@BrianK

Quote:

You wish I'd mix them up.

I above all wish you'd understand the difference. Sadly not the case FTM.

Quote:

Darwin's Theory makes frequently more accurate predictions because the experiments back this theory more often and more exactly than Lamarck's.

Notice that you call (and one usually will always calls) it still a theory for the good reason that some real world observations do not still fit with the theory. And that is why experiments are useful: they helps to verify and/or refine the correctness of the theory or rebut it: since 40 years of experiments, Darwin's theory has evolved from its original 'orthodox synthesis' to the current 'Evo-Devo super-synthesis'. Evidently no such real world experiments have been ever carried out for computer models, that then appear as an unsupported set of theories/conjectures with no mean of falsification, and thus fall outside the Science paradigm until experimented. Overall the AGW climatic model approach has failed on the entire scientific method:
1/ observe and identify patterns: AGW relies on a 1 restricted subset of one adjusted variable: sub-method failed ;
2/ construct an hypothesis: as 1/ is already failed, AGW had to claim "correlation is causation" to explain its rickety proposition: sub-method failed ;
3/ make predictions: the ones verifiable have miserably failed ; the other are unverifiable: sub-method failed ;
4/ test by experiments: not scientifically possible with computer model: sub-method failed.

Quote:

So if we don't know the underlying process, as you claim, how can you possibly support 'it's all natural'?

Easy, I do not. Haven't you notice I wrote many time that land usage change is a recognized real human influence?

Quote:

this doesn't mean the net change of the whole isn't predictable.

Describe analytically how from a unpredictable spatio-temporal grid cell, you obtain a more predictable whole (the globe) in a century. See below why you (will) fail.

Quote:

Changing a chaotic system has an impact to that system. These are predictable.

I agree that attractors are rather stable: one can predict (past observation based) that, in average, future summers will be hot as well as one can predict (experimentation based) that boiling water will exhibit a phase change at 100°C. Now try to start from a peculiar part of water, like climatic models do by starting from a grid cell, to predict at what time and temperature that part of water will start evaporating (in the model: the temperature or whatever variable will reach a certain point). Result is there is no result: it can not be predicted that way because the uncertainty of the variable increases as time passes (that is to say repeating the model run give each time different value). If you consider the pot or the globe, it is worst because the uncertainty associated with cells propagate and increase to the whole grid leading to such level of uncertainty that a calculated mean has no more meaning. Because trajectories of many variables at the cell level (microscopic) are unpredictable (non-linear in space and time), the resulting values of those variables in 2050 or 2100 are also unpredictable. Until someone resolve fully the non-linear equations by innovative Maths, the unpredictability of the microscopic level (even if statistical values as temperature at the macroscopic level can be measured) will stay a given scientists and other will have to live with. As a conclusion to rebut a previous childish comment by someone else:
1/ as non-linear systems are unpredictable even by modelling ;
2/ as computer models are not experiments ;
3/ as no proper scientific experiments can be build to test and verify them fully ;
the only useful path to get information and explanations is to look at the past.

Quote:

It's a statement that your hypothesis is one accepted by few climatologists and frequently not even by the scientists whose work you've cited as your backing.

Note that:
1/ I have no a priori hypothesis, I please myself to observe and compare to what is proposed by others and I am ultimately convinced by only one kind of argument: scientific evidence. All the rest is fallacious distortion ;
2/ I quote(d) data, sources and scientists' names per your own (or other) request: you can not now blame me for doing so by taking the fallacious way of the appeal of authority non-argument (refer to 1/).
I thus stand on what I wrote: a scientist name is no more an argument that Jesus talking it to you.

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".

@olegil

Quote:

Given that temperatures should increase during a maximum and the temperature has failed to normalize during the minimum, it's expected that we'll get even higher temperatures during the next maximum.

This superficial logic is as misleading and incorrect as the 'heat in the pipeline' by Hansen and Co: there is no hidden heat in the system because all heat is permanently realized if it exists.

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".

@BrianK

Quote:

The 'world faces record-breaking temperatures'. 2008 appears to have been the 10th warmest year recorded by instruments, since 1850.

Using biased data is unscientific: check Unresolved issues with the assessment of multi-decadal global land surface temperature trends (Pielke Sr., 2007), PDF or the new An alternative explanation for differential temperature trends at the surface and in the lower troposphere (Klotzbach et al., 2009), PDF that reads: Quote:

Our new paper Klotzbach et al. (2009) provides evidence of the significant error in the global surface temperature trend analyses of NCDC, and well of other centers such as GISS and CRU [conservatively estimated as of 0.21 °C on land or about 30% of the IPCC estimate of GW], due to the sampling of temperatures at just one level near the surface. It is also important to recognize that this is just one error of a number that are in the NCDC, GISS and CRU data sets.

So why not using the reliable satellite data?

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".

@BrianK

A new paper entitled "Ocean heat content and Earth's radiation imbalance" and available here. The abstract interestingly reads: Quote:

Earth's radiation imbalance is determined from ocean heat content data and compared with results of direct measurements. Distinct time intervals of alternating positive and negative values are found: 1960–mid-1970s (−0.15), mid-1970s–2000 (+0.15), 2001–present (−0.2 W/m2), and are consistent with prior reports. These climate shifts limit climate predictability.

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:

I above all wish you'd understand the difference.

Not much to say here. Repeating your lie doesn't make it true.

Quote:

/ as non-linear systems are unpredictable even by modelling

True that a perfect prediction will never exist. False is the claim that we can never predict that the direction of change.

Quote:

I quote(d) data, sources and scientists' names per your own (or other) request

Yeah it's all our fault, if we were in BizzaroWorld.

Quote:

Easy, I do not.

We know nothing. All Climatologists are useless as is any scientific endeavors. But, on the other hand we should trust what we're doing will never harm anything. Do you often let blind men drive your car?

Last edited by BrianK on 16-Aug-2009 at 02:55 PM.

@BrianK

An important paper from early this year by Robert H. Essenhigh "Potential dependence of global warming on the residence time (RT) in the atmosphere of anthropogenically sourced carbon dioxide". The abstract is: Quote:

The driver for this study is the wide-ranging published values of the CO² atmospheric residence time (RT), τ, with the values differing by more than an order of magnitude, where the significance of the difference relates to decisions on whether (1) to attempt control of combustion-sourced (anthropogenic) CO² emissions, if τ > 100 years, or (2) not to attempt control, if τ 10 years. This given difference is particularly evident in the IPCC First 1990 Climate Change Report where, in the opening policymakers summary of the report, the RT is stated to be in the range of 50−200 years, and (largely) on the basis of that, it was also concluded in the report and from subsequent related studies that the current rising level of CO² was due to combustion of fossil fuels, thus carrying the, now widely accepted, rider that CO² emissions from combustion should therefore be curbed. However, the actual data in the text of the IPCC report separately states a value of 4 years. The differential of these two times is then clearly identified in the relevant supporting documents of the report as being, separately (1) a long-term (100 years) adjustment or response time to accommodate imbalance increases in CO² emissions from all sources and (2) the actual RT in the atmosphere of 4 years. As a check on that differentiation and its alternative outcome, the definition and determination of RT thus defined the need for and focus of this study. In this study, using the combustion/chemical-engineering perfectly stirred reactor (PSR) mixing structure or 0D box for the model basis, as an alternative to the more commonly used global circulation models (GCMs), to define and determine the RT in the atmosphere and then using data from the IPCC and other sources for model validation and numerical determination, the data (1) support the validity of the PSR model application in this context and, (2) from the analysis, provide (quasi-equilibrium) RTs for CO² of 5 years carrying C12 and 16 years carrying C14, with both values essentially in agreement with the IPCC short-term (4 year) value and, separately, in agreement with most other data sources, notably, a 1998 listing by Segalstad of 36 other published values, also in the range of 5−15 years. Additionally, the analytical results also then support the IPCC analysis and data on the longer “adjustment time” (100 years) governing the long-term rising “quasi-equilibrium” concentration of CO² in the atmosphere. For principal verification of the adopted PSR model, the data source used was the outcome of the injection of excess 14CO² into the atmosphere during the A-bomb tests in the 1950s/1960s, which generated an initial increase of approximately 1000% above the normal value and which then declined substantially exponentially with time, with τ = 16 years, in accordance with the (unsteady-state) prediction from and jointly providing validation for the PSR analysis. With the short (5−15 year) RT results shown to be in quasi-equilibrium, this then supports the (independently based) conclusion that the long-term (100 year) rising atmospheric CO² concentration is not from anthropogenic sources but, in accordance with conclusions from other studies, is most likely the outcome of the rising atmospheric temperature, which is due to other natural factors. This further supports the conclusion that global warming is not anthropogenically driven as an outcome of combustion. The economic and political significance of that conclusion will be self-evident.

A critic of the paper and the one of Solomon et al. 2009 by Pr Segalstad is offered in Correct Timing is Everything - Also for CO² in the Air.

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".

@BrianK

Quote:

Not much to say here. Repeating your lie doesn't make it true.

A claim that does not make your understanding more apparent either.

Quote:

False is the claim that we can never predict that the direction of change.

Climatic models are not accepted by IPCC because they give direction of change but because their ability to give responses IPCC wants.

The rest of your post reflects your lack of argument at this point.

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:

The rest of your post reflects your lack of argument at this point.

Lack?

You continue to post authors (Pielke for example) and accuse others at AmigaWorld as asking for them and not your fault. BS. Clearly no one asked you to post that. You need to own your actions. Only you can make you do anything, not anyone else.

Turns out the authors you post (Pielke for example) don't actually back your view of the issue. They post more #s which simply don't matter because it's all chaos and even with more numbers, assuming they are right, we won't get to the answer. Disengenious evidence for your view, to say the least.

Lack? Unwillingness is more fitting.

Last edited by BrianK on 16-Aug-2009 at 09:28 PM.
Last edited by BrianK on 16-Aug-2009 at 09:27 PM.

@TMTisFree


Quote:

TMTisFree wrote: @olegil Quote: Given that temperatures should increase during a maximum and the temperature has failed to normalize during the minimum, it's expected that we'll get even higher temperatures during the next maximum. This superficial logic is as misleading and incorrect as the 'heat in the pipeline' by Hansen and Co: there is no hidden heat in the system because all heat is permanently realized if it exists. Bye, TMTisFree

Huh? Are you suddenly saying that the sun is not contributing extra heat to the earth?
I'm talking about the earths temperature rising when more heat from the sun hits us. Seriously, you cannot disagree with THAT?

_________________
This weeks pet peeve:
Using "voltage" instead of "potential", which leads to inventing new words like "amperage" instead of "current" (I, measured in A) or possible "charge" (amperehours, Ah or Coulomb, C). Sometimes I don't even know what people mean.

@TMTisFree

Quote:

TMTisFree wrote: @Dandy Quote: Even my 9 year old grandson today knows that CO² is the only component of the atmosphere mankind can easily influence. So young and already corrupted by MSM: what about methane, water, land usage changes or ground, atmosphere and water *real* pollutions, etc?

No idea what you mean with "MSM" - but care to explain since when "water" and "land usage changes or ground" are components of the atmmosphere?


Quote:

TMTisFree wrote: My 12 year old son already knows that natural variability is so high but repetitive (what he calls weather) that he intuitively also says that the long term weather (what is called climate) will not be that different of the one of today or yesterday.

What now?
"High repetitive natural variability" including those periods with average annual temperatures being 10-15 °C above todays level (leading to the extinction of 90% of the lifeforms of that time) or "long term weather (what is called climate) not that different of the one of today or yesterday"?

He certainly can't have it both ways. But most likely he is still too young to know this...

Quote:

TMTisFree wrote: And he is right because essentially one will not care much about the climate in 50 or 100 years: one will care about the weather in 50 or 100 years.

If I should still be alive I would care for the temperatures I have to bear...

Quote:

TMTisFree wrote: He also keeps repeating technology is powerful and uses it accordingly...

Yeah - we saw it in Tschernobyl how powerful technology is and how it should be used...

Quote:

TMTisFree wrote: Quote: We can stop burning fossile fuels to reduce the emission of CO², while its rather unlikely that living beings will stop farting to reduce the emission of the greenhouse gas methane. Indian lead head of IPCC and some other green organizations have suggested to stop to eating meat to reduce methane spitting from cows

And how about the methane from pigs, poultry and the rest?

Quote:

TMTisFree wrote: ...a good way to also kill future children (no more milk).

Having no milk from cows would kill future children?
That's nonsense!
But their mothers having no breast milk would, if there's no substitute.

Quote:

TMTisFree wrote: Quote: Repeatedly imputing other reasons than this for mainly talking about CO² simply is not appropriate and only demeonstrates political intentions Repeatedly implicating CO² while the only 'proof' is some tuned models' output only demonstrates a deliberate deviation from Science.

That's exactly what I mean:
I'm talking about CO² being the only component of the atmosphere whose amount mankind can influence - but instead of being responsive to that, you don't have anything better to do than putting your obviously flawed political agenda forward...

_________________
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: @NoelFuller The nazis tried extermination,

Since when has it been the objective of the Nazi's to control the number of world population?
Their goal was to keep the Aryan race pure by exterminating anything else.

Quote:

TMTisFree wrote: ... The world massacre begun publicly half a century ago and continue nowadays covered by the masqueraded UN cowards.

Sounds as if you have a serious problem...

Quote:

TMTisFree wrote: Quote: Population growth is an effect of causes we can address and must, but there is good reason the issue cannot be addressed directly. This is the usual falsehood, nonsensical speech and outright delusion by ecologists to keep their 'scary businesses' alive the longer they could to justify their existence and their ideology, depicted above.

Can't you play a different record? I'm tired of this one.
Yawn...

Quote:

TMTisFree wrote: Of course they know it can be addressed directly. Better they know it can be addressed easily because there are existing examples of how to proceed: give or help to get the poorer of this world the technology to reach our level

[sarcasm on]

Precisely - razor blades as toys for all the babies! That's how overpopulation should be reduced...

[/sarcasm off]

Quote:

TMTisFree wrote: To reach this goal, what the poorer vitally need is using very cheap energy like coal:

Ever heard of (pseudo-)croup caused by smog?

The great London smog of December 1952:

Quote:

Mayor of London wrote: ... The cause was a mixture of industrial pollution and domestic coal burning. ... the great smog of December 1952 This account of the London fog, or smog, of December 1952 is based on several assessments prepared in the aftermath including a report prepared by a Ministry of Health committee of officials and experts. ... The Ministry of Health's committee later estimated that between 3,500 and 4,000 more people had died than would have been expected under normal conditions. The deadly smog was notable both for its density and its duration. ... A number of stories on the smog appeared in the newspapers, with The Times covering the high economic cost of the smog. ... The number of deaths attributable to the smog was similar to the numbers caused by the cholera epidemic of 1854 and the influenza epidemic of 1918. ... During the smog, both smoke and sulphur dioxide levels reached exceptional concentrations.

I see - "what the poorer vitally need is ... coal".
Do you wanna extinguish poorness by creating smog - or why do you propose all the poor people in this world should burn coal to overcome their poorness?


Quote:

TMTisFree wrote: it is easy to understand (through the CO² scare)

You mean "through the smoke and sulphur dioxide levels scare", don't you?

Quote:

TMTisFree wrote: why that need is in direct conflict with the green ideology

Yes - behaving like in the stone age is in conflict with most modern ideologies - of what colour ever...

Quote:

TMTisFree wrote: of the world elites and the horde of following zealots, finally supporting the first sentence of this §, and to the worst interest of the world's poorer, the first § of this post.

Did I tell you that this sounds like you have a serious problem?

Quote:

TMTisFree wrote: At the end, greens, like any dogmatic ideologists, have it completely backward. If you want to save the planet, save human first.

Yes - of course - this planets only chance to survive is mankind...



I'm wondering how this planet survived the billions of years before mankind entered the stage...


EDIT:

Fixed quoting...

Last edited by Dandy on 17-Aug-2009 at 09:22 AM.

_________________
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)

@olegil

Quote:

Are you suddenly saying that the sun is not contributing extra heat to the earth?

Of course no. Sun is the main driver and the rest is just conservative or dissipative system.

Quote:

I'm talking about the earths temperature rising when more heat from the sun hits us. Seriously, you cannot disagree with THAT?

Again no, but this was not that evident from your post. Thanks for clearing things.

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:

No idea what you mean with "MSM" - but care to explain since when "water" and "land usage changes or ground" are components of the atmmosphere?

MSM=Main Stream Media. Water is definitively a component of atmosphere. Anyway my point was that looking at atmosphere alone is reductive as atmosphere is at the interface of and is interacting with oceans and ground. So changes in both influence atmosphere.

Quote:

He certainly can't have it both ways. But most likely he is still too young to know this...

I was thinking of the 'instantaneous' high repetitive natural variability: the weather. He is 2 classes ahead of his age at this time, doing 2 courses in 1 this year (like previous year)...

Quote:

If I should still be alive I would care for the temperatures I have to bear...

I wish you will because temperatures will be no more different of that of today. If you are able to bear with 10-15 °C day-to-day variations that is.

Quote:

Yeah - we saw it in Tschernobyl how powerful technology is and how it should be used...

Yes it is a powerful technology that provides here majority of the energy since many decades (cheap and reliable). What was seen with Tchernobyl is the result of an under state control mismanagement when the market could have done the business properly. A good example why an ideologically driven system will never achieve anything good (loss of responsibility and lack of motivation).

Quote:

And how about the methane from pigs, poultry and the rest?

Ask the eco-fascists.

Quote:

Having no milk from cows would kill future children?

And after weaning, by what you substitute milk from cows? Water? Ask the eco-fascists then.

Quote:

you don't have anything better to do than putting your obviously flawed political agenda forward...

I replied: Quote:

Repeatedly implicating CO² while the only 'proof' is some tuned models' output only demonstrates a deliberate deviation from Science.

Please tell me where you see a political agenda in there.

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:

Since when has it been the objective of the Nazi's to control the number of world population? Their goal was to keep the Aryan race pure by exterminating anything else.

I don't quite feel the difference: eco-fascists' will is to exterminate the entire human specie.

Quote:

Quote: The world massacre begun publicly half a century ago and continue nowadays covered by the masqueraded UN cowards. Sounds as if you have a serious problem...

A sloppy comment. I don't but thanks for inquiring. Let check a little in the history...

UN 1989: Quote:

"[E]ntire nations could be wiped off the face of the earth by rising sea levels if global warming is not reversed by the year 2000. Coastal flooding and crop failures would create an exodus of "eco-refugees," threatening political chaos", said Brown, director of the New York office of the U.N. . He said "governments have a 10-year window of opportunity to solve the greenhouse effect."

- Noel Brown UN Environment Program, San Jose Mercury News (CA) - June 30, 1989.

20 years later UN 2009: Quote:

The world has less than 10 years to halt the global rise in greenhouse gas emissions if we are to avoid catastrophic consequences for people and the planet.

- Ban Ki-moon, UN Secretary General

or UN 2009: Quote:

If we fail to act, climate change will intensify droughts, floods and other natural disasters. Water shortages will affect hundreds of millions of people. Malnutrition will engulf large parts of the developing world. Tensions will worsen. Social unrest – even violence – could follow. The damage to national economies will be enormous. The human suffering will be incalculable. [...] We have just four months. Four months to secure the future of our planet.

- Ban Ki-moon, UN Secretary General

Sound similarly scary and wrong to me:


Quote:

Can't you play a different record? I'm tired of this one.

I understand. It is more politically correct to say, as by Pr Woudhuysen: Quote:

"Environmentalists are cagey about techno-fixes to climate change because berating mankind for its impact on nature is their raison d'être."

- J. Woudhuysen, Pr of forecasting and innovation, De Montfort University

Quote:

Precisely - razor blades as toys for all the babies! That's how overpopulation should be reduced...

A picture will perhaps help:


Quote:

Do you wanna extinguish poorness by creating smog - or why do you propose all the poor people in this world should burn coal to overcome their poorness?

If you have not noticed, we are no more in 1954 and by large: technologies have improved (I previously mentioned in some previous posts 2 papers showing that, over Europe, the late century slight warming has been mainly attributed to better air quality) and I don't see any reason (apart from ideologists and dogmatists) why current available, safe, cheap and reliable technologies could not be used by poorer. Even if one considers technologies have not evolved, are you ready to support that thousandth deaths by smog is worst that millionth deaths per year or that perfection is always better than improvement? For my part, I am on the realist side.

Quote:

You mean "through the smoke and sulphur dioxide levels scare", don't you?

I mean through the CO² scare.

Quote:

Did I tell you that this sounds like you have a serious problem?

Have you short term memory troubles?

Edit: a typo

Bye,
TMTisFree

Last edited by TMTisFree on 17-Aug-2009 at 05:45 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".

@TMTisFree

Quote:

So why not using the reliable satellite data?

Leading question with a false assumption. Satellite data is indeed used.

"Research had shown that human-induced warming of the planet has a pronounced effect on the atmosphere's total moisture content. In that study, the researchers had used 22 different computer models to identify a human “fingerprint” pattern in satellite measurements of water vapor changes. " 70 models tested and all show human-induced effects of warming

@TMTisFree

Quote:

TMTisFree wrote: @Dandy Quote: No idea what you mean with "MSM" - but care to explain since when "water" and "land usage changes or ground" are components of the atmmosphere? MSM=Main Stream Media.

Thanks for explaining...

Quote:

TMTisFree wrote: Water is definitively a component of atmosphere.

I think you confuse this with "vapour" - if the atmosphere is saturated with vapour, it condenses to water, forming tiny water drops that become bigger and bigger by colliding, until they fall towards ground in the form of raindrops, hail, snow etc.

Vapour is gaseous - water is liquid - ice is solid.
If it is called water, it is liquid.
Same element chemical compound, but different condition of aggregation.
Water gets rejected by the atmosphere - and so cannot be a component of it.

Except perhaps if you define "atmosphere" to include the ocean...

Quote:

TMTisFree wrote: Anyway my point was that looking at atmosphere alone is reductive as atmosphere is at the interface of and is interacting with oceans and ground. So changes in both influence atmosphere.

May I remind you that we're still discussing the component-of-the-atmosphere part of my sentence "Even my 9 year old grandson today knows that CO² is the only component of the atmosphere mankind can easily influence."? No interacting involved here.

But good to see that we agree that oceans are not included in the atmosphere by definition.

Quote:

TMTisFree wrote: Quote: He certainly can't have it both ways. But most likely he is still too young to know this... I was thinking of the 'instantaneous' high repetitive natural variability: the weather. ... I wish you will because temperatures will be no more different of that of today. If you are able to bear with 10-15 °C day-to-day variations that is.

Obviously you didn't read my posting carefully enough - else it certainly wouldn't have escaped your attention, that I wrote: "...with average annual temperatures being 10-15 °C above todays level (leading to the extinction of 90% of the lifeforms of that time)...".

In case you don't know what I mean with that:
Today we have an average annual temperatures X and we've already reached and exceeded 40 °C (measured in the shadow) here in this region.
I was talking about a climate with average annual temperatures X plus 10-15 °C, where we easily might reach a maximum of 60+ °C here in this region.
I'm not "built" for such temperatures - that's for sure!
Are you?

Quote:

TMTisFree wrote: Quote: Yeah - we saw it in Tschernobyl how powerful technology is and how it should be used... Yes it is a powerful technology that provides here majority of the energy since many decades (cheap and reliable). What was seen with Tchernobyl is the result of an under state control mismanagement when the market could have done the business properly. ...

In case you want to imply by this nuclear power is safe in France, I'd like to remind you of the accidents in La Hague/1981, Le Blayais/December 1999, Dampierre/2007, Paluel and La Hague/February 2008, Cruas 4/May 2008, Eurodif and Tricastin/July 2008 and Gravelines 5/October 2008 and the rumors about the covering-up of further incidents in France this year...


Quote:

TMTisFree wrote: A good example why an ideologically driven system will never achieve anything good (loss of responsibility and lack of motivation). Quote: And how about the methane from pigs, poultry and the rest? Ask the eco-fascists.

I can't - due to lack of contacts.
But you seem to know some, as you refer to them so frequently...

Quote:

TMTisFree wrote: Quote: Having no milk from cows would kill future children? And after weaning, by what you substitute milk from cows?

Yak milk?
Goat milk?
Ewe's milk?
Mice milk?

Quote:

TMTisFree wrote: Water?

No - water and mud cakes are for the eco-fascistic GW deniers. What do I say - water - they deserve superglue...

Quote:

TMTisFree wrote: I replied: Quote: Repeatedly implicating CO² while the only 'proof' is some tuned models' output only demonstrates a deliberate deviation from Science. Please tell me where you see a political agenda in there. Bye, TMTisFree

"...a deliberate deviation from Science"

Last edited by Dandy on 17-Aug-2009 at 07:55 PM.

_________________
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 Quote: Since when has it been the objective of the Nazi's to control the number of world population? Their goal was to keep the Aryan race pure by exterminating anything else. I don't quite feel the difference: eco-fascists' will is to exterminate the entire human specie.

While the Nazi's never intended to exterminate the entire human specie, you seem to be very well informed about "eco-fascists" and their goals - tell us more...

Quote:

TMTisFree wrote: ... Let check a little in the history... UN 1989: ... 20 years later UN 2009: ... or UN 2009: ... Sound similarly scary and wrong to me: ...

Yes - and what is that meant to tell me?

Quote:

TMTisFree wrote: Quote: Can't you play a different record? I'm tired of this one. I understand.

Hopefully...

Quote:

TMTisFree wrote: It is more politically correct to say, as by Pr Woudhuysen: Quote: "Environmentalists are cagey about techno-fixes to climate change because berating mankind for its impact on nature is their raison d'être." - J. Woudhuysen, Pr of forecasting and innovation, De Montfort University

Why?
Because some unknown polluter lobbyist claims so?

Quote:

TMTisFree wrote: ... Quote: Do you wanna extinguish poorness by creating smog - or why do you propose all the poor people in this world should burn coal to overcome their poorness? ...why current available, safe, cheap and reliable technologies could not be used by poorer.

Modern coal powerstations are cheap technology that can be used by the poor?
Are you serious?

Quote:

TMTisFree wrote: Even if one considers technologies have not evolved, are you ready to support that thousandth deaths by smog is worst that millionth deaths per year

Caused by what?

Quote:

TMTisFree wrote: or that perfection is always better than improvement?

Depends...

Quote:

TMTisFree wrote: For my part, I am on the realist side. ...

Yeah, I know - abolishment of poorness by burning coal - very realistic...


Quote:

TMTisFree wrote: Quote: Did I tell you that this sounds like you have a serious problem? Have you short term memory troubles?

Don't worry - it was just an rhetorical question...

_________________
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:

Leading question with a false assumption. Satellite data is indeed used.

Satellite data are used for SST only, not ground. Anyway, I was referring to your claim "The 'world faces record-breaking temperatures'. 2008 appears to have been the 10th warmest year recorded by instruments, since 1850" coming from GISS. Why using only since 1850 when 2000 years are available with sufficient certainty?

Sorry, I forgot you don't like Loehle.
So what about using the adjusted and biased GISS temperatures values (not anomalies)?

Indeed, the trend is catastrophically alarming...

Quote:

Research had shown that human...

Funny. At least models are confirming themselves JIT for Copenhagen (in only 4 months). I especially like: Quote:

"The most plausible explanation is that it's due to human-caused increases in greenhouse gases."

which can be translated as "We have no proof of anything but we can not think of anything else than anthropogenic GHG".

Some reading for you (though it would be more useful to these wizardry modellers): Quote:

“[S]ince the climate system is complex, occasionally chaotic, dominated by abrupt changes and driven by competing feedbacks with largely unknown thresholds, climate prediction is difficult, if not impracticable.”

- Rial et al. 2004, available here.
Sorry again, you don't like Pielke either...

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:

I think you confuse this with "vapour"

It is the second attempt at explaining you that (a molecule of) water, no matter its phase (solid, liquid, gas), will always be (a molecule of) water. Even if you are too obtuse to understand this 7 year old knowledge, you have probably heard the word 'rain' (liquid water in atmosphere) before today, haven't you?

Quote:

Are you?

I perfectly read and understood your sentence. My reply was just anticipating your fear of a future 10-15 °C above average temperature when you currently are able to bear with a 10-15 °C or more day-to-day variation. Anyway even the more pessimistic unreliable projection by IPCC is under your numbers. Anyway, air conditioners have been manufactured years ago, so why bother.

Quote:

In case you want to imply by this nuclear power is safe in France

Thanks for a reminder there is no perfect solution in this world, but my § still stands.

Quote:

Mice milk?

Begin rearing now or shortage is assured.

Quote:

"...a deliberate deviation from Science"

is my personal opinion (as a former scientist) based on a extended reviewing and understanding of the scientific literature about the CO², climate and CGMs. Definitively not a political agenda.

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:

While the Nazi's never intended to exterminate the entire human specie, you seem to be very well informed about "eco-fascists" and their goals - tell us more...

You have missed posts with some great quotes in the 1st thread. Some typical for example (from tenth) :

Quote:

"One America burdens the earth much more than twenty Bangladeshes. This is a terrible thing to say. In order to stabilize world population,we must eliminate 350,000 people per day. It is a horrible thing to say, but it's just as bad not to say it."

- Jacques Cousteau, UNESCO Courier

Quote:

"The extinction of the human species may not only be inevitable but a good thing."

- Christopher Manes, Earth First!

Quote:

Modern coal powerstations are cheap technology that can be used by the poor? Are you serious?

Why does China currently build a coal plant per week?

Quote:

Caused by what?

Do you have ever read a link I provided? Probably not.

Quote:

Depends...

Interestingly BrianK has had this very same argument (lack of in fact).

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".