tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3555199390227912207.post6225714910434218577..comments2024-03-16T05:00:38.826-04:00Comments on Egnorance: 'Global warming will cause more air turbulence'mregnorhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/11431770851694587832noreply@blogger.comBlogger37125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3555199390227912207.post-76473469650466247512013-09-30T00:18:31.939-04:002013-09-30T00:18:31.939-04:00Global warming or client change can also be a fact...Global warming or client change can also be a factor for an economic decline. We should learn how to take care of our environment.Bill Protection Insurancehttp://www.trueinsurance.com.au/bill-cover-insurance/noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3555199390227912207.post-8887504638996350972013-06-08T22:42:44.161-04:002013-06-08T22:42:44.161-04:00six degrees? that is what has got everybody all h...six degrees? that is what has got everybody all hot and bothered? better more warm than a new glaciation.<br />Davidhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05652227699197953483noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3555199390227912207.post-66338929650419607712013-06-08T21:28:35.619-04:002013-06-08T21:28:35.619-04:00The only refugees AGW has caused is science refuge...The only refugees AGW has caused is science refugees, who are fools like you who flee from actual science into ideologically motivated junk science. <br /><br />It's modernity's gnosticism, a very strange cult. mregnorhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11431770851694587832noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3555199390227912207.post-13534126019310560742013-06-08T19:26:55.167-04:002013-06-08T19:26:55.167-04:00Michael,
The 50 million climate refugees was a pr...Michael,<br /><br />The 50 million climate refugees was a prediction by the United Nations University, which doesn't have any official standing.<br /><br />It's also impossible to quantify. Their definition of a climate refugee included Inuit villages being relocated a kilometre away from the coast, due to coastal erosion from summer storms with loss of protection due to the loss of sea ice.<br /><br />It's also difficult to know whether a person is an economic migrant or a climate refugee. A Bangladeshi farmer moving to the big city for a better life or because his fields no longer support his family as a result of increased salinity from increased tidal surges from raised sea levels, for example.bachfiendhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14752055891882312204noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3555199390227912207.post-55946454641784040752013-06-08T11:03:09.098-04:002013-06-08T11:03:09.098-04:00[I don't know whether you're stupid or jus...[I don't know whether you're stupid or just dishonest in thinking that if you start with a warm strong El Niño year in 1998 and finish with a cool moderate La Niña year in 2012 that it indicates no warming trend.]<br /><br />If you start with a Little Ice Age that ended in the 19th century, you'll get a warming trend. All depends on your epoch of choice. Compared to the Medieval Warm Period, we're in a long period of global cooling. <br /><br />What actually counts is the predictive power of models that are based on theories. Your record-- crash and burn. You didn't predict the most important climate feature of this century-- no warming for a decade and a half.<br /><br />Maybe you can discuss it with all of those 50 million climate refugees you predicted. mregnorhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11431770851694587832noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3555199390227912207.post-21782996801192960822013-06-08T10:51:52.662-04:002013-06-08T10:51:52.662-04:00Michael,
You're as ignorant of probability ma...Michael,<br /><br />You're as ignorant of probability maths as you are of science and logic.<br /><br />Only an idiot would assume that if there are two possibilities, then the probability of either is exactly 50%. And anyway, you're completely moronic, because there's a third possibility. That is, global temperatures don't change in the next 10 years.<br /><br />If you want to be a simpleton, then you should be asserting that I have a 33% chance of being right. I stand by my prediction, with 99% confidence.<br /><br />I don't know whether you're stupid or just dishonest in thinking that if you start with a warm strong El Niño year in 1998 and finish with a cool moderate La Niña year in 2012 that it indicates no warming trend. <br /><br />That's just cherry picking the data. I think you're both stupid and dishonest.bachfiendhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14752055891882312204noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3555199390227912207.post-47915486835090044682013-06-08T09:01:42.466-04:002013-06-08T09:01:42.466-04:00You've got a 50-50 chance of being right. Cutt...You've got a 50-50 chance of being right. Cutting edge science, bach. <br /><br />If you are right, it will be the first time in human history that a global warming monger got a global temperature prediction right. None of you predicted the current stasis. <br /><br />mregnorhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11431770851694587832noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3555199390227912207.post-90255943187860210072013-06-08T03:58:17.613-04:002013-06-08T03:58:17.613-04:00Michael,
Actually, I've realised my predictio...Michael,<br /><br />Actually, I've realised my prediction is as dishonest as your comments.<br /><br />I'll change my prediction. Average global temperatures will increase from NOW, regardless of what happens to solar output or China's and India's economic growth.<br /><br />We won't know whether my prediction is true for 10 years though.<br /><br />I'm 99+% certain of it. The 1% is to cover unpredictable events, such as the supervolcano under Yellowstone erupting.bachfiendhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14752055891882312204noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3555199390227912207.post-38559599881836219032013-06-07T23:10:40.906-04:002013-06-07T23:10:40.906-04:00Michael,
OK, my prediction, and it's been my ...Michael,<br /><br />OK, my prediction, and it's been my prediction all along. Global temperatures will increase when the current 'quiet' Sun ceases and the Chinese and Indians clean up their current dirty coal electricity production.<br /><br />Predictions are made in advance, not cherry picking data sets after the fact.bachfiendhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14752055891882312204noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3555199390227912207.post-87314142044201081702013-06-07T22:05:33.389-04:002013-06-07T22:05:33.389-04:00@bach:
You are engaging in science chatter, scien...@bach:<br /><br />You are engaging in science chatter, science fiction really, not science. <br /><br />You need to make a prediction to make your theory testable. I don't give a shit about your grade-school climate babble. The past predictions of your batshit theory-- multiple degrees of temperature rise, inundated cities and nations, 50 million climate refugees, yada yada have all been slapstick.<br /><br />When will global temperature stasis end, and will temperatures rise or drop thereafter? Everything else is bullshit and not any kind of science. mregnorhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11431770851694587832noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3555199390227912207.post-62866448191817183252013-06-07T20:09:36.843-04:002013-06-07T20:09:36.843-04:00Michael,
I'd thought of a better example of p...Michael,<br /><br />I'd thought of a better example of prediction in science, but I'd been reluctant to use it, since not only are you an AGW denialist, but also an evolution denialist too.<br /><br />But here it is. When a palaeontologist predicts that if evolution is true, he'll find a fossil of a certain type of species in a certain type of sedimentary rock of the right age and right location - if he looks long and hard enough. If he doesn't find it, it doesn't disprove evolution. Most dead animals don't fossilise. Even if they do, most will erode away before being found. Not finding the predicted fossil doesn't disprove evolution. Nor does it prove it either, although its consistent with it.<br /><br />What would disprove evolution is finding a fossil in completely the wrong sedimentary rock. A fossil rabbit in Precambrian sedimentary rock for example.<br /><br />Scientific theories are disproved, not proved. And in advance, you have to define what would disprove the theory, not after the event, by cherry picking data sets. If in 1998, scientists had given a concrete prediction that global temperature would definitely increase by a certain amount - then you might have a case. But they didn't. In forecasts of global temperatures from around that time, a range of possible temperature curves were generated, making assumptions about economic growth.<br /><br />Even if the models turn out to be wrong, it doesn't mean that AGW is false. It just means that the models are incomplete, not being able to include a model of solar output or economic growth over time.<br /><br />And AGW is based on the well known and well understood physical properties of greenhouse gases - which has been known for over a century - which you've never had the courage to challenge.<br /><br />Ignorance isn't something to be proud of.bachfiendhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14752055891882312204noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3555199390227912207.post-77591671743549366912013-06-07T19:09:32.352-04:002013-06-07T19:09:32.352-04:00Michael,
No, you don't have a clue as to what...Michael,<br /><br />No, you don't have a clue as to what science is. 'Prediction' in science isn't about defining what would confirm a theory. It's about predicting what would disprove it.<br /><br />If 1998 had been a La Niña year, 2012 an El Niño year, the Sun had been of average output (instead of being below average over that period) and both India and China been in recession with low electricity generation from coal burning plants, and the 'pause' in global temperatures was still there, then that would disprove AGW.<br /><br />Confounding factors are important.<br /><br />As an analogy, whenever you operate on a patient you're predicting that the patient will survive and have a good result. If not, then you should have second, third thoughts... If the patient dies, contrary to expectations, that doesn't make you a bad surgeon. There might have been a rare unpredictable anaesthetic complication. The patient might have a rare difficult to diagnose second condition. You want to examine the death of course to ensure that it wasn't preventable.<br /><br />If you have a whole series of postoperative deaths in otherwise straight forward cases, then that does mean you're a bad surgeon, and should retire.<br /><br />You're demanding the standard of proof applying in the second case (a whole series of uncomplicated cases with bad results - and no reasons) to the 'pause' in AGW, whereas you should be applying the same standard as the first case.<br /><br />If not, then to be consistent, the next time one of your patients has a bad result, you should quit.bachfiendhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14752055891882312204noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3555199390227912207.post-58807713715520082432013-06-07T07:13:24.941-04:002013-06-07T07:13:24.941-04:00bach:
You don't even do the rudimentary thing...bach:<br /><br />You don't even do the rudimentary thing necessary for real science: you can't even make a prediction. You don't have a clue.<br /><br />You and your warmist buddies are frauds.mregnorhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11431770851694587832noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3555199390227912207.post-34676432821292222472013-06-07T00:12:54.575-04:002013-06-07T00:12:54.575-04:00David,
The effects of clouds on climate is comple...David,<br /><br />The effects of clouds on climate is complex. Low clouds, such as cumulus ones, cause global cooling. High ones, cirrus clouds, cause global warming (one of the suggested geoengineering measures involves injecting bismuth salts into the cirrus clouds to destroy them).<br /><br />Water vapor isn't a strong positive feedback. It only ranges from 0 to 100% saturation, is transient and disappears readily as a result of rain or snow precipitation.<br /><br />Its concentration drops with increasing altitude, so no matter what its level at sea level, it's zero at the tropopause, the level at which greenhouse gases stop blocking heat loss, and the atmosphere begins to warm with increasing altitude.<br /><br />CO2 is long lasting. It can have any concentration from 0 ppmv upwards, the sky's the limit. <br /><br />Positive feedbacks don't kick into effect gradually. Otherwise, the transition from glaciations to interglacial periods over the past 3 million years would have been gradual, not abrupt as they were - with kilometre thick ice sheets disappearing over a few centuries.<br /><br />You're putting too much faith in negative feedbacks to keep the climate comfortable. The history of the Earth has been for violent and abrupt climate swings.<br /><br />Runaway global warming can't occur, because at the Earth's distance from the Sun, the average global temperature - without greenhouse gases - should be minus 18 degrees Celsius. Which it was at periods in the Precambrian (the 'snowball' Earth).<br /><br />The worry is that conditions might just be 'uncomfortable' for humans, with perhaps a 6 degree increase. So our experience in growing our crops with the current climate will become useless. And rainfall will be less predictable.bachfiendhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14752055891882312204noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3555199390227912207.post-1120589862759919292013-06-06T22:49:23.513-04:002013-06-06T22:49:23.513-04:00Michael,
Sorry, my previous answer to 'David&...Michael,<br /><br />Sorry, my previous answer to 'David' should have been addressed to you.<br /><br />The answer's there. The final question doesn't apply to you, though.<br /><br />No one sensible thinks that greenhouse gases is the only thing driving climate.bachfiendhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14752055891882312204noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3555199390227912207.post-17087110063072523182013-06-06T22:49:01.251-04:002013-06-06T22:49:01.251-04:00negative feedbacks? things such as the increase i...negative feedbacks? things such as the increase in water vapor resulting in an increase in cloud cover resulting in an increase in albedo, resulting in less solar energy input into the weather system. the negative feedbacks are there, which should be logically obvious. otherwise the positive feedbacks would have resulted in thermal runaway. Davidhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05652227699197953483noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3555199390227912207.post-5395098740390029092013-06-06T20:42:16.305-04:002013-06-06T20:42:16.305-04:00bach:
Using your calculations, when will the curr...bach:<br /><br />Using your calculations, when will the current 15 year stasis in global temperature end, and will temperature go up or down when it ends?<br />mregnorhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11431770851694587832noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3555199390227912207.post-3678445990356313342013-06-06T20:42:07.490-04:002013-06-06T20:42:07.490-04:00bach:
Using your calculations, when will the curr...bach:<br /><br />Using your calculations, when will the current 15 year stasis in global temperature end, and will temperature go up or down when it ends?<br />mregnorhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11431770851694587832noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3555199390227912207.post-40228462800464164062013-06-06T19:24:19.579-04:002013-06-06T19:24:19.579-04:00David,
Who knows? The current solar cycle is sti...David,<br /><br />Who knows? The current solar cycle is still weak. The number of sunspots is still low (sunspots correlate with solar output; the more sunspots, the higher the solar output). We don't have a model for the Sun which predicts future solar output.<br /><br />We also can't predict what India's and China's future economic growth will be, and whether atmospheric particulates from the burning of dirty coal will increase, decrease or stay the same.<br /><br />If the solar output returns to average and China and India clean up their electricity generation (as America and Europe has done) or goes into recession, then I'd expect global warming to return, as it had after two previous 'pauses' in the past 60 years.<br /><br />Also there's a timing issue. The 15 year 'pause' started in 1998, a strong El Niño year which is warmer than average due to the ocean dumping heat into the atmosphere, and finished in 2012, a moderate La Niña which is cooler than average for the opposite reason.<br /><br />It's similar to the incidence of malaria, which varies widely from year to year. Private philanthropists, such as Bill Gates, who fund malaria control programmes, want to see that their money is being well spent. They've complained that the statistics start with a low malaria year and end with a higher malaria year, giving the impression that their money is causing increasing malaria!<br /><br />I can easily cherry pick a recent period finishing today with a warming trend if I'm allowed to pick my starting point.<br /><br />You still haven't come up with resilient negative feedback mechanisms which will stop global warming. There are plenty of positive feedback mechanisms.bachfiendhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14752055891882312204noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3555199390227912207.post-29560614312247936972013-06-06T18:21:08.051-04:002013-06-06T18:21:08.051-04:00bach:
Using your calculations, when will the curr...bach:<br /><br />Using your calculations, when will the current 15 year stasis in global temperature end, and will temperature go up or down when it ends?mregnorhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11431770851694587832noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3555199390227912207.post-12991332511767222452013-06-06T18:14:04.378-04:002013-06-06T18:14:04.378-04:00David,
Water vapor doesn't stay in the atmosp...David,<br /><br />Water vapor doesn't stay in the atmosphere long. It precipitates due to 'weather'. Due to greenhouse gases. Temperature in the troposphere, the low atmosphere, falls with increasing altitude. Warm air rises and cold air sinks. So you get up draughts and down draughts. In up draughts laden with water vapor as the air cools, the water vapor precipitates and falls - if it reaches the Earth's surface as rain or snow.<br /><br />At the tropopause, temperature stops falling (because the density of greenhouse gases has fallen to such a level that infrared radiation is no longer being blocked) and the next layer - the stratosphere - has increasing temperature with increasing altitude, which makes it more stable (which is the reason why we like to fly close to there for the lack of turbulence)<br /><br />Another reason why the water vapor doesn't stay long because the Earth has regular night/day and seasons. With a marked difference in temperatures. <br /><br />Water vapor doesn't persist. CO2 does.<br /><br />Anyway, the history of the Earth's climate isn't one of stability. It's actually one of wild swings from icebox conditions to hothouses. Largely due to the Milankovich cycles.<br /><br />If you think that there are resilient negative feedback mechanisms, then you need to explain why in the current ice age (which started 3 MYA) there have been around 50 glaciations (which covered Manhattan Island for example with an ice sheet several kilometres thick) and a similar number of interglacial periods.<br /><br />And what are the negative feedback mechanisms?bachfiendhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14752055891882312204noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3555199390227912207.post-51567984801078547112013-06-06T06:38:12.240-04:002013-06-06T06:38:12.240-04:00Bach - We are now going to 'control the amount...Bach - We are now going to 'control the amount of water vapor in the atmosphere'. Right. If your model was accurate our little contribution to the increase in the trace gas CO2 (0.038 percent of atmosphere) would have set off an unstoppable positive feedback (more CO2 = more water vapor = more warming = more water vapor = more warming = more water vapor = and on and on and on) resulting in weather like that on Venus. The earth has very resiliant negative feedback mechanisms. Better to worry about resource depletion and improper waste disposal. Those are real problems and something we can actually affect. Unlike trying to control evaporation over a planet with 70 percent water surface.Davidhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05652227699197953483noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3555199390227912207.post-75693914464378890532013-06-05T23:27:56.572-04:002013-06-05T23:27:56.572-04:00David,
Water vapor precipitates as rain and snow....David,<br /><br />Water vapor precipitates as rain and snow. You can control the amount of water vapor in the atmosphere by limiting the amount of global warming by reducing the amount of other greenhouse gases. That's more than 'bugger all'.bachfiendhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14752055891882312204noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3555199390227912207.post-1830377561599339932013-06-05T20:23:15.294-04:002013-06-05T20:23:15.294-04:00Of which the most important and potent retainer of...Of which the most important and potent retainer of heat is water vapor. And there is bugger all nothing you can do to control the amount of water vapor in the atmosphere.Davidhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05652227699197953483noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3555199390227912207.post-64001501937628103372013-06-05T10:47:09.454-04:002013-06-05T10:47:09.454-04:00backfire, for good topic comprehension scanning an...backfire, for good topic comprehension scanning an article is not recommended. You should also seek help about your <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Id%C3%A9e_fixe_%28psychology%29" rel="nofollow">Idée fixe</a> on CO2. <br />Pépéhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/00896283600100217146noreply@blogger.com