The Problem with AGW…

our point exactly....thanks

http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2005/oct/12/naturaldisasters.climatechange1

Rising sea levels, desertification and shrinking freshwater supplies will create up to 50 million environmental refugees by the end of the decade, experts warn today. Janos Bogardi, director of the Institute for Environment and Human Security at the United Nations University in Bonn, said creeping environmental deterioration already displaced up to 10 million people a year, and the situation would get worse.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2001/apr/06/usnews.globalwarming?INTCMP=ILCNETTXT3487

The panel estimates that carbon dioxide in the atmosphere has increased by one-third since 1750, and will double by the middle of the century on present trends

you have to wonder how exactly they 'estimated' how much carbon was in the atmosphere in 1750...were there people in the middle of Africa with modern equipment? someone down on the Antartic ice shelf? hmmmm...maybe it was space aliens that told the scientists what the carbon was then..

 

and I LOVE this one...

http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2008/sep/15/climatechange.carbonemissions?INTCMP=ILCNETTXT3487

a few hundred thousand years, that no one was around, we have no records at all...in other words, MADE UP stats..

so we should all go back to living in trees and eating roots we dug up with our bare hands because the scientists have imagined a 'history' of the planet, completely unproven, even though they ADMIT themselves that they don't UNDERSTAND the science.

yeah. and WE are crazy people....uh huh...

 

LOLOLOLOLOL....you assume that because you don't (or can't) understand just how the scientists know certain things then that means that everyone is equally ignorant....LOLOLOLOLOLOLOL....it is so obviously you who doesn't "UNDERSTAND the science". You seem to be another tragic victim of the Dunning-Kruger Effect, spewing delusional nonsense about things you can't comprehend.

Well....as a matter of fact.....you're right....yes, indeed....very, very crazy....

 

so PLEASE!! educate me...tell me, oh exalted one, HOW do they determine the level of carbon in the air on July 28, 1750...or if it would be easier for you; just tell me how they know what the temp was a hundred thousand years ago..

I'll wait...

 

[ame="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0Wi8Fv0AJA4"]Jeopardy Theme - YouTube[/ame]

*waiting...*

 

note please that in the articles I posted the scientists themselves said they didn't know....

unless of course in 'scientific' language, 'estimates' and 'may' and 'maybe' and 'we have not fully understood the relevant feedback mechanisms' means they are absolutely positive ...in which case someone should pull them aside and explain some simple English to them...because this BS about 'well, words mean something else when a scientist says them' doesn't fly...black is black, white is white and two plus two equals four.

we aren't living in the age of Newspeak and "1984" yet.

 

note ALSO that I don't have to have someone come in and explain my posts to you...I seem to be vastly more intelligent than the scientists you worship because I can make myself understood. I have mastered basic communication skills, whereas you claim that these way smart dudes can't even figure out how to explain themselves in simple language someone like me could understand...

yeah, you kinda make MY case for me when you claim that scientists are too stupid to be able to communicate with common people but can calculate how much carbon was in the air a thousand years ago..

 

Dear god, are you really unaware of taking samples from ice cores?

If you're this clueless about even the most basic science, what's the point in even talking with you?

 

Okay, you agree denialists are cultists. Then why are we still talking?

So you're citing a correct prediction -- one by a non-scientist, by the way -- exactly why?

Because they measured it.

Seriously, it's because they measured it.

Look, just because you pull all your "facts" straight out your behind, don't assume we're like you.

 

"Sources of uncertainty in ice core data"

http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/paleo/reports/trieste2008/ice-cores.pdf


"Using the techniques listed above and more, climatologists can attempt to reconstruct past climates and recreate the climate system. On the whole, ice cores have proven extremely useful for paleoclimatology, and many scientists have worked tirelessly to extract every shred of information from each sample. Unfortunately, ice cores do present some difficulties and have limitations that scientists must overcome."

http://www.csa.com/discoveryguides/icecore/review.php

 

yeah, I just looked around...doesn't seem to BE any ice around here...so you are saying that they can guess what the temps are here by what the ice core in Antartica says?

even NOW we don't have the same temps..that seems pretty obvious.

and you didn't address the issue of the scientists themselves saying they don't know for sure.

insulting me doesnt' make you right...just makes you obnoxious...

 

where ARE all these refugees? I am genuinely curious...

 

And you think that's a problem ... why? CO2 levels are essentially the same around the globe at any given time.

No. I'm saying that CO2 levels in Antarctica in 1750 are the same as CO2 levels in Africa in 1750.

Now, if you'd like to discuss historical temperature measurements instead of historical CO2 measurements, you should have asked about historical temperature measurements. You specifically asked about carbon measurements.

That would be why _average_ temperatures are used.

There's an uncertainty in a modern thermometer, therefore, by your logic, we can't even know the temperature today. You don't understand what statistical uncertainty means. "We don't know for sure" does not mean "we know nothing."

Thirty million just in Asia.
http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2011/sep/19/climate-migrants-asia-2010?INTCMP=ILCNETTXT3487

 

You are aware are you not that the one of the problems with the Fukishima Di'ichi plant was loss of containment in the spent fuel rod pool - and the reason why there were spent fuel rods in that pool?

There is almost nowhere to store them

I will let the government of Japan know that you are willing to take them off their hands eh?

 

Oh! Duh! Do you think you are telling us something new? Do you think the scientists do not know this? Now here is a basic principle of research - if you have a small sample there can be wide variance in the results, if you have a large sample the variance is less.

So if you have one data set with errors the best thing to do is to add all the data sets together in such a way that it balances out and the error rate decreases

 

That's wonderful.

And at the end of it all the AGW religion is still merely the accepted hypothesis, based on flimsy numbers and guesswork.

Just as long as we're all clear on that. Good.

 

You know the greatest favour you can do yourself is to learn about how research is conducted - and how to read research

You have repeatedly accused everyone of being "religious fanatics" on this subject and yet reject out of hand any explanation of the science and facts underpinning the conclusions surrounding climate change

Tell me - if a completely neutral person were to review our respective posts - who do you think they would conclude was the one refusing to look beyond their own beliefs?

 

Bowerbird, just how much economic growth are you willing to sacrifice for the environment?

How many jobs are you willing to destroy in order to achieve your Quixotic dreams of a "Green Globe"?

How many nights of freezing cold will children around the world have to suffer through for you to be happy?

 

I don't even know why you constantly pose this either/or scenario.

its not as if there has to be a trade off.

necessity is the mother of invention

 

Did your voices tell you that was the case?

Well, at least you're not threatening to kill people's pets if they disagree with you, so that's progress.

Getting chilly down there in the basement, eh? Tell Mom to turn up the thermostat.

 

How much economic growth has already been traded? Who is currently suffering as these things progress forward NOW. And please do not tell me Europe - they owe most of their economic woes to the American Banking system that just about sucked an unfillable hole in the global economy

Instead of worrying about people trying to fix what is currently a rapidly ageing electrical system with more faults and potential to completely collapse our economy how about worrying about a repeat of the last economic meltdown

 

You have moved the goalposts. We were talking about normal radioactive waste not the spent fuel rods of a compromised plant due to a highly rare natural disaster.

Besides, the plant is now under 'cold-shutdown' with the reactor core less than 100 degrees C which stops all reaction and radiation levels of 1 millisievert per year which is the normal exposure limit.

 

No, what do you think radioactive waste" refers to? Why do you think there is so much concern around it - I just pointed out that if you are willing to have the real problem in your backyard then there are plenty of governments around the world willing to take you up on that.

 

Uh no, objective study of economic factors.

So, not being morally outraged at the reprisal killing of a cat is "threatening to kill people's pets" now?