From Climategate warmist Kevin Trenberth:
Right. Climate science assures us that warm water sinks.
I guess the computer models missed that. Gotta add another epicycle.
Why do science apocalypses always keep "pausing"? The eugenic apocalypse has paused for 150 years. The population explosion has paused for 60 years. The pesticide holocaust has paused for 50 years. Global cooling has paused for 40 years. Global warming has paused for 17 years.
The difference between environmentalism and apocalyptic religious cults is becoming difficult to discern.
“Global warming is continuing but it’s being manifested in somewhat different ways,” said Kevin Trenberth, of the U.S. National Center for Atmospheric Research. Warming can go, for instance, to the air, water, land or to melting ice and snow.
Warmth is spreading to ever deeper ocean levels, he said, adding that pauses in surface warming could last 15-20 years.
Right. Climate science assures us that warm water sinks.
I guess the computer models missed that. Gotta add another epicycle.
Why do science apocalypses always keep "pausing"? The eugenic apocalypse has paused for 150 years. The population explosion has paused for 60 years. The pesticide holocaust has paused for 50 years. Global cooling has paused for 40 years. Global warming has paused for 17 years.
The difference between environmentalism and apocalyptic religious cults is becoming difficult to discern.
Where is the largest waterfall on Earth? It's not Iguazu Falls. Nor Victoria Falls. Nor Niagra Falls (before most of it was diverted for hydroelectricity generation). It's located south of Greenland at the end of the Gulf Stream. The prevailing westerlies pick up heat and moisture from it, warming Europe, and causing it to be saltier than the surrounding colder Atlantic. And the warmer, saltier and hence denser water sinks in a giant waterfall to flow southwards along the ocean bed.
ReplyDeleteWarmer water can sink if it's saltier than the surrounding water.
Anyway... the population explosion hasn't 'paused' for 60 years. The global population is still increasing, and it has increased from around 3 billion to the current 7 billion in around that period of time.
You do know the meaning of 'pause', don't you? Perhaps you don't, since you defined 'imaginary' as meaning the process by which images are formed in the mind, which may be either real or false.
backfield: "You do know the meaning of 'pause', don't you?"
DeleteSure! The apocalypse has been paused and everybody from Al Gore at the Greenback Express to the Rev. Ima Lune down at Bill and Ted's Excellent Bible Shack (est. 1968) are scratching their heads and wondering why.
Georgie,
DeleteYou can't read and understand, can you? Egnor didn't write that the population explosion apocalypse has paused for 60 years, he wrote that the population explosion has paused for 60 years. Which it hasn't - the global population has more than doubled in the 60 years.
If that's not a population explosion...
Actually, I don't know where he got his 60 years. Overpopulation has been a concern ever since the late 18th century with Malthus. Fortunately, improving technology has managed to keep pace with population. It's not certain that it will continue to do so. The Green Revolution was based on having cheap fertilisers and pesticides, all of which are manufactured from fossil fuels.
Fossil fuels are finite. We will never run out of fossil fuels though because eventually we will reach a point at which the remainder will be either too expensive to recover, or requiring more energy for its recovery than it yields or it will be recovered in insufficient amounts per time to meet needs.
And if we haven't worked out alternatives before then, the global economy will have collapsed, along with the global food supply.
I notice you haven't commented on Egnor's simpleminded comment about warm water sinking.
blinkfast: "Overpopulation has been a concern ever since the late 18th century with Malthus."
DeleteExactly. It's like we used to say about AI... "'Strong' Artificial Intelligence is the technology of the future. Always has been, always will be."
You truly are a man of faith, blinkfast. I admire that.
Georgie,
DeleteStill not making any substantive comments.
I wasn't expecting any from you.
Adm.
DeleteI thoroughly enjoy reading the way you deflate these silly arguments with a single, sharp thrust of logic whetted with a good dab of wit.
I only wish I could be so concise.
"'Strong' Artificial Intelligence is the technology of the future. Always has been, always will be."
Brilliant!
Crusader Rex,
Delete'Artificial intelligence' isn't a brilliant rejoinder, or even a rejoinder at all. It's completely irrelevant.
Anyway. Atheist blogs, such as Steve Novella's, take great pleasure in demolishing Kurzweil's claim that the singularity (a computer with intelligence equal to that of a human) is just around the corner.
It's much much much more complicated than that. The human brain is the most complex structure in the Universe (that we know of). Building something that good is going to be extremely difficult, if not impossible.
I was querying where Egnor got his 60 years of a population explosion pause.
Bach,
DeleteYou miss his retort entirely. I reminded of a gesture that my adult son used to make when in his teens. He would pass his palm over his head and make a jet plane sound.
Boggs is illustrating that your faith in a mand made climate doomsday is as deep as those of the transhumanists' in the singularity.
" Atheist blogs, such as Steve Novella's, take great pleasure in demolishing Kurzweil's claim that the singularity (a computer with intelligence equal to that of a human) is just around the corner."
Perhaps Novella doesn't like the competition? After all Google is BIG BUCKS. I bet he doesn't have any floating palaces off the US coast!
"The human brain is the most complex structure in the Universe (that we know of). Building something that good is going to be extremely difficult, if not impossible."
Sure.
"I was querying where Egnor got his 60 years of a population explosion pause."
Again, I think you mistake the intention of the statement. Mike is noting that the doomsday did not arrive, and so the proponents of this anti-human trash make excuses and push up the dates.
'The sky is falling.... oh wait... it didn't... but, it will next week, or next year, or maybe in the next couple of decades... trust us!! Science told us!'
BTW, Al Gore's latest warmapalooza wackadooza YouTube event was a smash!
ReplyDeleteIf you do the search for "al gore 24 hrs reality" on the 'Tube, you'll see that the "Australia Finale" attracted a massive 82 views. Yes, that's correct: eighty-two. Pee-Wee Herman could pick up more views than that.
Global warming has paused before for a couple of decades (1940s to 1960s), only to resume. There is little doubt that it will do so again.
ReplyDeleteHoo
I know I'm gong out on a limb, but I agree. I predict variation will continue as it has since the planet accreted and the atmosphere formed.
DeleteWatcha sayin', admiral? That temps go up and down? You could say that about the stock market as well. And while true, this would only be part of the story. There are long-term positive trends in both, and that is the story conservatives can't wrap their brains around.
DeleteHoo
Comparing the atmospheric mean temperature to the stock market is a great example, Hoots! Why, it's rivals your comparison of Apples to cars in the Deep Thought category..
DeleteI knew I could rely on you to back me up.
No analogy is perfect, but this one is not off target. Both processes are examples of random noise on top of a systematic trend. Try to deny that, half-wit.
DeleteHoo
Hoots: "No analogy is perfect..."
DeleteI'll keep that in mind. :-)
No substantive comment, huh? That's all right, my expectations weren't high.
DeleteHoo
if you can pull yourself away from the toy boats in your bathtub, maybe you can keep this in mind:
Deletehttp://www.greatdreams.com/grace/images/figure335.gif
If you can get your nose out of my bathtub, take a look at this one:
Deletehttp://earthintime.com/phartempco2.jpg
Notice the difference?
Notice the difference?
DeleteSure. The graph you referenced is nonsense. What is it measuring on the vertical axis?
You can't read graphs, can you? Look again.
DeletePlease select a unique name so I won't bother responding to you again. You're too ignorant to waste my time on.
Didn't actually read your own graph did you? Go back and look again after you've figured out why the vertical axis on your graph is nonsense. Here's the answer since you're slow on the uptake: It purports to measure two different things on one axis, which makes the entire graph valueless.
DeleteGo back and look again. :-)
DeleteGo back and look again.
DeleteIt's not going to be any less nonsense no matter how many times it is looked at. Are you really so uneducated that you don't understand why the graph you referenced is valueless?
The earth is made up of cycles. Climate is one of them.
ReplyDeleteThe problem with the apocalyptic predictions of the AGW crowd is not that they promote the reduction of pollutants in our atmosphere. The problem lies within the tunnel vision they are locked into and the resultant anti-human policies.
The comparison to doomsday cults is, in my opinion, completely valid. It is the oldest control game in the book. The concept of feeding the gods, nature, moon or whatever 'blood and gold' so as to avert the inevitable changes the world goes through. The gold part is bad enough, but it is the blood that gets me.
Allow me to state this simply: Culling mankind to 'save the world' is madness. It is evil. It is a control game.
Less of us means more for them.
The real solution to the short and long term problems brought about by cyclical climate change is to adapt as the changes approach in order to minimize human and societal losses.
As to to the salty water that bach brings up, there is another cycle at work. It does not take a degree in physics to understand that once the warm (saline) water sinks it is cooled by natural processes. The cooler water is forced up and cools the air, is warmed, evaporates and becomes more saline The cycle begins again. This is a transfer system that keeps our world's cycles moving along.
Surface ice is also a system like this.
Are there trends? Sure there is. I would not argue that. What I would argue is that killing infants, the unborn, or any given African or Asian is a sane approach to adapting to these changes.
Environmentalism should be about limiting the toxic crap we dump into the air, earth, and waters of our world - not about getting the rich richer, destroying economies to do so, and killing off billions.
Such ideas are the realm of maniacal control freaks.
So, I would suggest to our 'green' friends: They need to take back their movement from cynical elites who would use it to control and or kill and thereby de-ligitimize the entire venture in the process.
*is NOT a sane approach**
DeleteCrusader Rex,
DeleteAgreed, there are cycles in climate. Ever thought why there are?
And who says that anyone who's concerned about global warming wants a cull of humans?
Anyway. You've sort of got the idea that warmer water can sink in the oceans, unlike Egnor who is completely ignorant, and is proud of the fact. What you're describing causes the atmosphere to cool and the oceans to warm. Partially explaining the 'pause'.
The Earth's climate is reasonably stable because it has oceans and tectonic plates. There are mechanisms for removing CO2 from the atmosphere when it's high and replenishing when it's low, so the Earth doesn't have the runaway greenhouse of Venus.
During the Eocene, the CO2 levels were higher, it was correspondingly much warmer - climatologists refer this as the 'optimum' temperature for the Earth. If humans had evolved during the Eocene instead of the current Ice Age (ice at both poles), we would regard a higher temperature as peachy. And we would have picked our crops to suit the higher temperatures.
But we didn't.
"And who says that anyone who's concerned about global warming wants a cull of humans?"
DeleteExplain a sustainable population to the good folks, Bach. In English please. Have you ever read the UN papers on climate change? Do you know what the climate alarmists are suggesting? Ever heard the elites who fund this stuff speak on the subject? Read their books?
"Anyway. You've sort of got the idea that warmer water can sink in the oceans, unlike Egnor who is completely ignorant, and is proud of the fact. "
I have actually seen the thermocline and 'falls' like you describe.,, and yes, you can literally see them.
"What you're describing causes the atmosphere to cool and the oceans to warm. Partially explaining the 'pause'."
What I have explained is an exchange mechanism It explains how warmer surface water (in specific areas/currents) is cooled and exchanged for cooler mid to low level stuff. It has to do with sunlight and warmth from the earth. There are many interesting theories about it, but I am not an adherent of any of them.
"The Earth's climate is reasonably stable because it has oceans and tectonic plates."
It's a little more complicated than that, isn't it Bach? You forgot our position in the solar system, the solar behaviour, the lunar influences, the magnetosphere etc etc.
"There are mechanisms for removing CO2 from the atmosphere when it's high and replenishing when it's low, so the Earth doesn't have the runaway greenhouse of Venus."
I have never been to Venus, nor have I ever heard of anyone that has to prove any of that. Even the machines we have sent to orbit that world and land (and melt) on the surface have very little to say about what happened hundreds of millions of years ago on that world and/or how it came to be the way it is. All we have are educated guesses.
Could it be as you say? Perhaps. Then again, there could be mechanisms at work on that world we have never even dreamed of.
"During the Eocene, the CO2 levels were higher, it was correspondingly much warmer - climatologists refer this as the 'optimum' temperature for the Earth."
I wonder how they come to that conclusion. As far as I am aware efforts at time travel are in the extremely dangerous phases of their infancy. Optimum for what?
" If humans had evolved during the Eocene instead of the current Ice Age (ice at both poles), we would regard a higher temperature as peachy. "
So evolution has stalled? Bummer.
" And we would have picked our crops to suit the higher temperatures."
Ah... like Venusian lettuce and beats as opposed to 'iceberg' lettuce. Come on now, Bach.
Bach,
Delete"Ever thought why there are?"
Yes. Two words come to mind: Fine tuning.
I guess Crusader doesn't subscribe to the saying that it's better to be silent and thought an idiot than to speak and remove all doubt.
DeleteIdiots like him seem to believe that some global "elite" conspires to have a global government installed, sending swarms of evil black helicopters all over the globe, imposing a world-wide one-child policy and a gazillion % carbon tax rate. Or something like along those lines.
It's amazing that the Canadian army would let an idiot like that even sweep the floors of the barracks, let alone be privy to 'sensitive' information.
Troy,
DeleteCrusader Rex (apparently) works on the theory that bullshit beats brains. He's decided that he doesn't know, doesn't want to know, and as a result can substitute any made up stuff for which he doesn't have the slightest evidence. Provided it's compatible with his worldview and his ideology.
On fine tuning: I simply stated that the concept of fine tuning comes to mind and that I had indeed thought about the subject. The inferences are your own emotional projections. Further, your ignorance on arguments such as 'fine tuning' is nakedly apparent. You don't even understand the individual words that make up the compound expression, let alone the various (yes there are several!) arguments for such a concept.
DeleteInstead, you lecture us on the climatological history of alien worlds.
On 'worldview': I am not the one tweaking experiential reality to fit some set of pet theories. I am suggesting that we are ALL ignorant as to the complexities of what makes our climate conducive to life and that those of us who hide behind scientific pretensions to assert otherwise have a POLITICAL agenda of control. One of the oldest there is. A self described and very nasty political agenda.
On the deluge of insults: Idiot and bullshit? How profound. ...and coming from the amateur sophist club, too? Hilarious!
Thanks for the laughs.
Finally, a word of advice: Do not waste your sophomoric aggressions on someone who places no value on your opinion of them. All you have done is (once again) show your profoundly arrogant (egoist?) and ignorant natures to all who care to read these comments. They have learned nothing of why you should have these opinions of a man such as myself or how you would counter my points.
On second thought, they HAVE seen your counter: Ad hominem.
Crusader Rex,
DeleteIf 'fine tuning' came to your mind when you're thinking about cycles in climate, then it's time to upgrade your mind.
'Coarse tuning' perhaps, not fine tuning, explains cycles in climate, which varied from hothouse to icebox conditions over millions of years.
You make so many erroneous points, it would take me too long to counter all of them. Life is too short, there's not enough hours in the day, and hardly anyone reads this silly blog.
I only read it because I'm fascinated how someone intelligent such as Egnor can believe the idiotic stuff he does.
Now, as a lesson to you two students of banality, I will counter your points where there is some merit.
DeleteFirst Troy,
"Idiots like him seem to believe that some global "elite" [...] Or something like along those lines. "
First off, Troy, you use the word 'seem'. What this tells us is that what follows is mere assumption on your part. What I seem to think is your perception. Your perception is clearly a conditioned response. Pavlovian in nature. I am surprised you did not mention 'tin foil hats'. Isn't that in the progressive new-speak manual?
But to the 'points': I have ridden in all sorts of helicopters. Some of them are indeed black and unmarked. For good reason.
Secondly, you state I believe in an elite. This is once again an emotional projection through semiotics. You believe IN them. I simply acknowledge their existence. You trust in them entirely and think you will be rewarded by them for your loyalty. I suffer no such illusions.
Further, your illusion extends into the realms of vivid fantasy when it comes to assertions about what I 'seem' to believe. A global elite? A conspiracy? Global competition for control and aspirations of empire perhaps...
Look, it is so simple even you can understand it: Control freaks (ie tyrants, despots, oligarchs etc) do not like sharing anything - least of all power.
Finally, when it comes to my service: Our services are top notch because we do not stifle talent or intellect. Perhaps things are different in the Eurozone. Maybe there your politics and philosophy are what counts. Here it is all about loyalty, efficiency and an adherence to the oaths you have taken.
Finally, my clearance is not a matter for discussion. I am relieved you do not understand it, as would be my superiors.
Now Bach.
Delete"Crusader Rex (apparently) works on the theory that bullshit beats brains. He's decided that he doesn't know, doesn't want to know, and as a result can substitute any made up stuff for which he doesn't have the slightest evidence. Provided it's compatible with his worldview and his ideology."
It is interesting to note the use of the word 'apparently'. Like Troy's 'seems', you belie assumptions based on some adversarial notions.
That aside, the 'points':
I did not state I do not want to know how the earth's climate cycles function. Rather I stated (for all above to read) that NOBODY knows the totality of the matter. Further, I later stated that those who claim they do are pretensions, power/money hungry liars.
You assert I have 'made up' my points. So I have made up the solar influence. I have made up geomagnetism. I have made up the space missions to Venus. I have made up cosmological arguments (of which you are obviously ignorant). I have made up UN declarations on population growth and 'sustainability'. I have made up the thousands of pages and hours of speeches given by the BACKERS and proponents of these ideas. I have made up YOUR above stated points.
I must be some sort of teleological force! I have reached, 'apparently', into the past and created the present. Wow.
I had no idea.
But let's get 'real' here, Bach.
You retort is sheer sophistry.
You have no counter and you fear the engagement may make you look less intelligent. It already has.
"You make so many erroneous points, it would take me too long to counter all of them. Life is too short, there's not enough hours in the day, and hardly anyone reads this silly blog."
That's almost funny. You'd be surprised how many people read, but do not comment. I know several personally.
"I only read it because I'm fascinated how someone intelligent such as Egnor can believe the idiotic stuff he does."
I think that is as close to a compliment paid I have ever seen you come on this blog. Still, you call him an 'idiot' with frequency.
Intelligent idiots? Makes about as much sense as anything you have posted recently.
Oops I missed a 'point'.
Delete"'Coarse tuning' perhaps, not fine tuning, explains cycles in climate, which varied from hothouse to icebox conditions over millions of years."
Unless of course it was DESIGNED for a purpose that you cannot even remotely conceive of at present.
Time is a real difficulty for you isn't it?
Crusader Rex,
DeleteClimate science 101; climate is driven by solar output, greenhouse gasses, variations in Earth's albedo, distribution of the continents and Milankovich cycles. That has been known for decades, if not a century already.
There's no purpose to climate cycles. They just happen regardless of the wants or needs of the extant species. Mass extinctions happen, will happen in the future in response to periods of climate change.
We don't need to worry about the Earth. Life will continue regardless of whatever we do. The end of Permian mass extinction 250 MYA, which killed off 95% of species, was pretty nasty climatically.
But life still survived.
We don't have to worry about life surviving AGW. But we do need to worry about humans surviving, individually and also as a species.
Bach,
DeleteNOW you decide to get to the red meat. Would it not have been far more expedient to just make those points without the invective? Sure it would.
Again, to the points: What you assert has been 'known' is actually a constantly growing corpus of scientific studies that have altered considerably over the periods you state. What has not altered is the apocalyptic tone of those who 'warn' us of the end being nigh. People take the growing mountain of data and run with it over a cliff of doomsday fantasies. They are encouraged by those who profit from the lemming like rush. The cost for these ideas in the past has been in the order of hundreds of millions of lives. Despite all that we increase in numbers and thrive.
"There's no purpose to climate cycles."
Bach, that is nihilism 101, not climatology. Once again, you confuse science with philosophy. At least it is honest.
"They just happen..."
And it is ME who is caged in a world view? This is amusing. I hope the other readers can see the irony those statements.
"Mass extinctions happen, will happen in the future in response to periods of climate change."
This is merely a prediction. It is one I would agree with on the surface (climate being the mechanism for extinctions) but it is just a prediction.
"We don't need to worry about the Earth."
Unless we give a shit about our grandchildren and life in general. Unless we feel our earth is a special place. Unless we feel blessed by our existence.
" Life will continue regardless of whatever we do. "
Again a prediction, and I am not so sure you are correct this time. If we literally destroy the earth, then life would cease... at least here. The technology to do precisely that is within our infantile grasp. I pray it is never used. I hope I am wrong and that you are correct.
"The end of Permian mass extinction 250 MYA, which killed off 95% of species, was pretty nasty climatically. But life still survived."
Sure. Given. It sure looks that way with the data we have on hand. But that is NATURAL cycles at work. What happened to the man made aspect of your argument?
"We don't have to worry about life surviving AGW. But we do need to worry about humans surviving, individually and also as a species."
Ah... there it is.
The answer to this is so simple. It is up to mankind to adapt to climate change. If we do not, we will not survive. That does not require one to believe in current doomsday theories (like AGW) or to speculate about the ancient geology of alien worlds. It is not a prediction, it is a reality.
Does this mean we should just pollute the world with toxins? Does it mean we should bury our heads in the sand to natural cycles? No, of course not. It means we need to find REAL solutions that do not require the starving out of billions, infanticide as policy, or despotic controls on our personal lives.
If the so called 'scientists' of the doomsday set cannot grasp this in time, it is THEY who risk extinction - not the masses they seek to impoverish and kill with their theoretical models, but rather by their hands.
As I have stated many times: Science is a tool. If it is abused by those who wield it, then they will be replaced by those who do not. That's my prediction.
"From Climategate warmist ... "
ReplyDeleteI prefer "warm-monger"