The REAL global warming

[dcraig1]

Your point of view is either naive or totalitarian. Naive if you take government restrictions at face value without demanding intense scrutiny.

And your view is utterly anti democratic. You would replace the ability of (elected) government to set and enforce reasonable standards with the power of those with the most money to "spend it how they wish" regardless of the consequences to the common well being.

In a modern, technological society there is no option but to have collective controls over a vast range of activities. And ultimately they need to be imposed by elected government and the rule of law not who has the most money or the most ignorance.

You better get used to it or go back to living in caves.

 

[dcraig1]

A little example. The official safe alcohol limits in the UK are 14 and 21 units per week. This has been scientifically established using technology by a committee from the Royal College of Physicians. Or possibly not:

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/life_and_style/food_and_drink/article2697975.ece

If you don't want to read it, I'll spare you some time - the article includes the phrases “a feeling that you had to say something”, “it’s impossible to say what’s safe and what isn’t” , and best of all "plucked out of the air".

But what is quite certain is that if you knock off a bottle of scotch per day over a long period you are very, very likely to severely damage your liver.

Furthermore, if you drank say 100 units per week, you are much more likely to have adverse health effects than if you drank 21.

So the general advice is not all that silly is it?

Acting on good advice from expert sources is rational. Playing ostrich and hand waving about it not being perfect advice and not 100% proven is irrational.

 

[maiden22]

And your view is utterly anti democratic. You would replace the ability of (elected) government to set and enforce reasonable standards with the power of those with the most money to "spend it how they wish" regardless of the consequences to the common well being.

In a modern, technological society there is no option but to have collective controls over a vast range of activities. And ultimately they need to be imposed by elected government and the rule of law not who has the most money or the most ignorance.

You better get used to it or go back to living in caves.

Well, I can't speak for Oz, but in the UK our democracy is little more than a sham. A 5 year elected dictatorship with a choice between 3 groups of rent-seekers who disagree on nothing. This inspires little confidence.

As for caves, that's where we would be headed if you and your ilk are serious about the kind of CO2 cuts that are needed.

 

[maiden22]

But what is quite certain is that if you knock off a bottle of scotch per day over a long period you are very, very likely to severely damage your liver.

Furthermore, if you drank say 100 units per week, you are much more likely to have adverse health effects than if you drank 21.

So the general advice is not all that silly is it?

Acting on good advice from expert sources is rational. Playing ostrich and hand waving about it not being perfect advice and not 100% proven is irrational.

Yes the general advice is silly - because they claim definitive knowledge when there is none, and they set targets that are very low. One might as well ban water on the basis that too much will shorten your life.

It is also wrong (and anti-democratic, not that you would care too much about that) to lie to the electorate.

Your reply is revealing - you take the "something must be done" attitude, regardless of lack of evidence. This might explain your stance on global warming - you have heard the scare-story, fallen for it, and cannot now retreat, presumably out of embarassment. Truly, it is impossible to reason a person out of a position that they have not been reasoned into.

 

[maiden22]

But what is quite certain is that if you knock off a bottle of scotch per day over a long period you are very, very likely to severely damage your liver.


So the general advice is not all that silly is it?

Be careful - if you spent all day, every day at your computer without breaking to go to the lavatory or fetch food, you would starve to death sitting in your own excrement within two weeks.

Better therefore limit your usage to 10 minutes per day, just to be on the safe side.

Yes indeed, the general advice is more than silly.

The fact that a bottle of spirits a day might be bad for you does not mean that just over a glass and a half of wine is bad for you.

 

[dcraig1]

Yes the general advice is silly - because they claim definitive knowledge when there is none, and they set targets that are very low.
I

How do you know the limits are too low? One piece in the Times and you suddenly are an expert.

You do not know if a safe level of alcohol consumption is dependent on the individual - and I don't know either, though I suspect it might be. There are so many factors in determining what is a generally safe level, that the only prudent advice is to err on the conservative side. If future research shows it was too low, the experts giving the advice have still acted ethically and adhered to the principle "First do no harm".

But on the basis of your woefully incomplete knowledge, you think you are fully justified in leveling accusations of "lying". It really is extraordinarily arrogant.

Maybe you should carry a polygraph around with you all the time - just to be on the safe side.

 

[dcraig1]

The lie is so breathtakingly simple perhaps that's why it works...so many westerners believe they finally are stakeholders in the *big* decision of the day...
In the US of A they're fond of using the phrase "blowing smoke up your ar5e"...how apt... it's the miniscule amount of 0.032% C02...

You will be no doubt shocked to discover that the amount of water in the atmosphere is ~0.4% over the whole atmosphere and that 0.4% has sufficient greenhouse effect to raise the average surface temperature of the earth something like 33C over what it would be if the atmosphere was completely dry. We would all freeze to death at night without a wet atmosphere.

I know numbers are not your strong suit, but a back of an envelope calculation would suggest that the "middle of the road" climate sensitivity of 3C for each doubling of CO2 (from say 275ppm to 550ppm) looks at the very least plausible. Think about it.

 

[Black Swan]

You will be no doubt shocked to discover that the amount of water in the atmosphere is ~0.4% over the whole atmosphere and that 0.4% has sufficient greenhouse effect to raise the average surface temperature of the earth something like 33C over what it would be if the atmosphere was completely dry. We would all freeze to death at night without a wet atmosphere.

I know numbers are not your strong suit, but a back of an envelope calculation would suggest that the "middle of the road" climate sensitivity of 3C for each doubling of CO2 (from say 275ppm to 550ppm) looks at the very least plausible. Think about it.

in fact your comments deserve more attention so have two of these

 

[dcraig1]

in fact your comments deserve more attention so have two of these

Then let me explain it to you. It is a simple "order of magnitude check" in response to your assertion that 275ppm CO2 couldn't affect climate.

1. 4000ppm H20 and 33C temp change => ~ 120ppm H20 per 1C change

is in the same ballpark as:

2. 275ppm CO2 and 3C temp change => 91ppm CO2 per 1C change

Get it now? It is a simple order of magnitude calculation to see if we might be in the right ball park regarding the effects of concentrations of GHGs. Of course the real world is more complex and responses are non-linear, there are feedbacks etc etc. It does not pretend to forecast possible temperature change. It is just a sanity check of your nonsense.

You should be aware that your attempts to ridicule the amplitude of the greenhouse effect of known atmospheric concentrations of CO2 are completely at odds with over a century of science with the first estimates by the great Swedish chemist Svante Arrhenius in 1896 who put the temperature sensitivity at 4-5C per doubling of CO2.

Now a century later and with really intensive research and scrutiny over the last 25 years, the "middle of the road" figure is about 3C per doubling of CO2. Some scientists believe it is higher and some lower. But a century of research still comes up with something very similar as did Arrhenius. I guess he might have been onto something eh?

You might be so kind to enlighten us as to where your insight comes from.

 

[montmorencyt2w]

Seems like there is a question as to whether the man-made proportion of atmospheric CO2 actually is increasing anyway:

http://wattsupwiththat.com/2010/01/...ic-carbon-dioxide-fraction-in-past-160-years/

 

[maiden22]

Then let me explain it to you. It is a simple "order of magnitude check" in response to your assertion that 275ppm CO2 couldn't affect climate.

1. 4000ppm H20 and 33C temp change => ~ 120ppm H20 per 1C change

is in the same ballpark as:

2. 275ppm CO2 and 3C temp change => 91ppm CO2 per 1C change

Get it now? It is a simple order of magnitude calculation to see if we might be in the right ball park regarding the effects of concentrations of GHGs. Of course the real world is more complex and responses are non-linear, there are feedbacks etc etc. It does not pretend to forecast possible temperature change. It is just a sanity check of your nonsense.

You should be aware that your attempts to ridicule the amplitude of the greenhouse effect of known atmospheric concentrations of CO2 are completely at odds with over a century of science with the first estimates by the great Swedish chemist Svante Arrhenius in 1896 who put the temperature sensitivity at 4-5C per doubling of CO2.

Now a century later and with really intensive research and scrutiny over the last 25 years, the "middle of the road" figure is about 3C per doubling of CO2. Some scientists believe it is higher and some lower. But a century of research still comes up with something very similar as did Arrhenius. I guess he might have been onto something eh?

You might be so kind to enlighten us as to where your insight comes from.

Very similar 100 years later? He overestimated by two thirds.

 

[maiden22]

How do you know the limits are too low? One piece in the Times and you suddenly are an expert.

I did not state that they are too low, nor that I am an expert.
I stated that something was presented falsely, which it was. How much evidence do you need? A member of the committee admitted that the guidelines were simply invented.

You do not know if a safe level of alcohol consumption is dependent on the individual - and I don't know either, though I suspect it might be. There are so many factors in determining what is a generally safe level, that the only prudent advice is to err on the conservative side. If future research shows it was too low, the experts giving the advice have still acted ethically and adhered to the principle "First do no harm".

This has nothing to do with the principle of doing no harm. It is lying to people.

But on the basis of your woefully incomplete knowledge, you think you are fully justified in leveling accusations of "lying". It really is extraordinarily arrogant.

My knowledge is not incomplete. These limits were presented as proven fact. We know from first hand evidence that they were simply invented. Therefore we were indeed lied to. To point this out is not arrogant - it is a statement of fact.

Maybe you should carry a polygraph around with you all the time - just to be on the safe side.

Maybe you should wallop your boll0cks with an enormous copy of "The Emperor's New Clothes" every 15 minutes until you develop some capacity for independent thought and logical argument.

 

[dcraig1]

Very similar 100 years later? He overestimated by two thirds.

Yes, it was a real achievement accomplished by laborious hand calculation. No computers, no pocket calculator. To be within an order of magnitude of the modern estimates is quite an accomplishment.

What's more it shows a real insight into physical processes involved - which is what science is about.

There is no absolute certainty that his estimates are too high. It may yet turn out to be that climate sensitivity is that high and warming is that bad, though that is not the consensus view.

Anybody else you would like to denigrate while you are at it?

 

[maiden22]

Yes, it was a real achievement accomplished by laborious hand calculation. No computers, no pocket calculator. To be within an order of magnitude of the modern estimates is quite an accomplishment.

What's more it shows a real insight into physical processes involved - which is what science is about.

There is no absolute certainty that his estimates are too high. It may yet turn out to be that climate sensitivity is that high and warming is that bad, though that is not the consensus view.

Anybody else you would like to denigrate while you are at it?

I'm not denigrating him - merely correcting your false assertion that his estimates and modern ones are near each other. Two whole degrees (again 66%) is, as you love to point out, supposedly of enormous significance.

 

[maiden22]

Seems like there is a question as to whether the man-made proportion of atmospheric CO2 actually is increasing anyway:

http://wattsupwiththat.com/2010/01/...ic-carbon-dioxide-fraction-in-past-160-years/

Interesting link.

 

[dcraig1]

An entertaining and sadly fairly accurate view of the current state of denialism:

http://www.buffalobeast.com/?p=1237

 

[maiden22]

An entertaining and sadly fairly accurate view of the current state of denialism:

http://www.buffalobeast.com/?p=1237

Even by your standards that's pretty good. When I advised you to abandon "Skeptical Science" lol I didn't realise that you'd come up with something like that.

You need to get back on track. Here are some scientific advisers that you might find useful. They are about your level and no doubt have been peer-reviewed by other rent-seekers.

 

[maiden22]

Have you seen CRU's new data-generating machine?

 

[maiden22]

Craig, I have subjected your arguments to rigorous testing and I'm afraid that the verdict from my science machine is not good:

 

[maiden22]

More bad news. My de-bunking of your arguments has been thoroghly peer-reviewed by people just like me who have a vested interest in supporting my theories. Sorry to tell you that the consensus is now established: