[Al_U_Card]

 FM75, on 2013-March-28, 20:33, said:

As to the human population, I do consider that, but not with respect to the water cycle. Humans are NOT a water sink. All the water that comes in goes out. Respiration and urination keep it in balance no matter what the total population.

This point may have more to do with water usage and diversion which I would expect to increase as a problematic percentage, as does the population. As stated above, the idyllic pastoral setting for the 300 or so individuals is insufficient to place them all in a high-rise etc. Until and unless we can all manage to live efficiently in a bucolic setting, it will remain just a decent land-reclamation method.

p.s. As far as science's once-upon-a-time potential preoccupation with horse-Mannure, that may be why climate "science" is how it is today...

[Daniel1960]

 Al_U_Card, on 2013-March-29, 06:47, said:

This point may have more to do with water usage and diversion which I would expect to increase as a problematic percentage, as does the population. As stated above, the idyllic pastoral setting for the 300 or so individuals is insufficient to place them all in a high-rise etc. Until and unless we can all manage to live efficiently in a bucolic setting, it will remain just a decent land-reclamation method.

p.s. As far as science's once-upon-a-time potential preoccupation with horse-Mannure, that may be why climate "science" is how it is today...

Actually, humans are a water sink. 90% of the human body is water. Therefore every billion more people, at an average of about 60 kg, removes 54,000,000,000 kg of water from the environment, which is equivalent to 54 trillion liters. Granted this is small compared to the oceans, but still constitutes a "sink."

[blackshoe]

I thought it was 70%

[PassedOut]

Climate change is expanding Antarctica's sea ice, according to a scientific study in the journal Nature Geoscience.

Quote

The paradoxical phenomenon is thought to be caused by relatively cold plumes of fresh water derived from melting beneath the Antarctic ice shelves.

This melt water has a relatively low density, so it accumulates in the top layer of the ocean.

The cool surface waters then re-freeze more easily during Autumn and Winter.

This explains the observed peak in sea ice during these seasons, a team from the Royal Netherlands Meteorological Institute (KNMI) in De Bilt says in its peer-reviewed paper.

Two sides of the same coin...

[Daniel1960]

 PassedOut, on 2013-April-01, 08:53, said:

Climate change is expanding Antarctica's sea ice, according to a scientific study in the journal Nature Geoscience.


Two sides of the same coin...

Just another example of how some claim that global warming is responsible for every weather phenomenom. This one is somewhat of a stretch though.

[Al_U_Card]

First-half score, waiting to see what happens in the next 30 years.

[Al_U_Card]

Model behavior(?) Excerpted from AR5 courtesy of JoNova.




How do you say “we have no evidence” without saying it — like this:

“In many cases, the lack of long term observations, observations suitable for the evaluation of important processes, or observations in particular regions (e.g., polar areas, the upper troposphere / lower stratosphere (UTLS), and the deep ocean) remains an impediment.”

Blame the equipment. They have fifty years of data and millions of results.

This is the money statement:

"In summary, there is high confidence (robust evidence although only medium agreement) that most, though not all, CMIP3 and CMIP5 models overestimate the warming trend in the tropical troposphere during the satellite period 1979–2011. The cause of this bias remains elusive."

What they don’t say is that this point on its’ own is responsible for half the warming projected in the models, and hence that after twenty years of trying to reconcile the models and observations it’s past time they turfed the models and trashed the assumption that humidity will cause monster positive feedback. Forget the projections of 6 degrees of hell, the best estimate would be half the current one (or less) and we can all go home.

[Winstonm]

Al,

Simple question: do greenhouse gasses released by man alter climate?

[Al_U_Card]

 Winstonm, on 2013-April-03, 17:13, said:

Al,

Simple question: do greenhouse gasses released by man alter climate?

From what I understand of the theory, yes.

From what I see of the observational record, that man-made alteration is hard to distinguish from natural variation.

From what I perceive of the proponents of CAGW and their approach to the science and its dissemination, I can only surmise that they do not.

Now I have one for you. (Fair is fair.)

How much are you willing to spend to attempt to control global climate?

[Winstonm]

 Al_U_Card, on 2013-April-03, 21:41, said:

From what I understand of the theory, yes.

From what I see of the observational record, that man-made alteration is hard to distinguish from natural variation. (Yes, but hard does not mean impossible, and my understanding is that science is getting better and better at distinguishing AGW effects from the natural noise - W.M.)

From what I perceive of the proponents of CAGW and their approach to the science and its dissemination, I can only surmise that they do not.

Now I have one for you. (Fair is fair.)

How much are you willing to spend to attempt to control global climate?

I have no top or bottom amount. I am amenable to change as circumstances dictate.

[Al_U_Card]

Learning from the past (climates of all kinds...)

"From the discovery in 1929 of a special style of stone spear point outside Clovis, NM until 1997. The consensus among archeologists and anthropologists was that no humans came to the Americas before the ‘Clovis Man’ about 13,000 years ago. Ignoring evidence of earlier Americans and sweeping it under the carpet was the rule. The ‘Brahmins’ of Clovis controlled who got funding, who got taught, who was hired, pretty much everything regarding the late Pleistocene influx of humans into America. Many of you probably know something about it, how at about 13,000 years ago an ‘ice-free corridor opened up from Alaska down between two ice sheets that were covering most of Canada, allowing Asians to walk across Beringia, because the ice sheets lowered the sea levels enough that the Bering Strait was dry land. According to the consensus, no other time, ever, could humans have gotten to the Americas, because they had no boats and the land route was blocked every other possible time. Well, in 1997 a site in Chile, Monte Verde, was proven and fully vetted as being a human settlement about 1,000 years before the ice-free corridor was open. The ‘Clovis First’ dogma had – after almost 7 decades – been toppled. Since then much progress has been made, and the previously anathema progress continues. It has turned out that genetics has played a large part in it, showing that FIVE incursions of humans came, from at least four areas – one of them Europe, and one of them Polynesian. And yes, boats were used. (End of overview)

So, on with the show!

I think anyone here can read the following and substitute ‘global warming’ in place of ‘Clovis First’ and ‘the Hockey Team’ for ‘Paleo experts’. . .

What inspired this theoretical hardness that permitted nothing outside the boatless Isolationist box? Was there a mass conspiracy to defraud the public by a cabal from the original skull and bones society? Are the secrets buried next to The Ark in some Pentagon-subsidized Smithsonian warehouse and kept out of public hands because we cannot handle the truth?

Dream on. It was the Paleo experts themselves who could not handle the truth. Clovis First/Isolationism was guided by a consensus mentality, a groupthink that reason could not penetrate. What’s the use of wasting time and money trying to prove yourself wrong when you know you are right? In the end it was nothing but wishful thinking, an obsession that stunted the development and maturation of First American research.

- Christopher Hardaker – 2007 ‘The First American: The Suppressed Story of the People Who Discovered the New World’ (p. 246) Kindle Edition

Prior to 15 years ago, Clovis First was THE consensus among academics, so much so that Hardaker could and did write,

The idea of water travel in any Pleistocene migration theory was strictly taboo, except for Australia. In the Americas, it was land or nothing. Now everyone is a diffusionist by definition. That means Pandora’s box has opened for good, and Isolationism is clearly dead. Now we must reconsider more recent immigrants, such as [George] Carter’s chickens, Japanese sailors, and Chinese Olmecs. No! No! Clovis just got lucky, that’s all. Nice try. The Pleistocene coastal approach to the New World had been discussed decades earlier by the enlightened Canadians. The gringos, however, claimed that the northwest Pacific coastline was blocked by glaciers, and that immigrants could not walk around them, so they didn’t. Silly? You bet. [Ibid, page 244 Kindle edition]

and

In my first upper division archaeology class at San Diego State in 1973, my professor warned us all not to visit Carter’s Texas Street site. Carter had apparently returned to do some more excavations at his infamous site, and my professor must have feared we might be “infected” with his madness if we got too close. The professor made a point of not telling us where the site was. His final words: If you visit the Texas Street site, you will be kicked out of the department. This was essentially a death sentence for any aspiring California archaeologist … if you got caught. It meant your curiosity would never be tamed, disciplined, nor aligned with the scientifically credible. It meant you had a yen for the incredulous. Such interests would only tarnish the good name of archaeology in the future. [Ibid, pg 146, Kindle edition]

From: Dan Josselyn Alabama Archaeological Society University of Alabama

To: Dr. Cynthia lrwin-Williams Eastern New Mexico University Portales, New Mexico…

…I’m accused of “theories”, which I detest. My only point is that we have overlooked an amazing and abundant lithic technology – let’s see what it means! I wish all archaeologists could see the ton of “crude stuff” spread all over my tables, floors, spare beds. Wormington, Krieger, Desmond Clark, Dragoo, Vertes, Bordes, Leakey, Muller-Beck, Stirling, etc., agree with me that we must investigate this matter thoroughly.’ (Emphasis in original.)

In Josselyn’s last paragraph we find that just asking questions about early assemblages brought a lot of heat, regardless of the luminaries who felt the same way. This heat came from the dogmatic Clovis First folks. By merely acting on his interest and curiosity, Josselyn was accused of “theories.” “Theories,” specified in this way, resemble the modem accusation of conspiracy theories.

In the “you’re with us or against us” world of Clovis-Isolationism, every question, no matter how innocent, was regarded as an allegation against the Brahmin, who would then turn around and let you have it. When they accused Josselyn of “theories,” it was his thinking abilities that were being attacked. It carries the notion that you suffer from a gullibility toward the fantastic, that you cannot discern science from fantasy. The fact that he lists so many others sharing the same curiosity strengthens Josselyn’s position. His frustration was evident, but he was not alone. In the end, it did not matter one bit. Clovis First was just too entrenched to let facts get in the way. [all emphases in the originals] [Ibid, p. 141. Kindle Edition.]

Does this kind of idiocy and stone walls sound familiar?

Though shalt not put facts before the altar of our consensus.

But archeology and anthropology are now out of the control of a consensus and back in the hands of open inquirers who will follow the evidence wherever it leads – at least until the next consensus gets in the way."

yet another view

[Winstonm]

Quote

Al,

Simple question: do greenhouse gasses released by man alter climate?


From what I understand of the theory, yes.

Al,

With this answer a guide, what, then, is the purpose of your continual posts in this thread? What point is it that you are trying to make?

[Daniel1960]

 Winstonm, on 2013-April-05, 09:16, said:

Al,

With this answer a guide, what, then, is the purpose of your continual posts in this thread? What point is it that you are trying to make?

Winston,
Many scientists will answer yes to your question. However, few will agree upon its measureable effects. Some claim that the effect will be great, and urge immediate action to mitigate it. Others maintain that the effect will hardly be noticeable among natural changes, with minimal noticeable changes. There exist a whole array of other scientists with intervening viewpoints. The three of us may all answer yes, but disagree as the to climatic effects.

[Winstonm]

 Daniel1960, on 2013-April-05, 12:15, said:

Winston,
Many scientists will answer yes to your question. However, few will agree upon its measureable effects. Some claim that the effect will be great, and urge immediate action to mitigate it. Others maintain that the effect will hardly be noticeable among natural changes, with minimal noticeable changes. There exist a whole array of other scientists with intervening viewpoints. The three of us may all answer yes, but disagree as the to climatic effects.

I know. The question I asked remains unanswered, though.

[Al_U_Card]

 Winstonm, on 2013-April-05, 09:16, said:

Al,

With this answer a guide, what, then, is the purpose of your continual posts in this thread? What point is it that you are trying to make?

That the only problem associated with anthropogenic climate change lies with the supporters of same and the ways that they propose to make use of our common resources to pursue this, rather than other more pressing and relevant issues.

Unlike you, I can offer an exact amount that is comparable to the nature of this particular situation.

$ 0.00

So, I am just trying to share that appreciation of my "different" take on it.

[Gerben42]

Why is this all so controversial? Does it really matter if the man-made part is 10% or 90%? Burning fossil fuel is poison for the environment, so we should make it unattractive. We only have one Earth, and even if we are not messing up the climate, we are messing up nature and the environment. We are overfishing, poisoning the plants and animals that end up on our plate and those that don't.

[Winstonm]

 Al_U_Card, on 2013-April-05, 13:27, said:

That the only problem associated with anthropogenic climate change lies with the supporters of same and the ways that they propose to make use of our common resources to pursue this, rather than other more pressing and relevant issues.

Unlike you, I can offer an exact amount that is comparable to the nature of this particular situation.

$ 0.00

So, I am just trying to share that appreciation of my "different" take on it.

That is a rather odd take I should think. It is like a person who owns a house refusing to replace the malfunctioning hot water heater because he is unable to determine to what degree the problem was caused by natural corrosion from hard water and how much was due to human use of the system.

[Al_U_Card]

As Gerben says, the issue is with (real) pollution caused by our profligate use of energy sources.

Comparing the efficiency and "carbon footprint" of new coal-fired powerplants (as an example) to biofuels and wind/solar installations, there is a definite disadvantage to ignore the loss of food-production as well as land-use and aesthetic problems associated with these "alternatives".

To respond to your example, Winston, when I find out that the plumber who inspected my HVAC is crooked, cooked the test-results AND is getting a cut of the new installation that has been proposed to "fix" what I am told is my problem..... I go look for an independent consultant and find out that the problem is really just a bad heat-exchanger setting on my thermostat and once I reset it, then no expense and no problem.

The "human" problem was just that...

[Winstonm]

Quote

To respond to your example, Winston, when I find out that the plumber who inspected my HVAC is crooked, cooked the test-results AND is getting a cut of the new installation that has been proposed to "fix" what I am told is my problem..... I go look for an independent consultant and find out that the problem is really just a bad heat-exchanger setting on my thermostat and once I reset it, then no expense and no problem

Not quite, Al. Remember this?

Quote

Al,

Simple question: do greenhouse gasses released by man alter climate?


From what I understand of the theory, yes.

It ain't the thermostat, Al. To make an analogy relevant to your position, you are claiming that you know (because you think you've been swindled by a scientific conspiracty of plumbers) that nothing bad can come from a faulty water heater and every claim made that you may have excessive damage to your house caused by this faulty heater is a bogus claim.

Reality does not care what you believe about the source of the data - if AGW is real, then what you feel towards AGW warnings and the people who make them does not alter that fact.

[Al_U_Card]

The climate sensitivity (global temperature increase for a doubling of CO2 which is the thermostat setting in our analogy) is the critical issue.

In line with historical knowledge and more and more with observational data, our calculations of this value are shrinking it down from the alarming initial values proposed by models to more likely and less problematic ones.

If we have 1000 years to deal with an increase of, say 2 degrees C, then what is also at issue is, just how bad is a 2 degree increase? It appears to be an improvement, especially if our gradually decreasing Holocene temperatures are to be expected to continue... (ice-age anyone?)

Since there is no urgency (less and less as we inject some reality into the fired-up model projections) and some benefit (the greening of the biosphere as well) then there is no heating "problem" so we just reset our "thinking" thermostat.