch-a-morbid-fever-that-may-last-as-long-as-100000-years-523161.html
http://worldnews.msnbc.msn.com/_news/2012/04/23/11144098-gaia-scientist-james-lovelock-i-was-alarmist-about-climate-change?lite
The alarmists say they were being alarmist and recanted. That the rest of the world hasn't caught up is simply latency.
Yeah. I get all my hard science from newspapers. They really know their stuff.
http://rs79.vrx.net/opinions/ideas/observations/globe/
Because if you spit in the ocean the sea will rise. (just not by much).
"as ecosystems ADJUST, funny how log lasting natural systems tend to be highly resilient and self-adjusting"
I've been pointing this out since 1985. Nobody listens.
In 2010 NASA and the NOAA bitch slaped the IPCC with this. "Your model is broken".
"8th December 2010 13:24 GMT - A group of top NASA and NOAA scientists say that current climate models predicting global warming are far too gloomy, and have failed to properly account for an important cooling factor which will come into play as CO2 levels rise."
http://www.theregister.co.uk/2010/12/08/new_model_doubled_co2_sub_2_degrees_warming/
This guy says unless CO2 rises, we won't be able to grow enough food to feed a more populous world. Grow food... uses CO2... at this point some sort of light should go off over your head. http://www.liebertpub.com/MContent/Files/Kleinman_ch19_p379-398.pdf
Keep in mind it's not so much CO2 output from man as it is REMOVING ALL THE FUCKING TREES. It didn't work so well in the Dust Bowl (thank you Ken Burns) and apparently this is some sort of revelation to those who study CO2 (wot?)
http://www.google.com/hostednews/afp/article/ALeqM5j2BAdNIG5Q2FJlEdac1l-KXiTSCA?docId=CNG.dfe97e07f144a2d29eb615412e0c12be.a81
The rate of deforestation has increased. Go do a flyover of Borneo Island in the good and understand 95% of that island is unexplored. Now most of the trees are gone. Same in Brazil.
You don't seem to be getting an answer to your "what percent is man made" question.
That's odd.
That's what happens when you remove all the trees. Stop it.
You pay attention to what *some* scientists say. Follow the money.
Sure, cause I always trust Investment Wankers for unparalleled, unbiased insight into science.
Hows the carbon market these days?
VC's are trending down, Kickstarter is trending up. Isn't this how it should be?
Look at Pirate Bay DNS. The challenge is user adoption. We never hit more than 10% with alternative root servers in the 90s.
Course, that's 10X higher than the libertarian vote in yesterdays election...
"We really need a private naming system for the Internet nowadays."
We had one. It was called the DNS.
At the end of the 1990s the /. community response was "Oh, Icann doesn't look to bad, let's give them a chance" despite it being all spelled out why it was the wosrt possible idea and what would happen and oh look it just did. Again.
You really do have to RTFA, especially when it's about net.policy.
I'm not sure why he wants a domain name anyway. It just adds an attack vector.
I have no trouble remembering 8.8.8.8 for dns, really.
Also, it's less likely a .arpa domain could be messed with. Ugly, but boy are they stable. They don't even expire.
I knew if I searched long enough here I'd find some rational thought. Thank you.
Cause, holy shit are the woodpeckers ever out in force tonight.
You only really have power if they'll make you a sammich.
Solar cells and silicone sealant share the same property: we have no idea how long they're good for.
Originally silicone cement had a 3 year warranty. Then none failed and they made it 10. Now it's 30. I have aquariums that are forty years old that have just a microscopically thin lawyer of silicone holding hundreds of gallons of water in a glass box. We have no idea how long the stuff will last, it could be a hundred years or more for all we know.
Solar panels started being deployed in the 70s. They all still work and were expected to give 10 years service. To be sure, efficiency diminishes over time, but that's a secondary consideration to the fact newer panels are much more efficient. Somebody can use those old panels though.
Sure, you say that now, but he's been held up as the figurehead for all this. When we said "he's not a scientist" your crowd babbled on about CO2 and how the facts mattered not the presenter. Now he admits he's lied and you throw him under a bus.
How bout the long string of failed alarmist predictions, how do you write those off?
Thank you for regurgitating Scott's blog. It is indeed vomit. With the subset data presented that is a valid conclusion, but only so when you look at that limited subset of data. It's not denialism to point out bad math.
But, even the alarmists have admitted to being alarmist:
"James Lovelock, the scientist that came up with the 'Gaia Theory' and a prominent herald of climate change, once predicted utter disaster for the planet from climate change, writing 'before this century is over billions of us will die and the few breeding pairs of people that survive will be in the Arctic where the climate remains tolerable.' Now Lovelock is walking back his rhetoric, admitting that he and other prominent global warming advocates were being alarmists. In a new interview with MSNBC he says: '"The problem is we don't know what the climate is doing. We thought we knew 20 years ago. That led to some alarmist books — mine included — because it looked clear-cut, but it hasn't happened," Lovelock said. "The climate is doing its usual tricks. There's nothing much really happening yet. We were supposed to be halfway toward a frying world now," he said. "The world has not warmed up very much since the millennium. Twelve years is a reasonable time it (the temperature) has stayed almost constant, whereas it should have been rising — carbon dioxide is rising, no question about that," he added.' Lovelock still believes the climate is changing, but at a much, much slower pace."
http://www.independent.co.uk/opinion/commentators/james-lovelock-the-earth-is-about-to-catch-a-morbid-fever-that-may-last-as-long-as-100000-years-523161.html
http://worldnews.msnbc.msn.com/_news/2012/04/23/11144098-gaia-scientist-james-lovelock-i-was-alarmist-about-climate-change?lite
China is building 10 new coal plants *a week*. They sure as shit depend on gas emissions for their economy.
They're also converting to solar and are way ahead of this Chinese.
You might want to look up Freeman Dyson's take on exactly this, I promise it is worth your effort.
That's not true. You can plant trees. Most of the problem with increased CO2 is because we've cut down nearly all the trees in the world.
Do the math. Figure out how much carbon dioxide you want to get rid of then figure out how many trees per person that works out to be. Of if each person planted, say, 1 quick growing but short lived tree (say, poplar) and 1 slow growing but long lived tree (say, oak) that would work even better. This is Freeman Dyson's idea.
http://www.google.com/hostednews/afp/article/ALeqM5j2BAdNIG5Q2FJlEdac1l-KXiTSCA?docId=CNG.dfe97e07f144a2d29eb615412e0c12be.a81
I'm a bit alarmed that the alarmists are surprised to find out trees eat CO2. You'd sorta think guys that made a career out of CO2 would know what it does.
It sure is. Lawyers, accountants, politicians all love carbon credit trading "there's good business there". So, lawyers and researchers are being paid to hide the truth for decades. If it's shown not to be CO2, then all those businesses go *poof*.
Go watch this then give me your thoughts on carbon: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YrI03ts--9I
Now look a the graph of historical glaciation superimposed with CO2.
Once you see this you know it can't be CO2.
The badly written article you cite is misleading in many ways. Here's one: it lists the NOAA as in support for the idea of global warming. This is the same NOAA that told the IPCC "your model is horribly flawed and your alarmist predictions are way off" and that "it's important to get this stuff right". In other words one of the "supporters" cited is actually in vehement disagreement with their conclusions, and rightly so because the IPCC model sorta left out the point plants eat CO2. This had been mentioned since the beginning of the global warming hysteria in 1985, but now NASA has said it maybe poeple will pay attention.
http://www.theregister.co.uk/2010/12/08/new_model_doubled_co2_sub_2_degrees_warming/
"8th December 2010 13:24 GMT - A group of top NASA and NOAA scientists say that current climate models predicting global warming are far too gloomy, and have failed to properly account for an important cooling factor which will come into play as CO2 levels rise."
Who ya gonna believe? Some whacko website that is trying to sell books or the guys that used a rocket powered sky-crane to drop an SUV on Mars?
Hazel did the same thing in 53, it met up with a "winter storm" and hung around for while as a cat 1 over Toronto.
If sandy was the equivalent of a cat 3 then it's as big as the 1780 one.
This is not "unprecedented" now is it?
Glaciation cycles are an example of one that's longer than a year.
If you look at the charts and graphs earth basically has two modes: coming out of an ice age and having an ice age. We're still coming out of an ice age so of course it's getting warmer. At what point did you think earth's climate was static? It doesn't work that way.
The next glaciation event seems on track for 300 years from now, so yeah the weather will be a bit weird for a while. Nothing you can do about it though except prepare. Evolution reward those who adapt the best, not the strongest.
The cause and schedule of glaciation and how it impacts clouds in general and climate specifically is explained here: http://rs79.vrx.net/opinions/ideas/climate/poles/ - note that this is the famous model that CERN validated then put a gag order on. The commercial forces behind carbon markets are very powerful, move in the shadows and leave no fingerprints.
Also, this seems to me to falsify the AGW argument: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YrI03ts--9I I've not yet seen anyone refute it. Be the first on your block!
As to why there is such a carbon hysteria, this author makes the case for manufactured consent: http://judithcurry.com/2011/07/16/manufacturing-consensus/ and the Adam Curtis docco (BBC, 4 hrs, well worth it) "Century of the Self" shows the principles of how and when this was done: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OmUzwRCyTSo
Actually there is a paper that's done the math and pointed out unless CO rises even further, then we're not going to be able to grow enough food to feed everybody. So quit whining and enjoy the warm weather until peak carbon kicks in.
http://www.liebertpub.com/MContent/Files/Kleinman_ch19_p379-398.pdf