You don’t know shit about me and my beliefs so stop fucking pretending you do. Let me help you out here so you can add those cute little parentheticals when you quote me:
Now, dickmunch, that we have covered some of my beliefs about AGW, let’s talk about this thread. Do you know what this thread is? It is an
EPIC FAIL
Do you know why*? Because you are exactly the type of person that causes the exact behavior I am pitting and you are doing again in this thread. You take the HARDCRAP III data (or whatever) and say, definitively, that the world is no longer warming. That’s bullshit and you should know it. The variability in world temperature is such that only long term measurements can be used to make any conclusions regarding trends. I don’t know if 10 years is long enough to understand the general trend, but from everything I have read, I doubt it. Regardless, you claim that you know what the trend is. You could have made the same claim in 1950 looking at the previous 10 years and you would have been wrong. And this leads to what I am pitting: people jumping to concusions based on one fucking data point and convincing other people they are right. There is a lot of solid evidence that the earth has been warming over the last century and their is very little evidence that this trend has stopped or reversed, but you are going to take the HARDCRAP III data (or whatever, it’s not the fucking point) for the last ten years and definitively say that it’s over, we have nothing to worry about, get your skis because it’s going to snow.
OK, fine, whatever, I don’t much care what your opinion is. What I do care is that you are going to plant enough doubt with your definitive claims in one or two SDMB posters minds that when a team of climatologists next year says that 2010 is the hottest year on record by a full degree, they are going to think that the climatologists have an agenda and are not just reporting the data. It’s irresponsible and sad.
Thus do I weep for this country. They believe you when you can’t know. They still believe that asshole doctor that reported that autism was linked with thiomersal even though this has been repeatedly debunked. They believe that water with the memory of a molecule can cure them** (even though there is no evidence besides the experience of the mother’s sister’s cousin’s boyfriend). They believe in stuff like irreducible complexity and that the position of the stars and the planets at the time of our birth can effect who we marry. It’s bullshit and this poll is just the latest example of it.
Regardless, whether this thread is an epic fail or not, it was only intended to be a fucking rant, not one those unending arguments between you and JShore in GD. If I wanted to discuss the drawbacks of different measurement techniques and had a war of quotes from different peer reviewed journals, I would have done it there. So, bite me!
It was probably an epic fail because I mentioned you in the OP. I should have left well enough alone, and indeed I regret it.
** If homeopathy worked, would it’s opposite also work? I.e. wouldn’t you get E coli poisoning from water with the memory of shit?
This irritates me almost as much as pronouncements of absolute certainty about what is happening in an incredibly complex, non-linear system based on very few measurements.
As Latif said, he brought the point that the decadal variations were expected, and the only thing he got were deniers that claimed that he had said that global cooling was coming. The lie is in insisting that global warming has stopped. Once again, to be brutally honest, one can say only that there has been no cooling or warming in the last 10 years. But the point remains that warming will continue after this period of “temerity”.
Latif also mentioned that he and other climate researchers needed to talk about the expected variations because otherwise others would begin to ask questions designed to undermine what they have found.
He was once again correct with guys like Intension.
And here you clumsily demonstrate that you confuse what to do with the issue with what the science says. (hint: what you do about it does not change the science) If you had paid attention you would had know that I’m on record on being on the side of guys like Bjorn Lomborg:
He accepts the science: yep, GW is human made, we will hit the fan when getting close to the end of the century.
He does indeed insist that we should accept that not much will be done (I don’t agree with many of his positions but on the whole I pragmatically agree), and that we should concentrate on helping the developing world come out of their bad state sooner rather than later, so that when the changes brought by global warming begin to affect the world the countries affected will deal with the change in an effective matter.
Now, as for insults and gaining the moral ground I only have to say that you are now reaching for the childish methods of “Lord” Monckton.
I really begin to doubt that your paper will make any difference, you are not really a very serious person.
This is by memory, so AFAICR several dinosaur fossils found in Asia showed that they were buried when desert sandstorms covered them, at the beginning of the dinosaur era the planet had huge deserts.
Nowadays many scientists think that besides an asteroid a series of super volcano eruptions going on at the same time did them in.
I think that climate change will become bad for humanity, but not catastrophic by itself. It will be bad depending on the location where you are; sure, some will benefit, but there was a reason Gore got the Nobel peace price a few years back, even if some will benefit, the countries that will get the hot end of the frying pan will not go down quietly. The research has to be concentrated in finding what AGW will bring to specific areas of the world so that we can prepare better.
Jeez, L. G. (who believes in AGW), are you off your meds again? Even though the global temperature hasn’t risen for ten years, your blood pressure sure has. And it seems like the voices in your head are back again.
So now, the voices are saying to you that ** I ** take the HadCRUT data (that you call HARDCRAP for obscure reasons)? They are telling you that ** I ** say that definitively?
Your voices seem to have mistaken me for Science Magazine. Science Magazine is the one who said “greenhouse warming has been stopped in its tracks for the past 10 years”. That’s what Science Magazine said. That’s what I quoted. Definitively. In other words, the world is no longer warming.
Now, it might start warming again tomorrow, as I have repeatedly said. Or it might start cooling tomorrow. Or it might stay level for another decade as Latif forecasts. I have said all of those things, in the vain hope that they might protect me from the voices in your head trying to blame me for saying things I haven’t said. Like blaming me for saying that the three-century long trend of global warming has stopped. I didn’t say that. Nor did I imply that, in fact I specifically said the opposite because I saw this kind of crap on the horizon. But that hasn’t stopped your voices from accusing me just the same.
So if you think it’s bullshit that the world has stopped warming, don’t come to me and whine about it. Write a letter to Science Magazine and straighten them out. Warn them about the dangers of using the “HARDCRAP” data that they cited. Let them know that they are full of shit when they say things like “Corrected for the natural temperature effects of El Niño and its sister climate event La Niña, the decade’s trend is a perfectly flat 0.00°C.” Don’t let them get away with that kind of deception, they might convince an SDMB poster that … that … well … that there has been no warming for ten years or something evil like that.
I’ll keep my eye on the “Letters to the Editor” column for your submission. I wouldn’t mention about the voices in your head, though, you might want to keep that part to yourself …
Finally, it is now clear to me that you and GIGObuster (who believes in AGW) do not think that we should spend billions on fighting CO2 but should instead spend the money on mitigation. You have my most sincere and humble apologies for including you in my rant above. It was directed at those who do believe that Kyotoesque solutions are the way to go, and I was under the misapprehension that you were among them. I regret including you in that group, it was unwarranted and incorrect. I let my anger get the best of me, and made assumptions I should not have made. Mea culpa.
We have no evidence at all that a warmer world will be a worse world. In fact, quite the opposite. Cold is harder on people than warmth, particularly if you are poor. That’s why the homeless move south in the winter, and tend to be concentrated in warmer cities. Studies have shown that there is more excess mortality in cold snaps. Read the stories from the Little Ice Age about how hard life is for the poor when the world is colder. The increasing temperatures over the last three hundred years have generally been beneficial for plants, animals, and humans.
In addition, there is no evidence of warming in the tropics. Although both the RSS and the MSU satellite temperature data shows statistically significant warming in both the northern and southern hemispheres, both of them also show that there has been no statistically significant warming in the tropics. (And yes, GIGObuster who believes in AGW, I realize that it is only a thirty year record, and that tropical temperatures might start rising tomorrow.) So although everyone claims that the (mostly poor) people in the tropics are going to get roasted by increasing CO2, the data disagrees.
Nor do the models predict such warming, with the modelled warming being largest in the temperate and polar zones, in the winter, at night. As I said before, I doubt that the people in Moscow or Stockholm are going to complain about that.
Next, in general a warmer world is a wetter world. This is because when it warms, there is more evaporation. Since what goes up must come down, evaporation must come down as precipitation. This is amply verified by the dust in the ice core records. During the ice ages the amounts of dust in the ice cores is much higher, showing the existence of larger deserts and arid areas.
As you point out, as the world warmed in the last century, there has been a general “greening” of the planet. Of course, in addition to increased rain, some of this may also be from increased atmospheric CO2 …
We also have little evidence that there will be a general increase in vector-borne disease such as malaria in a warmer world. Dr Paul Reiter was booted out of the IPCC for inconveniently pointing this out.
What’s left? Sea level rise was inconveniently featured by Al Gore. The problem with that is that there is no evidence that sea level rise is increasing, in fact lately it has been decreasing. (To avoid another attack from GIGObuster who believes in AGW, the rate of sea level rise may speed up again. I know everybody knows that, but he thinks y’all are easily deceived and led.)
So no, Duke of Rat, we are by no means certain that the world will be less hospitable if it warms.
I find very few people claiming that there has been cooling, except for Fox “News” and Newsalikes. Just about everyone agrees, on the other hand, that the warming stopped around the end of the century. (Obligatory disclaimer — it may start up again.)
Yeah, chronic candy-assed Norwegian stupidity, which obviously is still alive and well … but that’s another thread.
People live in every part of this planet, from the warmest to the coldest. The idea that a shift of a few degrees will lead to massive suffering is unsupported by any evidence.
It makes for a lovely theory, and for those who believe in theoretical suffering, and who also believe that said theoretical suffering will be avoided by preventing coal burning power plants, and who are willing to ignore the suffering caused by preventing coal burning power plants, and who want to celebrate someone who jets around burning huge amounts of carbon to warn of twenty foot sea level rises, I suppose a Nobel Prize makes sense.
But here in the real world, I don’t see any evidence that the rise in global temperature since the Little Ice Age, or since the Industrial Revolution, or since 1900, or since 1975, has led to any headline making disasters. Sea level rose about 200 - 300 mm in the last century, but no headlines about massive loss of life from rising sea levels … funny, that.
GIGObuster who believes in AGW, given that we are at the hot end of a centuries-long temperature rise which has passed without a single persistent warming-related problem, anyone like you making claims that “the countries that will get the hot end of the frying pan will not go down quietly” is under a huge obligation to provide evidence for that claim. You and the others parroting this nonsense have three centuries of records to search through to provide them with examples and evidence, but somehow, all I’ve heard so far are overblown claims without anything to back them up.
But there are lots of people willing to believe those claims which fly in the face of centuries of experience … remind me again, whose stupidity are we weeping for?
Now, it was you who said that it was speculation and that they had no evidence for it, well they do have evidence that the warming is taking place and on the way to higher temperatures. They already took many complexities into account to realize that we would encounter periods that would look like there was cooling or a stop of the warming in relation to some previous years.
As the independent statisticians report, it is indeed deceptive to to claim that a ten year period means that contrarians are correct on why it is so, and your original quote from Science Magazine was selective.
The name that Science Magazine used for the article makes it more clear:
You are confusing the humoring of one point of the contrarians with an acceptance of all what contrarians are saying. And that was one of the main points of Latif on the speech that he made on the conference. Science magazine was not accepting the BS from contrarian bloggers, only explaining why what we see is indeed as expected in the jumpy march towards higher temperatures.
You ended that silly post then with:
So after seeing the deception we point that:
“Guess what?”
Whaaaaat?
“Science Magazine just controverted it.”
No they did not.
“The contrarian bloggers are right.”
One could be tempted to give them the broken watch award for being correct twice on a day, but it has been ten years or more of their BS.
Anatomy of a lie: How Marc Morano and Lorne Gunter spun Mojib Latif’s remarks out of control
“The American people know more about science than you do.”
Nope.
“Get used to”
One can hope, but it will remain dumb to continue to make posts like that one.
I’ve come to the point lately that I’m convinced that only stupidity and passivity can save America. The intelligent and educated are a spent force; all they do is chase their own tails and run after unattainable ideals. The real world is the home of the simple and easily led, who do what they’re told, look after themselves and those closest to them, and don’t get involved in the great concerns of the day. The future, as far as I’m concerned, belongs to them and whoever will lead them in a way they can understand.
This is all based on the incorrect idea that warmer = drier. It does not. In a warmer world, there will be more evaporation. Do you think that evaporation will simply put water into the air that will never come down?
So to start with, the entire underlying thesis of all of your citations, that “We know that climate change will intensify the water crisis,” is not upheld by the models. We don’t know that at all. Warmer = wetter. Get used to it.
Yes, precipitation patterns will change in the future. That will happen whether the climate warms or it cools. But climate models are very poor at regional forecasting. Me, I ignore them, they are no more than a guess. Believe them at your own risk.
Next, are the Himalayan glaciers disappearing? Maybe, maybe not. Not according to Indian scientists …
“sensationalized by a few individuals” … hmmm …
Next, the monsoons … unlike your citation, there is little agreement among the models as to what will happen to the monsoons. Yes, they may decrease … or they may increase … or neither. As one modeler says,
Now his model says the monsoon may be delayed, and rainfall may weaken … but as the modeller admits, that “doesn’t mean we have the answer.”
So here’s the facts in the case. We don’t know what will happen with the rainfall at any given point on earth. Models disagree, and they are very poor at hindcasting historical rainfall. Experts pick models that fit their point of view … just what GIGObuster (who believes in AGW) always accuses me of doing.
Like most “science” in the climate field these days, all of the studies you cite are full of “might” and “may” and “could” and “possibly”. Here’s a list, from just your few short paragraphs:
“every reason to believe”
“could lead to”
“could stoke”
“is likely to”
“could reduce”
To me, that’s speculation. Warming could lead to decreased rainfall … or not. Warming could lead to changes in the monsoons … or not. But the world has warmed in the last 50 years without a detectable increase in monsoon rainfall. The best monsoon study I can find says that from 1950 to 2000 there has been a slight increase in the number of days of very heavy rain, but no change in total rainfall amount.
Unfortunately, the study does not show the correlation between the temperature and the heavy rain … probably because the correlation is very weak (0.20) and statistically insignificant. So while we can say that heavy rains have increased in India, it is not correlated with the temperature rise.
So while there is a lot of speculation about what may happen to rainfall as temperature rises, we don’t know. Or as the modeller says above, “understanding the potential impacts of future climate change in this region requires improved understanding of a host of climate processes.” This is not uncommon in climate science, although you wouldn’t know it to read most of the studies …
However, this doesn’t stop things from being “sensationalized by a few individuals”. Your best bet is to watch out for the weasel words, “could” and “might” and “may” and “possibly” and “conceivably” and “perhaps” and “likely” and the rest of the ways that people sensationalize issues. Yes, gamma rays may possibly have an effect on Man‐In‐The‐Moon Marigolds, and “climate change alone could reduce the subcontinent’s crop yields” … yep, they sure could.
Meh, as your tiresome excuse that we should complain to Science Magazine for whooshing you, I could say “tell it to the marines” for worrying about this issue.
The difference is that the military is not whooshing anybody about this, it is being investigated, and I already mentioned that the resolution to get localized projections is still not here but it is getting closer.
What is clear is that denying that warming is taking place does take care of any eventuality that is protected, but that is only happening in your mind.
People predict a host of horrible, headline-worthy disasters from a small temperature rise of a couple degrees.
We have seen a comparable temperature rise in the last few centuries since the Little Ice Age.
We haven’t seen the headlines. The historical warming did not lead to those disasters.
… or …
People are predicting disasters from the IPCC forecast sea level rise of 380 mm (180 - 580 mm).
Sea level rise in the 20th century was about 200 - 300 mm, well within the IPCC range (and up to 400 mm in places like Bangladesh and 1,000 mm in Bangkok and Cairo, due to subsidence).
We haven’t seen the headlines. The historical sea level rise did not lead to those disasters.
Nor, despite the 20th century warming, have we seen any increase in the rate of sea level rise.
Finally, I don’t know why you think I said scientists predicted headline-making disasters in the 20th century. A hundred years ago, scientists were generally not so foolish as to try to predict what would happen in a hundred years … and they knew that warming generally leads to better conditions, not disasters.
I also I do remember that there are projections of more rain, (but that also gets us to a different problem, flooding) but once again: location, location, location. I would really have to suspect not even you would predict that all deserts would get greener.
Just in the USA, for example I do remember seeing a map of projections regarding the USA, it was noticed that the north central regions of the USA could expect to see an increase on precipitation, while at the same time the west would get even dryer.
AFAICR I think that map was several years old, and just from memory I can remember 2 “100 year” floods happening in the north central USA recently. And here in Arizona I don’t see the huge monsoon rainclouds like they appeared before, it is getting drier.
So no, that warming getting more moisture in the air does not mean that all will get a share of it.
L. G who believes in global warming complained bitterly that I said that there has been no warming in ten years. Do the math. Unless you are seriously saying that Science Magazine is a whoosh …
Cite for the claim that regional predictions are getting better? Because even the global predictions didn’t see the 10-year hiatus in global warming, so what evidence do you have that the models were better at forecasting (not hindcasting, but forecasting) regional changes over this decade?
And please don’t give me a cite to somebody somewhere just repeating your claim that the regional projections are getting better. Point me to some evidence that they are getting better, you know, something like a comparison study of how well the 1990 regional forecasts did in forecasting 1990-1999 conditions versus how well the 2000 regional forecasts did in forecasting 2000-2009 conditions.
Yes, the military is investigating this, along with hundreds of both likely and unlikely scenarios. The military is tasked with developing plans for every conceivable outcome, from floods in Bangladesh to race riots in New York. Somewhere in the Pentagon are files on how to invade England. This doesn’t mean that we’re about to invade England, but if we have to, they are required to have a plan for it. The idea that the military spends much time worrying about global warming is nonsense. As you may (or may not) have noticed, they’ve got much larger issues to worry about these days.
Finally, where am I “denying that warming is taking place”? That makes no sense. Warming over what time period? As I said before, in 1970 it was cooling, in 1988 it was warming, now it is doing neither. The globe warmed from 1910 to 1945, and cooled from 1945 to 1975 … am I denying or affirming warming? Your statement makes no sense unless you put dates on it.
You are correct that the scientific consensus is that it will warm in the next decade … but then the scientific consensus was that it would warm in this decade. So we can’t say the forecasting record of the consensus is all that good … but it may happen.
However, if it does I don’t think it will lead to headline making disasters … but I’m sure that YMWV.
Finally, what is an “eventuality that is protected, but that is only happening in [my] mind.”?
Fine, lets see what people, because based on your sources you get whooshed a lot. I already mentioned that a cataclysm is not coming, but humans are not prone to be quiet when the resources they depend of are affected.
In any case, the goal now is to avoid going over 2 degrees Centigrade, it was reported that we should be able to cope with any issues at that increase level.
And here is once again, when researchers and policy makers are talking about controlling the issue (even when going to 2 degrees centigrade higher) that should give you a clue that they are not or were not so interested in the effects of the warming in the 20th century. They were interested on how CO2 and other gases increased the temperature but there was very little about the effects of it on the 20th century, like Lomborg, some ugly stuff is expected by researchers before the end of the 21th century if nothing is done.
…Or just decide to continue propping up the straw man.
It seems to me that the same people that tell us that supporters of AGW just promote end of the world stuff (And I already mentioned that disasters will only depend on where you are) are the sames that told us that all scientists thought that an ice age was coming in the 70’s
Nor I have seen were they said that an increase in the rate was expected in the 20th century. The problem with the rise of the oceans is that they will go up, but a change in the rate is not excluded in the 21st century, it all depends on how stable is the ice.
Too bad they don’t. The omg-level of snowiness in the northeast the last two winters (with 205% and 150% of the yearly snowfall averages, average being 60") have been linked to the last few years having the lowest amount of sunspots since the “little iceage” during the 1600s-1700s. I want more sunspots and less snow, and if that means boosting the popularity of SUVs and stupid reality shows, I’m on board
or more of their BS.
for worrying about this issue.
