Anthopogenic Global Warming Myth or Real ?

Diamond said:
No, just your ignorance of mathematical models. Your belief in the veracity of unknown mathematical models is causing you to discount the real world.

As a skeptic, I wait for a mathematical model to predict something useful - its no use telling me that in one hundred years the global mean temperature index thingy will be X degrees above the 1950-1980 mean, because such a claim is not falsifiable in a reasonable period of time. To believe that such predictions are even credible is a religious belief, not a scientific one.

Something useful would be - this area X will experience a drought lasting Y months starting next April.
Click to expand...

You're just acting like a petulant child. It's interesting seeing pictures of scientists investigating quantum physics back in the 1920s. Primitive equipment, even more primitive work conditions, but an palpable excitement that they were at the leading edge of science and making new discoveries. That's the nature of science, taking us into the undiscovered and pushing what we have to the limits to do so.

Also, you know perfectly well that weather is chaotic. We can't predict droughts like that, nor do I think we ever will. Like quantum physics, we'll just get the odds of something happening.
 
CapelDodger said:
That's easy for you to say, it's not your paint that's being requisitioned.

How are things in the Murray-Darling Basin these days? Any sign of a break in the drought?
Click to expand...

Hard to tell so far. Seem to be getting an average year of rain, but we need an exceptional year to make up for the drought. There are many areas that are still drought affected and will probably be abandoned in a few years.
 
a_unique_person said:
You've been told this a hundred times already. The notion is wrong headed. What climate are we adapted to is a better question. The answer, of course, is the current one, within a reasonable boundary of variation.
Click to expand...

Well during glaciations the biodiversity rises. We are adapted to all three states, but the two extreme ones would be less fun for me. There used to be a mile high ice front here. And a desert would be no fun. I will take the glacial over the really high temps.
 
MCH said:
? Are you sure? I wasn't there either, but just because the human race survived one doesn't mean another wouldn't be 'much of a problem' to the vast numbers of us there are now.

And my nice painted-white house (I'm doing my bit, see) would be worthless when crushed beneath lots of ice, so I'm not keen. I'd rather spend the cash moving folks away from floodable areas; they're all foreign so their houses aren't as nice.
Click to expand...

Um, the LIA was not really a glaciation, it was just a little colder than average.

And man oh man, people fought about the cause back then too...
 
Firstly you are right. I shouldn't. And I won't.

Secondly You are also right. Not that I'm wrong in the word choice but I really should moderate my language and keep my opinion on you non public.

TrueSceptic said:
Firstly, why are you wasting your time here?

Secondly, you should mind your language.
Click to expand...
 
Dancing David said:
Um, the LIA was not really a glaciation, it was just a little colder than average.

And man oh man, people fought about the cause back then too...
Click to expand...

The LIA wasn't recognised at the time, but periods of bad weather were widely and loudly blamed on heretics, Jews, witches, atheists, or whatever bunch of people hadn't been exterminated to appease the Christian god.
 
Lucifuge Rofocale said:
Firstly you are right. I shouldn't. And I won't.

Secondly You are also right. Not that I'm wrong in the word choice but I really should moderate my language and keep my opinion on you non public.
Click to expand...
That's fine. You probably have a good idea what I think of you too.
 
Ahhh what the frill...

The LIA couldn't have been that big of a deal since population continued to increase. If the time period was traumatic, world population would have decreased continually to a lower level that the climate could sustain. That didn't happen. The plague seems to be the only real bump in the growth.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/World_population_estimates

Pick your start date for the LIA

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Little_ice_age.

The end is generally agreed to be around 1850.

glenn

http://www.peterrussell.com/Odds/WorldClock.php
 
mhaze said:
Sure...let's see. Cold air holds less water, droughts follow with a colder globe.
Click to expand...

That kind of simple approach just doesn't work. You need some pretty hardcore models to predict what effect climate change would have on hydrology. Most of the recent effort has focused on what would happen to a warmer world because that's what is expected. Net result is that some places get wetter and some get drier, so I expect some similar hotch-potch would happen to a colder world.
 
Spud1k said:
Originally Posted by mhaze
Sure...let's see. Cold air holds less water, droughts follow with a colder globe.
​
That kind of simple approach just doesn't work. You need some pretty hardcore models to predict what effect climate change would have on hydrology. Most of the recent effort has focused on what would happen to a warmer world because that's what is expected. Net result is that some places get wetter and some get drier, so I expect some similar hotch-potch would happen to a colder world.
Click to expand...
what, now you argue pro need for accurate regionals? Last time we had a similar discussion I recall, you argued regional was not related to veracity of models predicting global T.

Well, which is it?
 
mhaze said:
what, now you argue pro need for accurate regionals? Last time we had a similar discussion I recall, you argued regional was not related to veracity of models predicting global T.

Well, which is it?
Click to expand...

Uh? What are you talking about?

I never said accurate regional predictions weren't important. In fact, they are nothing short of vital if we are to make the kind of forecasts needed to aid adaptation. But if the average global temperature is what you're interested in (like it would be if you're asking 'is GW real'?), you can get a more than reasonable answer without being bang-on accurate on local scales.

The GCMs have matured to the point where we can be reasonably certain about predicting overall, long-term warming. But they have a way to go before they'll have the same confidence when it comes to predicting things like the impacts on regional hydrology. Mind you, they're improving all the time.
 
Last edited:
Hahahaha
Originally Posted by mhaze
Sure...let's see. Cold air holds less water, droughts follow with a colder globe.
Click to expand...
that is Mhaze for you, the fact that precipitation goes up around the globe in a glaciatiion never prevents the simple minded....
 
Spud1k said:
That kind of simple approach just doesn't work. You need some pretty hardcore models to predict what effect climate change would have on hydrology. Most of the recent effort has focused on what would happen to a warmer world because that's what is expected. Net result is that some places get wetter and some get drier, so I expect some similar hotch-potch would happen to a colder world.
Click to expand...

Paleobotany shows an overall ecosystem that is adapted for cool and wet conditions during a glaciation. :)
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom