Global Warming The debbil made me do it

On Mar 10, 3:10 pm, "Dan Luke" wrote:

Speaking of inconsistency...


To which I replied:

"So a 20-foot sea level rise over a couple hundred years would be just an
inconvenience. Right."

[blah blah blah snipped]

However, very recently you said: "By the way, neither I nor anyone
else predicts a 20-ft sea level rise by 2100. That's all in your
head. You're delusional."

So which is it? 20' rise or not?

Oh -- another recourse of the alarmists, to wit "It's not linear."

Thus, there is no point in time which we can examine the claims and
see if there if progression towards the ultimate hypothesis or away
from it, proving or disproving thier claims.

How very convenient.

Actually, I'll keep it up so you continue to expose yourself as a
zealot.


Dan

"Dan" wrote:

[blah blah blah snipped]

Evasion noted.

However, very recently you said: "By the way, neither I nor anyone
else predicts a 20-ft sea level rise by 2100. That's all in your
head. You're delusional."

So which is it? 20' rise or not?

Oh -- another recourse of the alarmists, to wit "It's not linear."

You are being obtuse, as usual. I'm beginning to think it might not be
intentional. Can't understand anything besides a straight line?

Thus, there is no point in time which we can examine the claims and
see if there if progression towards the ultimate hypothesis or away
from it, proving or disproving thier claims.

That's happening right now, but you've never actually looked into it, have
you?

You're fond of repetition so I'll repeat what you snipped: you don't know
what you are talking about--and you can't be bothered to find out,
apparently.


How very convenient.

Actually, I'll keep it up so you continue to expose yourself as a
zealot.

More huff-n-puff signifying nothing. Who's being exposed?

You've made a number of assertions in this thread, but you haven't made a
single substantive criticism of AGW science that you would have to defend on
the merits. Why is that? I think I know, but perhaps you have an excuse to
offer.

On Mar 10, 4:17 pm, "Dan Luke" wrote:
"Dan" wrote:
[blah blah blah snipped]

Evasion noted.

However, very recently you said: "By the way, neither I nor anyone
else predicts a 20-ft sea level rise by 2100. That's all in your
head. You're delusional."

So which is it? 20' rise or not?
Oh -- another recourse of the alarmists, to wit "It's not linear."

You are being obtuse, as usual. I'm beginning to think it might not be
intentional. Can't understand anything besides a straight line?

Thus, there is no point in time which we can examine the claims and
see if there if progression towards the ultimate hypothesis or away
from it, proving or disproving thier claims.

That's happening right now, but you've never actually looked into it, have
you?

You're fond of repetition so I'll repeat what you snipped: you don't know
what you are talking about--and you can't be bothered to find out,
apparently.

How very convenient.

Actually, I'll keep it up so you continue to expose yourself as a
zealot.

More huff-n-puff signifying nothing. Who's being exposed?

You've made a number of assertions in this thread, but you haven't made a
single substantive criticism of AGW science that you would have to defend on
the merits. Why is that? I think I know, but perhaps you have an excuse to
offer.

Since your the expert and I am apparently the dullard, please help me
reach your loft perch by answering this very simple question: Will
there be a 20' rise in sea level in the next 100 (or 200 years), or
will there not?

Which is it?

Dan wrote in
:

On Mar 10, 4:17 pm, "Dan Luke" wrote:
"Dan" wrote:
[blah blah blah snipped]

Evasion noted.

However, very recently you said: "By the way, neither I nor anyone
else predicts a 20-ft sea level rise by 2100. That's all in your
head. You're delusional."

So which is it? 20' rise or not?
Oh -- another recourse of the alarmists, to wit "It's not linear."

You are being obtuse, as usual. I'm beginning to think it might not
be intentional. Can't understand anything besides a straight line?

Thus, there is no point in time which we can examine the claims and
see if there if progression towards the ultimate hypothesis or away
from it, proving or disproving thier claims.

That's happening right now, but you've never actually looked into it,
have you?

You're fond of repetition so I'll repeat what you snipped: you don't
know what you are talking about--and you can't be bothered to find
out, apparently.

How very convenient.

Actually, I'll keep it up so you continue to expose yourself as a
zealot.

More huff-n-puff signifying nothing. Who's being exposed?

You've made a number of assertions in this thread, but you haven't
made a single substantive criticism of AGW science that you would
have to defend on the merits. Why is that? I think I know, but
perhaps you have an excuse to offer.

Since your the expert and I am apparently the dullard, please help me
reach your loft perch by answering this very simple question: Will
there be a 20' rise in sea level in the next 100 (or 200 years), or
will there not?

Which is it?


Doesn't matrer, is the answer. Whatever else is going to happen, our
weather is going to become much more hostile, energy will get insanely
expnesive if we continue to use the current methods of obtaining it and
the world will generalyl become an even ****tier place to live except
we'll probably have realistic virtual sex and fancier video games.



Bertie

Dan wrote:


Since your the expert and I am apparently the dullard, please help me
reach your loft perch by answering this very simple question: Will
there be a 20' rise in sea level in the next 100 (or 200 years), or
will there not?

Which is it?


Only from the tears of the environmental wackos when the science doesn't
pan out.

"Gig 601XL Builder" wrote:

Since your the expert and I am apparently the dullard, please help me
reach your loft perch by answering this very simple question: Will
there be a 20' rise in sea level in the next 100 (or 200 years), or
will there not?

Which is it?


Only from the tears of the environmental wackos when the science doesn't pan
out.

OK, "Gig," that doesn't even make sense.

If you're going to chime in, at least try to be coherent.

Otherwise, go out to the shop and glue something.

"Dan" wrote:


You've made a number of assertions in this thread, but you haven't made a
single substantive criticism of AGW science that you would have to defend
on
the merits. Why is that? I think I know, but perhaps you have an excuse
to
offer.

Since your the expert and I am apparently the dullard, please help me
reach your loft perch by answering this very simple question: Will
there be a 20' rise in sea level in the next 100 (or 200 years), or
will there not?

Which is it?

Still nothing? Thought not.



But I'll hold up my side of the conversation, at least.

The answer to your question is "I don't know."

How's that?



Now, I've got a question for you: What convinces you there definitely will
not be?

On Mar 10, 7:32 pm, "Dan Luke" wrote:
"Dan" wrote:

You've made a number of assertions in this thread, but you haven't made a
single substantive criticism of AGW science that you would have to defend
on
the merits. Why is that? I think I know, but perhaps you have an excuse
to
offer.

Since your the expert and I am apparently the dullard, please help me
reach your loft perch by answering this very simple question: Will
there be a 20' rise in sea level in the next 100 (or 200 years), or
will there not?

Which is it?

Still nothing? Thought not.

But I'll hold up my side of the conversation, at least.

The answer to your question is "I don't know."

How's that?

Now, I've got a question for you: What convinces you there definitely will
not be?

I'm glad we're having a conversation (Life sometimes impairs my usenet
access, so you may have to wait for my replies).

I appreciate your candor.

This may help to explain the reluctance of apparently reasonable
people to jump on the GW bandwagon. The science -- while compelling --
is still less than conclusive. The IPCC is peppered with terms such as
"likely" -- which while understood in the scientific community, is not
the the type language required to move millions to action.

Therefore some reasonable people -- and I count myself among them --
are reluctant to accept the premise that "there is anthropogenic
global warming and we can address its causes" because we know the
logical conclusion to the premise -- mandates and government-controls
on all aspects of human behavior.

IF governments could be trusted with such powers, it may be a good
move, if the threat is as you say it is.

But the older I get the less I trust government. And I've never had
much trust in bureaucracy.

The founders believed that centralized powers only results in bad to
worse. Factions (ie, differing opinions/ parties/ groups/ causes) all
wrestling in the political arena keeps those same people from killing
each other in the streets.

Things get ugly when one side accuses the other of criminality,
treason, lack of compassion, or care. Then we get beyond the wrestling
and head towards the shooting. And if you think I'm being overly
dramatic, please review US history prior to 1861.

Thus I think the more reasonable approach is civil debate on the
nature of the problem, the possible means to address the problem
that's framed at the conclusion of the debate, and then consensus on
the way forward.


Dan

Dan wrote in
:

On Mar 10, 7:32 pm, "Dan Luke" wrote:
"Dan" wrote:

You've made a number of assertions in this thread, but you haven't
made a single substantive criticism of AGW science that you would
have to defend on
the merits. Why is that? I think I know, but perhaps you have an
excuse to
offer.

Since your the expert and I am apparently the dullard, please help
me reach your loft perch by answering this very simple question:
Will there be a 20' rise in sea level in the next 100 (or 200
years), or will there not?

Which is it?

Still nothing? Thought not.

But I'll hold up my side of the conversation, at least.

The answer to your question is "I don't know."

How's that?

Now, I've got a question for you: What convinces you there
definitely will not be?

I'm glad we're having a conversation (Life sometimes impairs my usenet
access, so you may have to wait for my replies).

I appreciate your candor.

This may help to explain the reluctance of apparently reasonable
people to jump on the GW bandwagon. The science -- while compelling --
is still less than conclusive. The IPCC is peppered with terms such as
"likely" -- which while understood in the scientific community, is not
the the type language required to move millions to action.


Hmm, you dont like science speak and you don;'t like hyperbole.


Waht about just looking at the data for yourself.



Bertie

On Mar 10, 10:32 pm, Bertie the Bunyip wrote:
Dan wrote :



On Mar 10, 7:32 pm, "Dan Luke" wrote:
"Dan" wrote:

You've made a number of assertions in this thread, but you haven't
made a single substantive criticism of AGW science that you would
have to defend on
the merits. Why is that? I think I know, but perhaps you have an
excuse to
offer.

Since your the expert and I am apparently the dullard, please help
me reach your loft perch by answering this very simple question:
Will there be a 20' rise in sea level in the next 100 (or 200
years), or will there not?

Which is it?

Still nothing? Thought not.

But I'll hold up my side of the conversation, at least.

The answer to your question is "I don't know."

How's that?

Now, I've got a question for you: What convinces you there
definitely will not be?

I'm glad we're having a conversation (Life sometimes impairs my usenet
access, so you may have to wait for my replies).

I appreciate your candor.

This may help to explain the reluctance of apparently reasonable
people to jump on the GW bandwagon. The science -- while compelling --
is still less than conclusive. The IPCC is peppered with terms such as
"likely" -- which while understood in the scientific community, is not
the the type language required to move millions to action.

Hmm, you dont like science speak and you don;'t like hyperbole.

Waht about just looking at the data for yourself.

Bertie

I Did. See previous post.

But I left out this part: "For the next two decades, a warming of
about 0.2°C per decade is projected for a range of SRES emission
scenarios. --- Even if the concentrations of all greenhouse gases and
aerosols had been kept constant at year 2000 levels, a further warming
of about 0.1°C per decade would be expected. ---- {10.3, 10.7}"

In an essay supporting the consensus view, we find this gem, "The
scientific consensus might, of course, be wrong. If the history of
science teaches anything, it is humility, and no one can be faulted
for failing to act on what is not known."

To which the answer is -- Yes we can be faulted for "acting on what is
not known." Especially since "acting" will have measurably harmful as
well as a host of unintended impacts.

As far as sea level rise, consider "The widely quoted altimetric
global average values may well be correct, but the accuracies being
inferred in the literature are not testable by existing in situ
observations. Useful estimation of the global averages is extremely
difficult given the realities of space-time sampling and model
approximations. Systematic
errors are likely to dominate most estimates of global average change:
published values and error bars should be used very
cautiously." [http://ocean.mit.edu/~cwunsch/papersonline/
Wunschetal_jclimate_2007_published.pdf]

Also consider: "Changes in the Earth's radiation budget are driven by
changes in the balance between the thermal emission from the top of
the atmosphere and the net sunlight absorbed. The shortwave radiation
entering the climate system depends on the Sun's irradiance and the
Earth's reflectance. Often, studies replace the net sunlight by proxy
measures of solar irradiance, which is an oversimplification used in
efforts to probe the Sun's role in past climate change. With new
helioseismic data and new measures of the Earth's reflectance, we can
usefully separate and constrain the relative roles of the net
sunlight's two components, while probing the degree of their linkage.
First, this is possible because helioseismic data provide the most
precise measure ever of the solar cycle, which ultimately yields more
profound physical limits on past irradiance variations. Since
irradiance variations are apparently minimal, changes in the Earth's
climate that seem to be associated with changes in the level of solar
activity--the Maunder Minimum and the Little Ice age for example--would
then seem to be due to terrestrial responses to more subtle changes in
the Sun's spectrum of radiative output. This leads naturally to a
linkage with terrestrial reflectance, the second component of the net
sunlight, as the carrier of the terrestrial amplification of the Sun's
varying output. Much progress has also been made in determining this
difficult to measure, and not-so-well-known quantity. We review our
understanding of these two closely linked, fundamental drivers of
climate." [http://solar.njit.edu/preprints/goode1349.pdf]

Threats to the planet are multiple and varied. Why haven't we
empowered an intergovernmental panel to combat tsunamis? Volcanoes?
Meteorites? Mudslides? Earthquakes?


Dan