The ethical question no climate denier will answer

Nope its just another modest warming phase similar to many others over recent millenia. Everything becomes unprecedented once you choose to ignore the precedents

http://www.leif.org/EOS/2011GL049444.pdf

 

It was warmer during the last interglacial and it ended. I don't expect nature to cater to humans and just reverse a cycle because of the mass hysteria of AGW.

 

Yes, I understand maybe 120,000 years ago or so the temperature was about 2 deg. C higher than now. And that goes to show that AGW isn't happening.

Could you give us some background on your education?

 

Who has to go back 120,000 years? I only need to go back 4,000 years.



But yes, during the last interglacial things were even warmer. Warm enough to have a greatly reduced icecap at the Antarctic, and no Polar Ice Cap at all. Oh, and tropical forests north of the Arctic Circle.

As for my education, a lot of it has been in geology. Which is why I take such a long-range look at such things. As you talk about hysteria at a change in 100 years, I look in millions of years. All the way back to when the planet was so warm there was no polar ice caps at all, North or South. And animals evolved specifically to deal with the 6 month light 6 month dark cycle. That did not happen overnight you know.

 

Pure math, project management, and computer science. Yours? So far the science has not proved that AGW is happening. Most of the funding has gone into computer models, which are solely relied upon for the current AGW scare. The thrust of the IPCC is to 'inform' policymakers, the people that are funding them. There are many scientists contributing the believe they don't go far enough and others that believe they go to far, in other words, there is no real consensus among scientists but it only exists between the IPCC authors that put together the report for governments.

The problem with computer models is GIGO, Garbage In Garbage Out. They can only predict the way they are programmed and if the programming has an error it cannot predict much of anything successfully which is why they have not predicted the 15 year hiatus in warming. An assumption of the CO2 sensitivity, leaving out certain cycles, and just a lack of complete understanding of a wicked problem contribute.

 

LOL, what about your education? No really save it..

I can't believe people still try that nonsense.. It's the internet man, people can claim to be anything they want to. they can even talk pseudo-science nonsense and call themselves Albert Einstein.

What if I said I was the pope? Would it matter here? Well I'm not the pope, just a lowly Data Dink contracted to sniff out things that don't fit in differing and often conflicting data.. Or am I? LOL

 

tropical forests north of the arctic circle? I call BS...according to this study of East Siberian Arctic during the last interglacial: implications from palaeobotanical records it was shrub land comparable to the conditions of today's Mongolia... http://permafrost.gi.alaska.edu/con...-arctic-during-last-interglacial-implications

that's an exaggeration at the extreme north pole it's almost 6 months but there's no land there, so no animals further south toward the circle there is more twilight than equatorial regionsn and at the southern end of the circle it's 50 days of darkness...and geologically speaking you need to be specific about time periods you're all over the place, millions(100,200,300?) of years or 4 thousand?...when you're talking about millions then continental drift comes into play continents were not where they are now and possibly not even in the arctic zone...

correct evolution doesn't happen overnight which is why this warming is of greater concern, it's not occurring over many thousands of years but mere hundred and now decades complex animals cannot evolve quickly enough to adapt to that rapid a change or move to new regions will become extinct...

 

The arctic circle is the point at which the sun doesn't rise or set on the solstices.

Its not all ice and water.

And you are assuming that animals are not evolved to be adaptive.

Which is ironic as you represent the pinnacle of adaptation. Well your species is at least.

 

The warming experienced to date is not statistically significant. The warming that the AGW crowd is parroting comes from computer models.

 

what does that have anything to do with what I posted in regards to mushrooms post is a mystery...

arctic summers lengthened by 21 days over the last 30 years, glaciers melting, catastrophic storm intensity increasing, seems to be significant to me...you have no concept of what significant is, a mere 3c colder and we're in a Ice age, so one or two degrees is very significant in the earth's climate ...

rrrright... computer models can can precisely predict a comet's trajectory that may be a decade away and intercept it with a science probe many millions of miles from earth...space probes can be launched to visit a number of planets, calculate the time and distance to each use then gravitational pull of each to slingshot it to the next planet and this can be done over a period of decades yet there is no way in your limited imagination this same technology can't make reasonable projections on climate?...the problem here is not computer models but your lack of science awareness...

 

Nope. A commet is flying through a vacuum. It us very easy to approximate its path. The earths chaotic climate however not so much.

Why on earth did you think that the climate is less complex than a commets path?

 

We are already in an ice age and have been for 2.5 million years. We are just in a periodic mild interglacial that will end at some point in time.

 

and now again direct avoidance of anything that was posted ...computer models are used with precision accuracy in space exploration but according to you they're suddenly useless/inaccurate and once again you refuse to defend your fabricated post offering no explanation as to why ...and if as you say temp change is statistically insignificant then there should be no change in seasons, that arctic summers are now 21 days longer than 30 yrs ago you come up with what for an explanation? once again nothing just another change of topics...

 

Orbital mechanics are quite well understood and is considered a simple problem. The dynamics of a wicked problem like the Climate are not. Garbage in, Garbage out.

 

correction basic science may be a wicked problem for you but for scientists not so much...You do not understand what principles contribute to climate change, climatologists, physicists and chemist do...CO2 is a GHG, a well known fact... the amount of CO2 past and present are known and the direct link to temp is known...the rate of accumulation of CO2 is known...raise the % of CO2 in a gas mixture and the properties of the mixture MUST change and temps must rise, it can do nothing else.. those aren't garbage those are facts...the only real unknowns are how high and how quickly which is why climate models are projections and not predictions...

 

Why so much faith?

Are these scientists or priests?

 

Here is where it gets wicked. The climate models have not predicted the hiatus in warming based on the simple approach using CO2. You need to ask yourself why.

 

The climate models you so revere get it wrong all the time because of this.

http://c3headlines.typepad.com/.a/6a010536b58035970c0120a5c9415b970b-pi

 

A slide rule works great for structural engineering, but not so much for number theory. The computer models of orbits use well established assumptions. The assumptions used for climate modeling are not only not well established, but wildly wrong.

 

Climatology is not basic science, as proved by its failure to predict the behavior of its subject.

Nope. Flat false. There is no evidence that they understand them better than I do, in fact the evidence is quite to the contrary: I predicted more than 10 years ago that the rapid increase in global temperature seen in the 1970-1998 period would be followed by a period of roughly 30 years during which temperatures would remain steady or even decline slightly. NO climate model that predicts rapid warming with increased CO2 predicted that hiatus in warming since 1998 before it started. NOT ONE. I DID predict it. That is empirical evidence that I understand the principles that contribute to climate change better than the model authors do, and better than those who trust the models do.

So? The question is, how SENSITIVE is global temperature to it? That is NOT known AT ALL.

Correct.

Baldly false.

Wrong again. It depends on how much other factors affect the system. That is why the relationship between CO2 and temperature -- i.e., climate sensitivity -- is unknown.

Refuted above.

LOL! Not predictions? I guess that's a kind of epistemological Get-Out-Of-Jail-Free card: as long as you don't "predict" anything, your predictions can't be wrong. But unfortunately, projections can be just as wrong as predictions. and wrong projections are just as fatal to a theory as wrong predictions.

 

Who denies there is such a thing as a climate?