Man Based Global Warming....

[TimBikes]

Originally Posted by darelldd

But to compare economic impacts of doing things the dirty way (let's say burning coal) vs doing it the clean way (let's say PV) we have to put prices on things like Mountaintop removal. Sterile lakes and rivers. Flooding. Loss of species. Illness. Death. That sort of thing.

It may surprise you to hear that I agree. However, I think the presumed "cost" of CO2's impact would likely be far too high. If it is cut incidentally because we are seeking to reduce pollution or conserve energy, that is fine by me though. But I am utterly unconvinced the release of CO2 into the atmosphere is creating a global warming catastrophe when most of the temperature data from the past 100+ years is out of sync with CO2 and current temperatures do not appear to be responding to copious increases in CO2.

[TimBikes]

Originally Posted by Alric

They are not, if they don't back up their "beliefs". Is not that you have published A paper. Your paper has to back up your claims.

As Lindzen notes, most IPCC contributors focused only on a few pages of the report, not the broad conclusions. So it would seem - to your argument - that the idea that the IPCC reports reflect "scientific concensus" is not necessarily backed up by their published IPCC work.

[TimBikes]

Originally Posted by Shawn Clark

Especially now that the conservative idiots running the corporations have done away with private R&D.

I'm calling B.S. Where do you get that? It certainly doesn't align with the facts. Corporate R&D has risen fairly steadily.

[Celtic Blue]

Originally Posted by TimBikes

I'm calling B.S. Where do you get that? It certainly doesn't align with the facts. Corporate R&D has risen fairly steadily.

I get that from first hand experience. It has all but disappeared in many industries...you know the ones that manufacture things. I've seen far too many R&D organizations systematically dismantled and not replaced by others. And what there is left in these is often little more than development with no basic research.

[TimBikes]

Originally Posted by Shawn Clark

I get that from first hand experience. It has all but disappeared in many industries...you know the ones that manufacture things. I've seen far too many R&D organizations systematically dismantled and not replaced by others. And what there is left in these is often little more than development with no basic research.

Sure - it has disappeared in many companies because those companies are no longer competitive and can't afford it. Likewise, it has risen dramatically in other companies that are doing well. That is the nature of capitalism. I'm sure RCA (a declining company) is spending next to nothing on R&D, while Apple (a rising company) is spending a ton. This is as it should be.

On the whole though, as indicated in my link, R&D has risen steadily in the U.S. So again, your contention seems to me to be quite inaccurate - unless you can provide something other than anecdotal experience that demonstrates otherwise.

[TimBikes]

Originally Posted by Alric

Can you point to the part it says that warming stopped? All I see is an explanation of sea level rise as due to increased ocean mass and glacier melting. How do you go from there to "warming has stopped".

Well - as noted in the paper, there has been no there has been no thermal expansion of the ocean. So one can conclude pretty safely that the ocean hasn't warmed -- unless the laws of physics have changed.

Further, there is a reference to the Willis paper and that paper finds no increase in ocean heat content for the past 4 years.

So I think it is reasonable to say that there has been no global warming over that period.

[Alric]

Originally Posted by TimBikes

Well - as noted in the paper, there has been no there has been no thermal expansion of the ocean. So one can conclude pretty safely that the ocean hasn't warmed -- unless the laws of physics have changed.

Further, there is a reference to the Willis paper and that paper finds no increase in ocean heat content for the past 4 years.

So I think it is reasonable to say that there has been no global warming over that period.

Where in that paper is that a conclusion? What they are looking for is a reason for ocean level increase and the paper is arguing that it is not because of heat content but because of glacial melting and other factors. Assuming it is correct ocean heat content has not increased, doesn't the glacial melting part sound like warming to you?

This is a prime example of contrarian thinking and hubris. There are climatologists coming to a consensus based on research and giving recommendations and yet you would armchair reasons to why they are wrong. We can not do that. We are not climatologists and we have to let them do their job and follow their recommendations. Specially when as darreldd has argued effectively the outcome is positive anyway.

I would also discourage at-home surgery and home cooking of pharmaceuticals. Just in case you engage in those activities as well.

[Alric]

Originally Posted by TimBikes

As Lindzen notes, most IPCC contributors focused only on a few pages of the report, not the broad conclusions. So it would seem - to your argument - that the idea that the IPCC reports reflect "scientific concensus" is not necessarily backed up by their published IPCC work.

Yes. All work in the IPCC is backed by the research included in the report. The conclusions of each individual part where agreed upon by the researchers that produced the data in the first place.

The IPCC is the scientific consensus and the recommendation of the most experienced and accomplished researchers in the field.

[amped]

Earth on the Brink of an Ice Age


Earth on the Brink of an Ice Age - Pravda.Ru



FTA:
The main flaw in the AGW theory is that its proponents focus on evidence from only the past one thousand years at most, while ignoring the evidence from the past million years -- evidence which is essential for a true understanding of climatology. The data from paleoclimatology provides us with an alternative and more credible explanation for the recent global temperature spike, based on the natural cycle of Ice Age maximums and interglacials.

[JSH]

Very true. Take for example the graph you have posted. The last 10,000 year before present are odd. CO2 is rapidly rising but the temperature is slightly declining. Then if you look at the peak in temperature at the end of the ice ages our present conditions are odd. The peaks for the last 4 warm periods are very sharp while we are currently in a plateau of abnormally warm temperatures. If anything our "normal" temperature that corresponds to the rise of man is 6 degrees C warmer than average.

We need to save our fossil fuels to warm our ice huts built on the glaciers that will soon (geologically) be invading the upper 30 degrees from the poles. We won't be able to fall back to our old tactic of migration to the equator to escape the next ice age. We simply have too many people for that.