@TMTisFree

Quote:

TMTisFree wrote: @HenryCase This conventional overpopulation scare by the Ehrlichs and other pro-environementalist (J. 'de-development' Holdren for example) has long been refuted by current reality in general and the great Dr Julian Simon's works and writings in particular, whose simple and intuitive ideas were supported by many Nobel Price's economist winners (F. Hayek, M. Friedman to name a few). I suggest reading his 1996 book entitled 'The Ultimate Resource II: People, Materials, and Environment' which resolves the population scare better than a non-problem. His humanist view still waits for a proper critique (that is other than the usual eco-scares). His central point is that 'supplies of natural resources are not finite in any serious way; they are created by the intellect of man, an always renewable resource. Coal, oil and uranium were not resources at all until mixed well with human intellect' (Wall St. Journal, Ben Wattenberg). Quote: "There is no reason to believe that at any given moment in the future the available quantity of any natural resource or service at present prices will be much smaller than it is now, or non-existent." Julian Simon in The Ultimate Resource Quote: "This is my long-run forecast in brief. The material conditions of life will continue to get better for most people, in most countries, most of the time, indefinitely. Within a century or two, all nations and most of humanity will be at or above today's Western living standards. I also speculate, however, that many people will continue to think and say that the conditions of life are getting worse." Julian Simon Of course, it is easier to (continue to) watch video. But fast communicating is like fast food: you also lose fast the real value of things. Possibilities are prodigious. And enjoy the interglacial. Edit: added a quote Bye, TMTisFree

I'm sorry but that is so full of #### I don't know where to begin. We can't just imagine more natural resources. Think about it.

@TMTisFree

Quote:

Sure, according to the AGW's believers' definition of consistency: a cooling trend is consistent with global warming.

Let's assume you're right for sake of argument. Bolt requested we check some sources to verify what he was saying. Those sources disagreed 180 degrees from his assertion. His arguement was dishonest, those sources didn't agree. Many of his statements are untruthful, demonstrated to not be true.


EDIT -- Even myth 8, which you love, has an air of dishonesty about it. Why have the coral reefs come back? Reading up it appears the reason wasn't Global Cooling is occurring. The reason is that Aust. over the last decade has better controlling soil run off from farming and controlling fishing. Humans cleaning up our act nothing about any turn around in Global Warming. Scientists, even with the recovery, still see GW as a threat by producing more acidic conditions and higher temperature water.

Last edited by BrianK on 03-May-2009 at 02:30 PM.
Last edited by BrianK on 03-May-2009 at 02:12 PM.

@TMTisFree

Quote:

What? Cherry picking dates to support your point is unscientific, denier

My bad! I was going to mention we haven't had a highier average temp since 1998 (during the peak years of Solar Cycle 23) while CO2 has been climbing, but that would be most unscientific. Dang that mid Tropopause for not warming like the CO2 zealots keep telling us as a sure sign of AGW.

Dammy

_________________
Dammy

@damocles

Quote:

My bad! I was going to mention we haven't had a highier average temp since 1998 (during the peak years of Solar Cycle 23) while CO2 has been climbing, but that would be most unscientific. Dang that mid Tropopause for not warming like the CO2 zealots keep telling us as a sure sign of AGW.

good point

but we all will start to worry when the dwarf star comes close


Ethanol anyone??
Ethanol test for Obama on climate change, science

President Barack Obama's commitment to take on climate change and put science over politics is about to be tested as his administration faces a politically sensitive question about the widespread use of ethanol: Does it help or hurt the fight against global warming?

rest of the story

Anyone wish to take a bet on what he will do?
Since Obama stays on both sides....I say he will do just about nothing. He will say it needs more study or just leave things as is.

Last edited by Interesting on 04-May-2009 at 03:35 PM.

_________________
"The system no longer works " -- Young Anakin Skywalker

@HenryCase

Quote:

We can't just imagine more natural resources.

We? You also have a Napoleonic tendency or do you mean "You can't just imagine more natural resources"? Anyway too bad you have no imagination, others have plenty. In addition your reply really suggests 'we' need more intellects to solve problems and thus, while negative, appears to support Dr Julian Simon's ideas: the mark of simple but powerful reasoning.

Edit: added a sentence

Bye,
TMTisFree

Last edited by TMTisFree on 03-May-2009 at 08:44 PM.

_________________
The engineering approach to our non-problems: "build a better washer".
The scientific approach to our non-problems: "find a new energy source".
The environmentalist approach to our non-problems: "stop washing your shirts".

@BrianK

Quote:

His arguement was dishonest, those sources didn't agree.

One wonders what is dishonest when Bolt also writes "Some experts, such as Karoly, claim this proves nothing and the world will soon start warming again." In addition Bolt pushes to "Check data from Britain's Hadley Centre, NASA's Aqua satellite and the US National Climatic Data Centre", not to quote interpretation of data by some or other. Btw the quote you provide is identical to the quote of Karoly by Bolt. He then concludes by an open question "But that's all theory. The question I've asked is: What signs can you actually see of the man-made warming that the alarmists predicted?" So it can not be said that Bold is unfair or dishonest when he presents the two views of cooling/warming and ends by asking a question.

Quote:

Even myth 8, which you love, has an air of dishonesty about it.

I find it funny but I agree, 'two recoveries' and 'minimal impact' in less than 10 years say a lot about the suspicion of scientific deficiency/dishonesty of the author of the scare and more of the adaptability of the coral.

Quote:

Why have the coral reefs come back? Reading up it appears the reason wasn't Global Cooling is occurring.

Let reduce the problem a bit:
1/ the supposed bleaching appears to be reversible;
2/ the supposed recovery and then the cause of the supposed bleaching appear not to be due by temperature variations.
Consequently it shows that hypothesized AGW cannot be the cause of the supposed bleaching/recovery of coral.

Quote:

The reason is that Aust. over the last decade has better controlling soil run off from farming and controlling fishing.

Thanks for confirming: nothing to do with temperature and pH variations then. So why bother?

Quote:

Scientists, even with the recovery, still see GW as a threat by producing more acidic conditions and higher temperature water.

Now temperature/pH variations is still the threat although temperature/pH variations was shown not to be the cause: so it appears that coral bleaching not due to AGW is as consistent with coral bleaching caused by AGW than a cooling trend is consistent with global warming: this logic can not be defeated :


Bye,
TMTisFree

_________________
The engineering approach to our non-problems: "build a better washer".
The scientific approach to our non-problems: "find a new energy source".
The environmentalist approach to our non-problems: "stop washing your shirts".

@damocles

You will not break the 'scientific consensus' written in IPCC stone with your negative CO²/temperature correlation that does not disproves the hidden GW waiting to return back to scare us. I will take my UnRealClimate pill to reinforce my believes that the beginning of the end is in the near future. Just wait 100 years and you will see.

Edit: btw a strong ENSO took place in 1998.

Bye,
TMTisFree

Last edited by TMTisFree on 03-May-2009 at 08:47 PM.

_________________
The engineering approach to our non-problems: "build a better washer".
The scientific approach to our non-problems: "find a new energy source".
The environmentalist approach to our non-problems: "stop washing your shirts".

@BrianK

Quote:

BrianK wrote: @Dandy Quote: The link you gave in that post to support your claim does not mention Heim at all. So - how do you come to your conclusion that Heim was wrong from this article? I haven't read Heim directly. I have read various books of people writing on and supporting Heim's theories.

If possible, you really should read Heim himself.
I equally read papers critisizing his theory (e.g. Prof. G.W. Bruhn, Dept. of Mathematics, Technical University of Darmstadt, Germany, criticized that Eq. (2) in the paper AIAA 2004-3700, a4, letter, will lead to a flat metric) - but so far I understood the replies, all the objections have been rebutted (starting from incorrect
assumptions, and ending with the wrong conclusions).

Quote:

BrianK wrote: I found it interesting that the Heim books support Heim due to his theories prediction of mass. These books use this as one of the leading reasons to support Heim over Einstein. Now we have someone who worked out how to use Einstein's theories to predict mass. Certainly it doesn't prove Heim wrong. It does take away one of the reasons they use to put Heim in front of Einstein.

"1. Consistent Description Of The World

The Heim theory, as presented in the scientific journal series "Burkhard Heim: Consistent Description Of The World", briefly summarised delivers - in correlation with measured values - the following results:

- Argument of equity of inertia and mass (A. Einstein looked in vain for this proof)
- Mass, intrinsic angular momentum, iso-intrinsic angular momentum, charge, strangeness, half-value period of elementary particles, their antiparticles, radioactivity.
- Explanation of gravitation
- Explanation of the terrestric magnetic field and of neutrons
- Fine structure constant as pure number
- Explanation of the wave-particle dualism
- Derivation of the uncertainty principle
- Explanation of the emergence of time and cosmos"

(my translation from German)

_________________
Ciao

Dandy
__________________________________________
If someone enjoys marching to military music, then I already despise him.
He got his brain accidently - the bone marrow in his back would have been sufficient for him!
(Albert Einstein)

@Interesting

Quote:

Interesting wrote: @Dandy Quote: and its possible consequences in general. and wouldn't you agree that one possible consequence of more co2 would be a higher growth rate of plants to soak up the Co2?

Yeah - but how about all the toxic substances, that the rain washes out of the atmosphere and contaminates the soil with it, so that it leads to acidic rain and to forest dieback?

Do you think a higher growth rate of plants because of the Co2 would offset the forest dieback because of acidic rain, not to mention man-made deforestation?

_________________
Ciao

Dandy
__________________________________________
If someone enjoys marching to military music, then I already despise him.
He got his brain accidently - the bone marrow in his back would have been sufficient for him!
(Albert Einstein)

@Tomas

Quote:

Tomas wrote: Interesting article about the current deep solar minimum: http://www.independent.co.uk/news/science/the-missing-sunspots-is-this-the-big-chill-1674630.html Quote: Could the Sun play a greater role in recent climate change than has been believed? Climatologists had dismissed the idea and some solar scientists have been reticent about it because of its connections with those who those who deny climate change. But now the speculation has grown louder because of what is happening to our Sun. No living scientist has seen it behave this way. There are no sunspots. The disappearance of sunspots happens every few years, but this time it’s gone on far longer than anyone expected – and there is no sign of the Sun waking up. “This is the lowest we’ve ever seen. We thought we’d be out of it by now, but we’re not,” says Marc Hairston of the University of Texas. And it’s not just the sunspots that are causing concern. There is also the so-called solar wind – streams of particles the Sun pours out – that is at its weakest since records began. In addition, the Sun’s magnetic axis is tilted to an unusual degree. “This is the quietest Sun we’ve seen in almost a century,” says NASA solar scientist David Hathaway. But this is not just a scientific curiosity. It could affect everyone on Earth and force what for many is the unthinkable: a reappraisal of the science behind recent global warming.

Yeah - it was just last night that we had a report on this topic on German TV.
Sunspots are high energy areas of the suns surface. If there are lots of sunspots, the sun shines brighter, emitts more energy, leads to a decline in cloud formation and to a global warming (e.g. MWP).
Less clouds mean less rain - it was said that this led to the demise e.g. of the Maya culture.

The complete lack of sunspots means less emitted energy and is said to have led to global coolings in the past (e.g. LIA).

There were temperature graphs shown demonstrating the interrelationship between the sunspots and earth's atmospheric temperature.

In the past these curves had similar characteristics - but since the nineteen seventies they are diverging. While the sunspots are declining since then (and reached an absolute minimum this year), earth's temperature is nevertheless increasing.

_________________
Ciao

Dandy
__________________________________________
If someone enjoys marching to military music, then I already despise him.
He got his brain accidently - the bone marrow in his back would have been sufficient for him!
(Albert Einstein)

@TMTisFree

Quote:

Btw the quote you provide is identical to the quote of Karoly by Bolt.

The first part is the same words, not conclusion. But, the rest was ignored to spin the meaning which we see Bolt do in the 2nd paragraph.

Quote:

He then concludes by an open question "But that's all theory. The question I've asked is: What signs can you actually see of the man-made warming that the alarmists predicted?"

Karoly actually answer this for Bolt - "The temperatures, if we average from 1998 to 2008, they're warmer than the previous 10 years, or the 10 years before that, or any 10-year period over at least the last 150 years"

Quote:

Let reduce the problem a bit: 1/ the supposed bleaching appears to be reversible; 2/ the supposed recovery and then the cause of the supposed bleaching appear not to be due by temperature variations. Consequently it shows that hypothesized AGW cannot be the cause of the supposed bleaching/recovery of coral.

(1) Inaccurate statement. The bleaching isn't reversible. The dead coral, from bleaching, doesn't come back to life. Instead "corals recovered by rapidly regrowing from surviving tissue"

(2) cause of the supposed bleaching was not soley due to GW. Fixed.
Consequently it shows that hypothesized GW cannot be the sole cause of the supposed bleaching/recovery of coral. Fixed.

Like most things in science our working consensus is built upon other accepted consensus. It was accepted that sexual reproduction was the influcing factor for reproduction. If one decreases the population within a species it makes sense that sexual means is therefore more limited. It appears more than anything people learned more about coral and asexual reproduction. It appears asexual reproduction is a stronger factor than what scientists have previously assigned to it. So the answer again wasn't Global Cooling. The problem was our inital acceptance of how coral grows. Now that we know more we can reassess the criteria needed for coral. GW isn't flipped. Instead the underlying assumptions that was the inital factor considered prior to climate change's application need to be reworked. Then any factors of climate change can be reapplied.

To simplify into a snippet -- The problem wasn't GW science. The problem was coral science. Now that we understand coral better we can apply climate changes better to the more accurate coral model.


Cute son, nice pic!

@BrianK

Quote:

BrianK wrote: @Tomas Quote: Interesting article about the current deep solar minimum I find it interesting that it's the calmest in the last 100 years and yet we're warmer than 100 years ago. In fact we may well be continuing to warm. However, we'd have to get about a decade out to obviously look at how these few years impact the overall trend. ...

The report I just cited in my last posting had a graph showing that from the mid seventies the two curves were diverging - while the (average) sunspot curve is declining since then, the temperature curve is increasing.

And we're talking about a period of 35-40 years.

_________________
Ciao

Dandy
__________________________________________
If someone enjoys marching to military music, then I already despise him.
He got his brain accidently - the bone marrow in his back would have been sufficient for him!
(Albert Einstein)

@Tomas

Quote:

Tomas wrote: @BrianK ... Quote: BrianK wrote: @Tomas I find it interesting that it's the calmest in the last 100 years and yet we're warmer than 100 years ago. ... But if it continues for another 10-20 years then i believe it might have a significant impact on our climate and temperatures. ...

Max Planck Society article from 2004 on sunspot activity:

Quote:

Max Planck Society wrote: ... Die Forscher um Sami K. Solanki weisen jedoch darauf hin, dass die Sonnenaktivität seit etwa 1980 auf ungefähr konstantem Niveau verharrt - abgesehen von Schwankungen mit dem 11-jährigen Aktivitätszyklus der Sonne -, während die Temperatur auf der Erde in diesem Zeitraum einen starken Anstieg erfahren hat. ... My translation from German: ... Yet the researchrs of Sami K. Solanki's team point out, that the solar activity roughly remains at an constant level since 1980 - except for variations with the sun's 11-year-activity-cycle -, while the temperature on earth during this period strongly increased. ...

_________________
Ciao

Dandy
__________________________________________
If someone enjoys marching to military music, then I already despise him.
He got his brain accidently - the bone marrow in his back would have been sufficient for him!
(Albert Einstein)

@TMTisFree

Quote:

TMTisFree wrote: @HenryCase ... His central point is that 'supplies of natural resources are not finite in any serious way; they are created by the intellect of man, an always renewable resource. ...

BTW - "natural resources are not finite in any serious way; they are created by the intellect of man" is a contradiction in itself - if something is created, it can't be "natural"...

Quote:

TMTisFree wrote: Quote: "There is no reason to believe that at any given moment in the future the available quantity of any natural resource or service at present prices will be much smaller than it is now, or non-existent." ...

That must be the reason why the experts see the food crisis coming back - even stronger than before:

Global food crisis comes back

_________________
Ciao

Dandy
__________________________________________
If someone enjoys marching to military music, then I already despise him.
He got his brain accidently - the bone marrow in his back would have been sufficient for him!
(Albert Einstein)

@damocles

Quote:

damocles wrote: @BrianK Quote: But certainly Britain's Hadley Centre backs his statements he asked us to look so I did. Here's a great quote from the link at Hadley Center - "Over the last ten years, global temperatures have warmed more slowly than the long-term trend. But this does not mean that global warming has slowed down or even stopped. It is entirely consistent with our understanding of natural fluctuations of the climate within a trend of continued long-term warming. We've been in a long term warming since the end of the LIA which we have not recovered to pre-LIA temperatures. We've been chugging along at roughly 1C @ 100 years since the LIA and that trend hopefully will continue unless we enter into a new solar minimum.

We're already there:

THE MINIMUM OF SOLAR CYCLE 24

_________________
Ciao

Dandy
__________________________________________
If someone enjoys marching to military music, then I already despise him.
He got his brain accidently - the bone marrow in his back would have been sufficient for him!
(Albert Einstein)

@TMTisFree

Quote:

TMTisFree wrote: @Dandy ... I will not reply to your previous and next non-s(ci)ens(c)e.

...says the one permanently trying to sell us junk science as science.

_________________
Ciao

Dandy
__________________________________________
If someone enjoys marching to military music, then I already despise him.
He got his brain accidently - the bone marrow in his back would have been sufficient for him!
(Albert Einstein)

@TMTisFree

Quote:

TMTisFree wrote: @BrianK Do you expect I support bad Science/politic? No. ...

Then why do you promote it?

_________________
Ciao

Dandy
__________________________________________
If someone enjoys marching to military music, then I already despise him.
He got his brain accidently - the bone marrow in his back would have been sufficient for him!
(Albert Einstein)

@BrianK

Quote:

Karoly actually answer this for Bolt - "The temperatures, if we average from 1998 to 2008, they're warmer than the previous 10 years, or the 10 years before that, or any 10-year period over at least the last 150 years"

To which Damocles has already responded. Even if true, that does not tell us what was the cause. You also forgot to quote Bolt: Quote:

Professor Ian Plimer of Adelaide University, point[s] out that so many years of cooling already contradict the theory that man's rapidly increasing gases must drive up temperatures ever faster

So all in all Bolt 's myth 1 was fairly and honestly presented.

Quote:

(1) Inaccurate statement. The bleaching isn't reversible. The dead coral, from bleaching, doesn't come back to life. Instead "corals recovered by rapidly regrowing from surviving tissue"

Nitpicking again; of course what is dead is dead, nothing resurrects in this world (except for Christians but I digress). But as the coral is able to recover from supposed bleaching, supposed coral bleaching is not irreversible (in the broad meaning, not formally) as coral supposedly recovered 2 times. So my statement 1/ still stands. Your (1) rejected.

Quote:

(2) cause of the supposed bleaching was not soley due to GW. Fixed.

You now modify your causes to mask the inconsistency: I will let you name the fallacy doing so. Your (2) rejected.

Quote:

Consequently...

Consequently rejected. If global cooling is not the cause of the supposed recoveries, AGW can not be the cause of the supposed bleachings because temperature variations were not involved ab initio. According to the definition of consistency.

Quote:

The problem wasn't GW science. The problem was coral science.

Until demonstrated otherwise, the problem was neither temperature or coral but "soil run off from farming and [un]controlling fishing". This kind of disingenuous practice reminds me of the first scare in the first thread: the melting snows of the Kilimanjaro. Typical.

Quote:

Now that we understand coral better we can apply climate changes better to the more accurate coral model.

Sure, according to the definition of inconsistency.

Bye,
TMTisFree

_________________
The engineering approach to our non-problems: "build a better washer".
The scientific approach to our non-problems: "find a new energy source".
The environmentalist approach to our non-problems: "stop washing your shirts".

@Dandy

Quote:

BTW - "natural resources are not finite in any serious way; they are created by the intellect of man" is a contradiction in itself - if something is created, it can't be "natural"...

What a wonderful though...

Quote:

That must be the reason why the experts see the food crisis coming back - even stronger than before: Global food crisis comes back

I like the precision of the argumentum of the AGW crowd. The real title is:
"Marion Nestle: Global food crisis comes back to calories".

I propose a new mental ill: googlingite.

Googlingite: (N, 2009) Cognitive and/or behavioural disorder related to the perceptual skipping of certain word(s) affecting the meaning and significance of a sentence and appearing after a multiple words research in a web search engine. Proposed explanation: in the context of countering a solid argument and focused to get the expected result by the infallible search engine, the brain does not disconnect from the multiple words input, is unable to recover to the reality and to refocus on the actual result itself. Proposed cure: a little dose of humility together with a grain of attention to enhance self confidence and reduce self arrogance and/or potential mockery by others.

Bye,
TMTisFree

_________________
The engineering approach to our non-problems: "build a better washer".
The scientific approach to our non-problems: "find a new energy source".
The environmentalist approach to our non-problems: "stop washing your shirts".

@TMTisFree

Quote:

TMTisFree wrote: @HenryCase Quote: We can't just imagine more natural resources. We? You also have a Napoleonic tendency or do you mean "You can't just imagine more natural resources"? Anyway too bad you have no imagination, others have plenty. In addition your reply really suggests 'we' need more intellects to solve problems and thus, while negative, appears to support Dr Julian Simon's ideas: the mark of simple but powerful reasoning. Edit: added a sentence Bye, TMTisFree

You are a fool. Let's look at this from the point of view of science. Energy is neither created nor destroyed, but is transferred from one medium to another. Natural resources are stored energy, whether that's from energy resources we have in the world's ecosystem already or whether from outside sources like the sun.

Processes for extracting this energy or transferring it to another medium (like solar panels making energy from the sun into heat and/or electricity), are never 100% efficient. It took more energy to make coal (for instance) than we extract from it, but because coal was created for us from free sources like the sun and gravitational pressure over time it doesn't show up as a negative in our energy budget.

As much as you want to believe that natural resources are not being consumed faster than they are being created, it's not true. It's nothing to do with having enough imagination. Wake up f**ktard.