Yeah it does look flattish over last 15 years. I hope this isn't like the 1940-1980 plateau, which was followed by a 0.5 deg rise over about 20 years.
[image: Inline images 1] On 15 March 2014 10:35, John Clark <[email protected]> wrote: > On Thu, Mar 13, 2014 at 4:19 PM, Jesse Mazer <[email protected]> wrote: > >> >>>> >>> So, like a creationist >>>> >>> >>> >> You need a new insult, you've used that one before. >>> >> >> > It's not an insult >> > > Of course not, I'm sure that being insulting was the furthest thing from > your mind. > > > This focus on "occasional anomalies" while ignoring all the successes is >> certainly characteristic of your own style of argument > > > If we didn't "focus on occasional anomalies" the old theories would be > good enough and we'd never learn anything new. Another such oddity is why > "OVER the past 15 years air temperatures at the Earth's surface have been > flat while greenhouse-gas emissions have continued to soar. > > > http://www.economist.com/news/science-and-technology/21574461-climate-may-be-heating-up-less-response-greenhouse-gas-emissions > > > it's an observation of how various specific modes of argument you use >> are analogous to those of creationists. I have noticed that all people who >> confidently argue for fringe positions on scientific issues >> > > What fringe position on a scientific issue have I taken? All I've said it > that it's clear that things have been getting warmer and it's not clear how > much warmer they will get in the future and it's even less clear what if > anything we should do about it. I actually think that's pretty damn > non-controversial. > > >> >> "The Sierra Club advocates the decommissioning of Glen Canyon Dam and >> the draining of Lake Powell. The Club also supports removal, breaching or >> decommissioning of many other dams, including four large but high-cost dams >> on the lower Snake River in eastern Washington." >> > >> > Urging some specific dams to be removed is not the same as your strawman >> > > Man oh man, I can see that you REALLY like that word. > > > "Stop all dam construction and dismantle the ones already built." And >> again, this has nothing specifically to do with global warming. > > > Untrue, hydro electric energy like nuclear energy produces no greenhouse > gasses that you seem to think is so very important. > > > "The Sierra Club opposes a ballot measure to add fluoride to Portland >>> Oregon's drinking water." >>> >> >> > That doesn't seem relevant to supporting ANY of your list items, and >> again has nothing to do with global warming >> > > I know, but I couldn't resist showing how crazy environmental > organizations have become. Back in the 1950s and 60s it was wacky right > wing groups that opposed fluoridation because of it being a evil communist > plot, Stanley Kubrick brilliantly satirized it in his movie "Dr. > Strangelove" when a looney Air force General starts world war 3 to stop > fluoridation and the pollution of our precious bodily fluids. Today crazy > left wing groups are taking over from crazy right wing groups. > > >> And of the 11 imbecilic proposals I list above which ones would the >>> European Green Party oppose? >>> >> >> > I don't follow European politics too closely, but the strawman is that >> > > I know that "strawman" is your favorite word but the Green Party is > mainstream and the most powerful environmental organization in Europe, and > the Greens are imbeciles > > > we aren't talking about the human "effect on the environment" in >> general, we're talking about whether human activity is the main cause of >> the recent pronounced warming trend since 1950 or so. >> > > It's entirely possible. So what? > > > If you don't dispute that SPECIFIC claim, then you should agree that if >> we continue with CO2 emissions at about the same level over the next >> century, then it seems likely that global temperature will continue to rise >> > > What makes you think it is linear? And suppose it does continue to rise, > is that bad? And if it is bad should we do something about it now or wait > until we find a solution that doesn't cause more problems than it solves? > You seem to think that doing something right now is the safe conservative > approach but it's not because any dramatic reduction in fossil fuel without > big increases in nuclear power will kill millions of people and impoverish > billions. And those same climate models that you love so much say that > anything short of a immediate and draconian reduction of greenhouse gases > will have a negligible effect on the climate a century from now. > > >> I would be surprised if the greenhouse effect did not play a part >>>> but exactly how and which greenhouse gas was most important I don't know. >>>> However I do know that no explanation is better than a bad explanation. >>>> >>> >>> > Do you have any actual evidence that the explanations of climate >>> scientists for prehistoric temperature variations are "bad"? >>> >> > It's not my responsibility to provide evidence that climate models are > bad, it's climate scientists responsibility to provide evidence that > they're good, good enough for me to stake my life on. > > > you've shown a non-joking faulty understanding of physics plenty of >> times in the past (like your ideas about entropy being proportional to the >> number of ways a state could be generated, >> > > Bullshit. BULLSHIT! I said entropy is proportional to the LOGARITHM of the > number of states because Boltzmann's entropy formula is S= kLnW where W > is the number of microstate in a given macrostate and and Ln is the > logarithm function and k is a constant of proportionality. That's why > Wikipedia says " in short, the Boltzmann formula shows the relationship > between entropy and the number of ways the atoms or molecules of a > thermodynamic system can be arranged". > > >or your idea that spacetime curvature is judged differently by >> different observers >> > > Show me where I said that! Come on I dare you, show me! I'll tell you > what I did say on February 21: > > "All observers will agree that spacetime inside the elevator is curved but > they might not know if the curvature was cause by rockets or a > gravitational field". > > And > > "all observers in any frame will agree on the measured speed of light and > the distance between two events in spacetime". > > And > > "Acceleration is absolute in that there is no need to look outside your > reference frame to detect it, but according to General Relativity there is > no way to tell the difference between it and being in a gravitational > field." > > > And > > "if you were inside that sealed elevator you couldn't tell if the > curvature was caused by rockets accelerating the elevator in deep space or > if it was caused by the Earth's gravity. Acceleration is absolute in that > there is no need to look outside your reference frame to detect it, but > according to General Relativity there is no way to tell the difference > between it and being in a gravitational field." > > And I said any observer can tell if spacetime is curved by measuring the > angles of a triangle: > > "Add up the 3 measurements. If the sum comes out to be exactly 180 then > you know that the spacetime within your sealed elevator is flat. If the sum > comes out as any number other than 180 then you know that the spacetime > within your sealed elevator is not flat; but unless you take into > consideration tidal effects (which will always occur in a gravitational > field if the elevator is not infinitesimally small) you will not know if > the spacetime curvature was caused by gravity or by a rocket. " > > > you're unwilling to accurately depict the beliefs of those you disagree >> with >> > > And we're all so very fortunate that you wouldn't dream of doing anything > like that. > > > Are you objecting to the claims of astrophysicists about how energy from >> type G stars like our Sun varies with time >> > > Obviously not. > > > or the claims of paleoclimatologists about the evidence supporting their >> estimates of the concentrations of various gases back then? >> > > I'm not objecting to that either. I am objecting to the idea that if we > know what the solar input and the air composition and what the climate was > 450 million years ago then we can confidently predict what the climate will > be with a diferent solar input and different atmospheric chemistry. > > >>> and the different prehistoric arrangement of continents. >>> >> > >> Why would the effects be linear or simple? >>> >> >> > I don't know that it's actually true that geologists take the movement >> of the continents to be "linear",but since they claim to have a good idea >> of the overall continental arrangement in the Ordovician, I assume they >> probably know what they're talking about. >> > > Airflow over continents, particularly mountainous ones, is about as far > from linear as you can get. > > >>>> Are really you so confident they did it correctly that you are >>>>> quite literally willing to stake your life on it? You'd better be because >>>>> that's what you're asking us to do. >>>>> >>>> >>>> >>> Are you really so confident that evolutionists do the science >>>> correctly that you are willing to stake your eternal soul on it?" >>>> >>> >>> >> Yes. I answered your question so now answer mine. >>> >> >> > Do you believe you actually have an eternal soul, >> > > No. I answered your question so now answer mine. > > > and that your decisions in life determine whether it'll go to heaven or >> he >> >> No. I answered your question so now answer mine. >> > > >> > I can't just answer "yes" or "no" >> > > I know because giving a straight answer will make you look foolish. > > > the answer is "no", then you should have said something like "I disagree >> with the basic premises of the question" > > > But I don't disagree because the question was well formed so I was was > able to give a clear answer without embarrassment or looking foolish. I > answered your question so now answer mine. > > > > Can you point to some mainstream climate scientists who think a rise of >> 3 or 4 degrees has a significant chance of being a "good thing"? >> > > http://www.stanford.edu/~moore/Boon_To_Man.html > > Also, scientists don't get much better that Freeman Dyson and this is what > he had to say on the subject: > > "I believe global warming is grossly exaggerated as a problem. *It's a > real problem, but it's nothing like as serious as people are led to > believe.* The idea that global warming is the most important problem > facing the world is total nonsense and is doing a lot of harm. It distracts > people's attention from much more serious problems. Here I am opposing the > holy brotherhood of climate model experts and the crowd of deluded citizens > who believe the numbers predicted by the computer models. Of course, they > say, I have no degree in meteorology and I am therefore not qualified to > speak. But I have studied the climate models and I know what they can do. > The models solve the equations of fluid dynamics, and they do a very good > job of describing the fluid motions of the atmosphere and the oceans. They > do a very poor job of describing the clouds, the dust, the chemistry and > the biology of fields and farms and forests. They do not begin to describe > the real world that we live in. *The real world is muddy and messy and > full of things that we do not yet understand.* It is much easier for a > scientist to sit in an air-conditioned building and run computer models, > than to put on winter clothes and measure what is really happening outside > in the swamps and the clouds. That is why the climate model experts end up > believing their own models". > > John K Clark > > > > > > > > -- > 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. > -- 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.
