Moderated Global Warming Discussion

[Blue Mountain]

I can make anecdotes too. The prior two winters here in Winnipeg—I'm talking 2010-2011 and 2011-2012—were quite mild by Manitoba standards. No so much this past winter. We've had a lot of snow (which is to be expected from global warming, given that warm air carries more moisture) and even as I type this the outside temperature is -16 C (almost 0 F). And it's the middle of March, when we typically can see signs of spring.

But all that is weather, which is localized to where I am. All the science says the world's climate is getting warmer.


"People from Saskatchewan move to B.C. for the climate and move back because of the weather." Tommy Douglas, Canadian politician and reformer, 1904 - 1986.

 

[DSo]

Is it a coincidence that human health, productivity and happiness have increased the most in history during the same era as the rise of fossil fuel industry? Measurements of life expectancy and population growth are the meat behind my otherwise unsupported assertion in the first sentence.

 

[uke2se]

Is it a coincidence that human health, productivity and happiness have increased the most in history during the same era as the rise of fossil fuel industry? Measurements of life expectancy and population growth are the meat behind my otherwise unsupported assertion in the first sentence.

Probably not. There's probably no direct causation-link, either.

 

[Megalodon]

http://tampa.cbslocal.com/2013/03/0...ing-florida-spring-breakers-a-chilly-welcome/

The amount of stupid oozing from the comments in that link makes it clear where you're coming from.

 

[Megalodon]

Well here is the unusually cold winter r-j was referring to. Defined for Florida as "much above normal"...

If only the temperature scale was reversed, he would be right.

 

[Megalodon]

Are you denying Floridian Exceptionalism?

Wouldn't dream of it. People stubborn enough to live in a swamp and dumb enough to have a "stand your ground" law in their books are nothing but exceptional.

Some might well ask if I could make the cognitive leap to acceptance that AGW is not a substantial issue, and I can't give an answer. I've never been presented with any reason to, nor did I lightly conclude that it would be in the first place.

The advantage of "thinking" over "feeling" is that there's nothing as a cognitive leap to be had. The only thing I need to accept that AGW is a non-issue is data showing the physical underlying of the theory is wrong, or evidence of negative feedbacks that counter said physics. I'm not holding my breath, though.

 

[a_unique_person]

http://tampa.cbslocal.com/2013/03/0...ing-florida-spring-breakers-a-chilly-welcome/

Up until then the winter was warm and we actually had rain, which is very unusual as well. This global warming hitting in March sucks. I blame the low arctic ice. It's like what used to happen in the seventies and eighties. Cold in March, late frost and freezes.

And yes, there was snow this year in Florida.

I'm blaming global warming.

So you had a long warm winter, with a short blast of cold due to an unusual jetstream, according to the article. The tide comes in, but the waves still go in and out.

 

[CapelDodger]

Is it a coincidence that human health, productivity and happiness have increased the most in history during the same era as the rise of fossil fuel industry?

Leaving aside happiness as being somewhat contentious, and with the proviso that longevity only started to increase after about 1870 quite patchily, fossil fuel energy has made modern life possible. Steam-powered transport meant that American cereals and Australasian meat could reliably feed Europe (which staved off the Malthusian crisis until, oh, about now); energy made the chemical industry possible and produced artificial fertilisers which dodged the Peak Guano bullet and made possible some kick-ass warfare; powered factories increased labour productivity and released workers for other pursuits; coal took the place of rapidly depleting forests in the iron and steel industry.

Exploiting new sources of energy has been central to most human advances. We can't get energy directly from wood but we can cook with it, which reduces the energy we use in digestion so we make better use of the things we can eat. We can also use it to warm us (again saving food energy) and to produce metals, improving productivity through better tools and getting that kick-ass warfare narrative started. Draft animals are another source of energy we developed. Wind and water power came in a few thousand years ago, gradually building up steam (so to speak) and eventually launching the Industrial Revolution. Solar power is the new thing.

 

[CapelDodger]

Wouldn't dream of it. People stubborn enough to live in a[n alligator-infested] swamp and dumb enough to have a "stand your ground" law in their books are nothing but exceptional.

Fixed that for you .

The advantage of "thinking" over "feeling" is that there's nothing as a cognitive leap to be had. The only thing I need to accept that AGW is a non-issue is data showing the physical underlying of the theory is wrong, or evidence of negative feedbacks that counter said physics. I'm not holding my breath, though.

My initial position back in the 70's was naturally sceptical; some degree of warming simply comes out from the physics, but whether or not it would be significant was a different matter. In the mid-80's I reckoned another ten years would tell, and they did. AGW is going to be significant (in fact already is).

I was really alerted to the problem when I discovered that Fred Singer was denying it. Nobody hires in Singer to deny something unless they've confirmed to their own satisfaction that there really is a problem. Such industry research is never published, of course (but may be leaked or subpoenaed) but the arrival of Singer is a sure sign it's been done and the news isn't good.

 

[r-j]

Some people are so stupid. I say the last two weeks have been unusually cold, and they then act like somebody claimed the whole winter was cold.

Then they quote old articles on winter temperatures, instead of looking at the facts.

I would educate you, but it won't matter. Faith isn't swayed by facts.

 

[Buckaroo]

Some people are so stupid.

Deleted. I'm not gonna go there.

 

[Pixel42]

I say the last two weeks have been unusually cold, and they then act like somebody claimed the whole winter was cold.

This is a thread about global warming in the science subforum, i.e. it's for the discussion of the scientific evidence for and against GW and AGW. Anyone who posts on it is either trying to make a point about that topic or is posting in the wrong thread. It is natural to assume the former, and attempt to relate posts to the thread topic. If your posts actually have nothing to do with the thread topic, which it seems you are now admitting, then I suggest you either find or start a more appropriate thread for them.

 

[Doctor Plop]

Anyone who pretends to anywhere-near understand the global climatic system, with its trillions of simultaneously changing and interacting organisms, systems, sub-systems, micro-climates, cycles, patterns, feedbacks, variables, trends, external factors etc.. etc.. is just full of ****.

As they would be in a century from now.

On that basis, any proper skeptic should rightly be focusing attention on the political/economic decisions derived from such a basis of ignorance, and simply asking cui bono?.

 

[a_unique_person]

Some people are so stupid. I say the last two weeks have been unusually cold, and they then act like somebody claimed the whole winter was cold.

Then they quote old articles on winter temperatures, instead of looking at the facts.

I would educate you, but it won't matter. Faith isn't swayed by facts.

No one has denied the fact that it seemed unusually cold to you. What importance does that fact have to do with anything?

 

[macdoc]

Anyone who pretends to anywhere-near understand the global climatic system, with its trillions of simultaneously changing and interacting organisms, systems, sub-systems, micro-climates, cycles, patterns, feedbacks, variables, trends, external factors etc.. etc.. is just full of ****.

As they would be in a century from now.

On that basis, any proper skeptic should rightly be focusing attention on the political/economic decisions derived from such a basis of ignorance, and simply asking cui bono?.

Horse pucky....you may indeed claim ignorance on weather and the outcome of climate change in detail by a narrow region and a specific biome

The physics and progress of AGW has been understood for well over a century - you COULD educate yourself to that reality and that of AGW or you can continue your blissful ignorance of rather simple physics.

Your choice
http://www.aip.org/history/climate/summary.htm

An "informed" skeptic....does indeed cast a jaundiced eye on dealing with the issue.
An "informed" skeptic knows very well AGW is a well established fact.

or are you just hiding willful ignorance behind the skeptics badge??

 

[a_unique_person]

Anyone who pretends to anywhere-near understand the global climatic system, with its trillions of simultaneously changing and interacting organisms, systems, sub-systems, micro-climates, cycles, patterns, feedbacks, variables, trends, external factors etc.. etc.. is just full of ****.

As they would be in a century from now.

On that basis, any proper skeptic should rightly be focusing attention on the political/economic decisions derived from such a basis of ignorance, and simply asking cui bono?.

So you finish up with a conspiracy theory.

The models have done a good job so far, over about 20 years now. They don't get it all right, but then not even the models could have expected that Arctic sea ice extent to collapse so quickly.

 

[Megalodon]

Anyone who pretends to anywhere-near understand the global climatic system, with its trillions of simultaneously changing and interacting organisms, systems, sub-systems, micro-climates, cycles, patterns, feedbacks, variables, trends, external factors etc.. etc.. is just full of ****.

As they would be in a century from now.

On that basis, any proper skeptic should rightly be focusing attention on the political/economic decisions derived from such a basis of ignorance, and simply asking cui bono?.

Eppur si muove...

 

[Megalodon]

Some people are so stupid.

Yes... yes they are...

I say the last two weeks have been unusually cold, and they then act like somebody claimed the whole winter was cold.

I totally apologize... I misread your claim as plain stupid, when it is now obvious it's mind-boggling moronic.

The sunrise must count to you as evidence of global warming, right? After all, only one hour ago it was freezing!!!

Then they quote old articles on winter temperatures, instead of looking at the facts.

Yes, old articles, about those long gone months of Dec 2012 to Feb 2013... Life was simpler then. We were but children, laughing in the face of time, unaware of the frigid ice age to come.

I would educate you, but it won't matter. Faith isn't swayed by facts.

Mate, you couldn't educate yourself if your life depended on it...

 

[Buckaroo]

Anyone who pretends to anywhere-near understand the global climatic system, with its trillions of simultaneously changing and interacting organisms, systems, sub-systems, micro-climates, cycles, patterns, feedbacks, variables, trends, external factors etc.. etc.. is just full of ****.

As they would be in a century from now.

On that basis, any proper skeptic should rightly be focusing attention on the political/economic decisions derived from such a basis of ignorance, and simply asking cui bono?.

Over 90 posts on a skeptic's forum, and yet you are apparently unfamiliar with the argument from personal incredulity? I think you're probably not the best judge of how a "proper skeptic" should view the world.

 

[aleCcowaN]

Some people are so stupid. I say the last two weeks have been unusually cold, and they then act like somebody claimed the whole winter was cold.

Then they quote old articles on winter temperatures, instead of looking at the facts.

Yeah, you were just talking silly, we know! We got you were talking about the weather around you these days and how you feel swindled because Florida is supposed to be hot all year long. You weren't talking about global warming and where climate is going. You were just staring at your navel and making a whole argumentation about the universal persistence of lint, so to speak.

I would educate you, but it won't matter. Faith isn't swayed by facts.

Yes, you don't have to explain the reasons of your beliefs. We know that belief is the only thing you have in these matters, as you have clearly shown lack of pre-scientific knowledge usually learned in the last years of elementary school. You simply can't follow the simplest rational argumentation about the natural world, but you have your faith, so keep adjusted the cinder-blocks on your roof when the next hurricane comes, or anchor your mobile home, and leave science to those who have both an education and a morality.