On Wed, Mar 12, 2014 at 2:52 PM, <[email protected]> wrote: > Autism, schmatism. Let me address this situation in concise terms, and if > you want to discuss, we can discuss. >
But you refuse to discuss the Royal Academy/National Academy of Sciences paper, apparently (I take this as a sign that you probably recognize from my comments that you misread it, but don't have the intellectual integrity to admit when you've made an error). > Here goes- > 1. The models to date have not predicted successfully. > Well, yes they have, for example the first graph in the article at http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2013/02/2012-updates-to-model-observation-comparions/shows what the "CMIP3" dataset, which was based on collecting the predictions of a number of different climate models, predicted for 2000 on. The gray area shows the range in which 95% of the model simulations stayed within, and the black line is the average prediction of all the simulated runs, you can see that the actual climate as remained well within the gray area. Even simpler climate models going back as far as 1988 have proved pretty accurate, for example see the article at http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2007/05/hansens-1988-projections/about Hansen's 1988 temperature predictions using a number of different emissions scenarios--the first graph shows that actual emissions proved to be closest to the emissions scenario he labeled "scenario B", and the second graph shows that the actual observed temperature up to 2007 (when the article was written), shown in red and black, hewed pretty closely to his predicted temperature for "scenario B" in blue. As for the recent "pause" in the warming trend over the last 15 years, this article has good discussion: http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2013/12/the-global-temperature-jigsaw/ One thing they note is that the models themselves predict pauses on those timescales should happen occasionally, as shown in a graph of one simulated run of a CMIP3 model in Fig. 2. They also note that the "El Nino Southern Oscillation" (ENSO) seems to be a major factor in the pause, along with some other factors like the recent low in solar activity and increased volcanic activity, and Fig 3 shows the "data after adjusting for ENSO, volcanoes and solar activity by a multivariate correlation analysis"--apparently when they attempt to subtract these recent changes out using some statistical techniques, the adjusted temperature in red would actually have been fairly steadily rising over the past 15 years. And here's another relevant article which discusses the growing consensus on the causes of the pause, saying "A very consistent understanding is thus emerging of the coupled ocean and atmosphere dynamics that have caused the recent decadal-scale departure from the longer-term global warming trend": http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2014/02/going-with-the-wind/ I predict, however, that you will duck any detailed quantitative discussion of what the models predict since you only talk about science as an afterthought, you are mostly focused on gossipy political speculations about human motivations. > 2. We have not as of this day, a technology to replace the dirty with the > clean on energy. > Nuclear power could certainly do it (although obviously that comes with its own risks distinct from global warming), and there's more than enough solar energy hitting the US to supply energy needs. Here's an article discussing a hypothetical proposal to supply *all* the U.S.'s energy needs with solar, with a price tag of about a trillion dollars (pricey obviously, but no more so than the Iraq war which didn't bankrupt us and probably wasn't a major cause of the recession): http://web.chem.ucsb.edu/~feldwinn/greenworks/Readings/solar_grand_plan.pdf > 3. The elites of the world would be ordering thousands of dams/dikes all > over the world, in order to save their own asses-if your IPCC guys were > really true and, or, on time! > 4. The elites are not behaving in this way, but they are declaring a > disaster. If there's no disaster at hand, they are not building dams along > the coastlines of the world, then I grow suspicious. > 5. Apparently, many progressives/greens want to promote energy starvation, > even though they have no technology, except their Amory Lovins type > conservations crap from 25 years ago. > 6. Which leads me to believe that because its cherry-picked data from > scientists who would have no career if they didn't go along, it is the > ideology of the progressives and the elites-mostly 1 in the same. > This all falls under "gossipy political speculations about human motivations", I'm not interested in dragging this stuff into a conversation about natural science (but it certainly supports my speculation that you are much more comfortable with obsessing about why people do the things they do than you are with discussing anything more impersonal like science and math). Jesse -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Everything List" group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to [email protected]. To post to this group, send email to [email protected]. Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
