Global Warming The debbil made me do it

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

Dan wrote in
:

On Mar 10, 10:32 pm, Bertie the Bunyip wrote:
Dan wrote
innews:bfb1179b-5270-447c-b02c-0f3dbb245e66@
m3g2000hsc.googlegroups.com:



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.


That's not data, that's an opinion.

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}"

Even if it's that little , that is a lot of energy.

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."


I think I said something similar several posts ago, And the scientific
community would agree.

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.


You are acting, that is the problem. So am I I do it for a living and I
do it fo rfun.
Continued use of fossil fuels is action.


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]

I think I also said it maters not if sea levels rise or not. We've been
doing this for tooo long and there is no good reason for it except that
it appears to be cheaper to the short sighted.

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]

I've heard this argument before. It's chery picked and doesnt fly.



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


Because we can;t do anything about them. We can do something about this.


But we won't.

There is no sin, no evil. Only stupidity.


Bertie

"Dan" wrote:

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.

That is the way scientists speak. If we are waiting for *certainty* from
them, our wait will be eternal.

That is because scientific theories are always evolving. Scientists realize
they don't know everything and never will.

But when a theory matures to the point that it adequately describes and
predicts the phenomenon under study, and contending explanations do not, then
it is pretty conclusive. Is the theory of anthropogenic greenhouse-driven
warming as robust as the theory of evolution? No. Is the theory of evolution
"proven?" No. Are they both backed by evidence powerful enough to convince
the vast majority of scientists? Yes.


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.

All aspects of human behavior? Says who? There are alarmists on both sides,
wouldn't you say?


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.

No reason you should.

But we are now conducting a massive, uncontrolled experiment on the only
atmosphere we have. Should we just let it ride and see what happens?

People can always think of a thousand reasons for doing nothing. It takes
some will and imagination to confront a problem as complex as this one. The
easiest thing to do in the short term is simply to deny that the problem
exists.

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.

I agree, of course. But much of the "debate" today is really a struggle
against a disinformation campaign being waged against legitimate science.

http://www.heartland.org/NewYork08/newyork08.cfm

http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php...land_Institute

On Mar 11, 8:08 am, "Dan Luke" wrote:

That is the way scientists speak. If we are waiting for *certainty* from
them, our wait will be eternal.

But when a theory matures to the point that it adequately describes and
predicts the phenomenon under study, and contending explanations do not, then
it is pretty conclusive. Is the theory of anthropogenic greenhouse-driven
warming as robust as the theory of evolution? No. Is the theory of evolution
"proven?" No. Are they both backed by evidence powerful enough to convince
the vast majority of scientists? Yes.


Underlying any theory are unspoken assumptions. What annoys (yes --
annoys) skeptics is the unwillingness of the adherents to pull the
rocks up and evaluate the validity of the assumptions.


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.

All aspects of human behavior? Says who? There are alarmists on both sides,
wouldn't you say?

Read history --recent and ancient -- to see that governments are more
than willing -- nay eager -- to mandate controls on *all* aspects of
human behavior. Ask me for proof and I'll be happy to start at either
end of the spectrum.

Historical aside -- One of the assumptions of the founders was
protection from this very thing (See Federalist Papers, particularly
#10)


But we are now conducting a massive, uncontrolled experiment on the only
atmosphere we have. Should we just let it ride and see what happens?

We *have* been living in such an experiment since humankind has
inhabited this planet. One of the assumptions of the pro-AGW theory is
that the the only variable is human activity -- and when certain
amplifying or mitigating data is considered (solar variation, volcanic
activity, deep ocean heat sink, atmospheric particulate matter of lack
thereof), it is always considered in isolation -- never in aggregate
in any of the IPCC or related publications.


People can always think of a thousand reasons for doing nothing. It takes
some will and imagination to confront a problem as complex as this one. The
easiest thing to do in the short term is simply to deny that the problem
exists.

Edmund Burke suggested that alterations to society should be
approached as one would "address the wounds of a father" -- tenderly,
carefully, lovingly, and with the intent to do as little harm to the
existing organism as possible. Sometimes this means not rushing in and
thereby doing more harm than good.

In addition, we should stop "crying wolf" by raising alarms that no
one really believes to be true -- for example the 20' sea level rise
by 2100. That number was pushed by Gore in his "movie," and no one
stands by it. His images of storms, floods, and mudslides had
positively nothing -- I repeat nothing -- to do with "Global warming"
-- they were scenes of things that have happened for millennia on this
planet -- storms, floods, and mudslides.

I agree, of course. But much of the "debate" today is really a struggle
against a disinformation campaign being waged against legitimate science.

And that's the problem -- legitimate science by definition is a
process of hypothesis, evidence, test, rebuttal, and alteration of
hypothesis in a continuing (and hopefully evolutionary) cycle.
Therefore "consensus" falls outside best science practice.

Another aside -- The IPCC didn't help its case by limiting trend
graphs to a 10 year period. One of the most telling critiques is that
the rise shown in each falls well within acceptable variability.



Dan

Dan wrote in
:

On Mar 11, 8:08 am, "Dan Luke" wrote:

That is the way scientists speak. If we are waiting for *certainty*
from them, our wait will be eternal.

But when a theory matures to the point that it adequately describes
and predicts the phenomenon under study, and contending explanations
do not, then it is pretty conclusive. Is the theory of anthropogenic
greenhouse-driven warming as robust as the theory of evolution? No.
Is the theory of evolution "proven?" No. Are they both backed by
evidence powerful enough to convince the vast majority of scientists?
Yes.


Underlying any theory are unspoken assumptions. What annoys (yes --
annoys) skeptics is the unwillingness of the adherents to pull the
rocks up and evaluate the validity of the assumptions.


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.

All aspects of human behavior? Says who? There are alarmists on both
sides, wouldn't you say?

Read history --recent and ancient -- to see that governments are more
than willing -- nay eager -- to mandate controls on *all* aspects of
human behavior. Ask me for proof and I'll be happy to start at either
end of the spectrum.

Historical aside -- One of the assumptions of the founders was
protection from this very thing (See Federalist Papers, particularly
#10)


But we are now conducting a massive, uncontrolled experiment on the
only atmosphere we have. Should we just let it ride and see what
happens?

We *have* been living in such an experiment since humankind has
inhabited this planet. One of the assumptions of the pro-AGW theory is
that the the only variable is human activity -- and when certain
amplifying or mitigating data is considered (solar variation, volcanic
activity, deep ocean heat sink, atmospheric particulate matter of lack
thereof), it is always considered in isolation -- never in aggregate
in any of the IPCC or related publications.


People can always think of a thousand reasons for doing nothing. It
takes some will and imagination to confront a problem as complex as
this one. The easiest thing to do in the short term is simply to
deny that the problem exists.

Edmund Burke suggested that alterations to society should be
approached as one would "address the wounds of a father" -- tenderly,
carefully, lovingly, and with the intent to do as little harm to the
existing organism as possible. Sometimes this means not rushing in and
thereby doing more harm than good.

So my shooting every SUV driver on sight thing is not a runner?


In addition, we should stop "crying wolf" by raising alarms that no
one really believes to be true --

Good grief.


Bertie

On Mar 11, 11:19 am, Bertie the Bunyip wrote:


So my shooting every SUV driver on sight thing is not a runner?


Unless they shoot back.

And be careful with those blue Suburbans with blacked out windows.


Dan

"Dan" wrote:



But we are now conducting a massive, uncontrolled experiment on the only
atmosphere we have. Should we just let it ride and see what happens?

We *have* been living in such an experiment since humankind has
inhabited this planet.

Yep, and sometimes the "experiment" has produced mass extinctions. We're
fortunate to be living in an epoch of mild climate that should last for a
long time. Why would we want to mess with it?

What's happening now is different. This is a massive artificial addition of
CO2, unprecedented for its suddenness. There's been nothing like it for at
least 800,000 years, probably much longer.

One of the assumptions of the pro-AGW theory is
that the the only variable is human activity

Absolutely not. Where'd you get that idea?

In fact, that is one of the red herrings used by the disinformation
lobbyists. They like to say that every wiggle downward in temperature proves
that CO2 rise isn't causing warming because the CO2 increase is steady and
warming isn't. Scientists know that a lot of things influence climate
annually, but the overall *trend* is up and no cause but a 35% rise in the
CO2 level accounts for it.

-- and when certain
amplifying or mitigating data is considered (solar variation, volcanic
activity, deep ocean heat sink, atmospheric particulate matter of lack
thereof), it is always considered in isolation -- never in aggregate
in any of the IPCC or related publications.

Nope. All those things are considered. The IPCC concentrates on the AGHG
forcing component because that is the variable humans can change. Do you
really believe the scientists who contributed to the IPCC don't know about
those things?