[NinerSevenTango]

jsage,

I didn't mention Gore. I did point out that there is no clear cause and effect relationship, and therefore the scheme to gain control is based on lies. And I pointed out how a poisonous metaphysics is inculcated into young children in order to make the masses swallow these megalomaniacal schemes.

I sure wish someone would prove me wrong.

--97T--

[ImanCarrot]

We all knew ages ago (20 years +) that CO2 emissions were bad and nuclear was the only way to go, but the wooly hippy "I live in a tree" idiots kinda said no! it's nuclear! bad, bad.

Now it's back on the agenda and guess why.. cos govts need more tax off us and they've exhausted every other avenue.... Wow! Greenhouse Tax! sure! they'll swallow that... they did everything else. It's a con to get more money off us. I could not care a damn if the planet warms as much as Venus in the next 1000 years. I won't be here.

Anyway, I come from Scotland.. a wee bit of Global Warming would be nice.. it's bloody freezing here 360 days a year.

[fizzissist]

Anyway, I come from Scotland.. a wee bit of Global Warming would be nice.. it's bloody freezing here 360 days a year.

Decided to look into the north atlantic ocean temperatures to see if there's any hope for ya....and having a wee bit of scots blood traversing these veins, I hate to see kin folk suffering high heating bills!!

Found some interesting tidbits....like this from ScienceDaily in Dec '06.....

"......This trend of warmer sea-surface temperatures in the North Atlantic appears to be correlated with dry spells we have seen in the West since the late 1990s," said Veblen. "If the trend continues for the next 60 years or so as it has in the past, the degree of fire occurrence in the West could be unprecedented compared to anything in recent memory.........The key issue is that the Atlantic Multi-Decadal Oscillation persists on time scales of 60 to 80 years, compared to just one year or a few years for El Niño," he said."

http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases...1226134700.htm

60 year cycles???? How far into this one ARE we??? Better let the folks at the WHOI know, so they can update their website!
".....The results of the statistical analysis point to the area directly south and east of Newfoundland as a site of pronounced sea surface temperature variability. The figure below right shows the history of sea surface temperatures in this region since 1900. There is a notable tendency for cold and warm periods to be spaced approximately one decade apart, as well as longer-term warming and cooling trends that span several decades. When the near-surface wind field is analyzed in a similar manner (but independently from the sea surface temperatures), similar decadal-scale oscillations and longer term trends are evident. As noted in the McCartney inset below, this basin scale pattern of variability has been labeled the North Atlantic Oscillation...."

(my note: check out this temp chart http://www.whoi.edu/oceanus/viewImag...=7971&aid=2342 from that page and note the 2+deg temp swings that happen even WITHIN a decade!!)
http://www.whoi.edu/oceanus/viewArti...&archives=true

Ok,,,,to be fair, the WHOI article is talking about a smaller region...but still, we're seeing some pretty big swings of temperature in a pretty big chunk of thermal mass in a fairly short period of time!!

[Bowman]

How much money are we going to spend till someone admits that the earth is warming more than likely due to that 30 million degree lightbulb in the sky known as the sun. If there was an ice age long ago as they say something had to melt that ice before the combustion engine came along. Bottom line is the earth is a delicate balance that must be looked after where possible, likewise no matter what humans do there will come a day when the earth is gone. To hear Sen. McCain say "The Congress will Act," regarding warming of the earth what exactly is that supposed to mean? I know politicians are big headed ego manics but really if you can't even keep drugs out of prisons how do you expect to control the earth climate and temperature? All I can see happening from them "acting," is the removal of more money from my wallet and a pathetic play aimed to look as if they are doing something.

Considering those harping the loudest about the issue have homes the size of production facilities and fly private jets all over what do they expect the average person to do exactly to save the environment when they are putting more CO2 into the air in one trip on a jet then I will produce in most of my lifetime. They all need to look in the mirror first, till then they need to shut the hell up. Carbon offset my arse, I just read a place that sells them would charge $239 for offsets to cover a cross country flight on a Gulfstream IV Jet that pumps out around 8000 lbs of CO2 each way. How exactly is $239 going to make that CO2 go away? Wake up folks Al Gore is the same guy that wrote a book on de-forestation and had it printed on brand spanking new paper not even re-cycled. Why anyone listens to these idiots is beyond me.

Just like most things over time you find that the highest and mightest that preach the most are usually the ones taking the hardest falls off their perch when the truth about them comes to light. Preists and little boys, Congressman and little boys you get the drift.

Add to that the simple fact that now developing countries such as China and India have no alphabet soup regulatory agencies to contend with and they will be pumping out the polution more and more without any concern.

Time to go fuel up my Hummer and chainsaw

Bo

Edit: as a side note, do you all recall the hole in the ozone layer dilemma years ago? I haven't heard anything about that in years. Maybe they spent enough of our tax money on research grants to figure out what we already knew. Sunlight passing through the atmosphere naturally creates ozone and my hunch is that that same sunlight is also warming the earth. Where should I send my proposal for a indepth study to get some of that grant money? If you have ever read any grant money studies when they are completed (aka out of money) they all say the same thing in the last few sentences. Something along the lines of while this study did conclude such and such versus the previous study by such and such that further study will be required to determine the actual impact of the issue being studied. Which can also be read as - We need a job, give us some more grant money.

Once I saw a study and this is no joke. This study looked at research studies and found that 2/3 of all studies were in direct opposition to like studies regarding the findings. So just pick a side and get your grant to debunk the other side. What a country!

[riverrat]

What happened to the 1970's ice age prediction?
Shouldn't we all be frozen??
Mabey we were planted here by aliens to transform the planet, so
it would be more like thier home world???
hmmmmmmmmmmmmm.
I think I'll stick to the "we don't know what in the he** is going on theory".

[One of Many]

One of Many,

I think I mistook what you were saying the first time around on the neighbor hood thing. I was still trying to explain why the uncertainty principle is relevant though not easy to fold into this topic.

Also to give you another version of your story with some relevance but for entertainment only. A guy in Rhode Island I believe bought some property under the assumption that he could build on it. Who was the bad guy in how this unfolds is unknown. What happened was some environmental influence prevented him from doing what he needed on his land. So what he did was hire people to cut all the limbs off the trees and then paint the trees red and white like peppermint sticks. Whether the guy thought he could skirt the zoning or similar, or environmental interest groups applied undue influence the result was a lose lose.

Well, it would appear you did spin it to fit your ideals. Not unlike so many of the GW proponents do. Doing something(like busting out your own headlights) is better than doing nothing , regardless of the solution ever being shown effective.

Time after time and article after article. They can mix irrelevant data, add in assumptions, then come to a conclusion where their theory cannot be wholly proven or disproved. So the wisest move from these masterminds is to turn it into a pandemic shouted from the rooftops. I can see this cashcow milked FOREVER without a shread of evidence to repeal it!

With Uncertainty as a cloak of all unknown causes and only a portion of the factual data. So, filling in the blanks, then disingenuously spin them into facts to support their case is acceptable Science? Then again ignore anything that exposes fatal flaws with certain data purposely left out as a detractor to the conclusion, but relevant to raise doubt to the conclusion.

Propagandizing there MIGHT be a problem with the climate and casting blame on one of many miniscule influences that CAN be controlled. Foregoing the elements they cannot control.


A bit oxymoronic to find that the Insurance industry considers weather to be acts of God, but a few Scientist think they can fix that by throwing money at the issue via regulations by force.



DC

[NinerSevenTango]

Another term for CO2 is "Plant Food". Crops grow faster, forests grow faster, crop yields improve. Next, it will make tax revenues go up, along with power and influence.

--97T--

[jsage]

Yeah I'd hate to be in the insurance industry if this pans out or even getting insurance.

Here is what I posit to be a practical solution to determining the risk factors. Much of what is being discussed won't be resolved in the short term. Deforestation and all the other issues are important but would be a lot harder to quantify.


On the conveyor much of this already being done.

Doing measurements the old fashioned way and extrapolating the values and interaction.

Surface temps are interesting but not in and of themselves meaningful. In the Northeast a strong wind can effect it. Decadal temp cycles are a function of that big lightbulb in the sky.

If you measure the deep current movements distance, speed, temperature. Similarly measure salinity changes, measure changes in seasonal reversals you should be able get beyond a the existing confidence interval: no effect to a severe effect.

There will still be some intangibles like at what point will the change in salinity become critical. Similarly how will precipitation interact with the slow melting process.

Global warming and whether we caused it is a distraction at this point.

Long series of historical data are likely less important because we are deriving only a few data points. While these points may have macro implications or signals, they may only be say 40-60% of short term disruptions.

Referring back to long series multivariate (Stochastic) versus short term trend variable extrapolation and interaction (Autoregressive). Extrapolation of localized trends seems the most reasonable. The severity of the effect of a change in regional temperature, based on slowed temperature redistribution, will be another complexity.

The downside is you ideally want 5 years data based on the model I used. It allows you isolate out irregular effects and establish seasonal components. You also use smoothing methods to determine trend. One strength is overcoming purely linear models. These type of models can incorporate shocks which can decay over time or through interaction with other variables have exponential features.

Anyhow, hope for the best, nothing happens, at least take look at the worst, we have a change in weather.


TMI


Here is an applied version. I have very simple view somewhere. http://www.ees.nmt.edu/vivoni/h2cu/97WR00043.pdf

A basic component is that behavior of a measured variable over a given period will have a pattern that can be extrapolated but subject to the degree of auto correlation or memory of its own inital state or pattern. This correlation to its initial pattern will decay with the interaction of other variables, changing states. This autocorrelation varies depended on the variable. For example the accuracy of weather forecasts decay quite quickly. Water is less subject to change so should have a longer auto correlation to itself.

Fizzist it credits AGU!

[Bowman]

One of Many - it is exactly the same thing the pharmaceutical companies do with clinical studies, I know I worl for one. During a clinical study a drug can be considered effective and of use to the public when it shows a mere 10% better efficacy rate than that of the placebo. Of which only 30% of the entire study noticed any improvement at all for both the drug and placebo users.

Studies have shown that studies will show whatever things the study funder wants them to show. Oddly enough.

[One of Many]

Where ever someone takes ity-bity amounts of data from an ever changing environ, there can be trends. Making whole cloth from it would seem to indicate far too many variables are at play to pinpoint and implicate mankinds 2 tenths of one percent, as the key element for altering a larger trend over eons of time.

It is where extrapolation=conjecture=presumption=guesswork to which prediction reliability can be exponentially inconclusive but allows hysteria propaganda to take over.

Meanwhile a far more obvious trend goes ignored. As some despot Dictators on the other side of the world having clearly stated plans, rallying support and building weapons, to wipe a few Countries and their Allies off the face of the earth. Point being....there are real threats and percieved threats. Which are we to expend energy on with greater urgency?

DC

[NinerSevenTango]

One of Many --

"Point being....there are real threats and percieved threats. Which are we to expend energy on with greater urgency?"

I predict it will be whichever one nets the politicians the greatest gains in power and wealth, with the best prospects for prolonging it. Foreign intrigues have been popular for this purpose since the beginning of civilization. In between those, there are witch doctors foretelling doom, and witch hunts, and games, and monetary policy, and five year plans, and other entertainment.

--97T--

[One of Many]

Bowman and 97T

Tis true in both responses, I suppose. "Follow the money" has already been mentioned once in this thread.

Someone can take the fruits of my labor under threat of the feds.

Someone can take away my creature comforts under the threat of the environmentalist manipulating laws to regulate them.

Someone can take away the public presence of faith under threat it offends those that won't believe using the courts to oppress it.

But on a Global scale. Someone can take away the lives of tens of thousands many fold over under threat of hope, freedom and prosperity for all and next to nothing is discussed or brought into the light of day in comparison.

It makes this GW whoi, small potatoes in potential loss of life in the short term.



DC

[fizzissist]

Yeah I'd hate to be in the insurance industry if this pans out or even getting insurance.

If you own stock in AIG, you've been makin' a bundle!!! I seem to recall previously posting a whole treatise on insurance profits, hurricane alarmism, motivation, etc....

If you measure the deep current movements distance, speed, temperature. Similarly measure salinity changes, measure changes in seasonal reversals you should be able get beyond a the existing confidence interval: no effect to a severe effect........

Speaking of the THC, I found interesting the contridiction between Harry Bryden claiming the THC slowed 30% between 1957 and 2004, and J.R. Knight's work that showed a significant INCREASE since the '70s!! Hmmmmmm........

Physical oceanographer Carl Wunsch of MIT says: So has the conveyor slowed? Might it continue to slow? “We don’t know, and it may take a decade or two more of watching and waiting to know for sure."

Bryden, H.L., et al., 2005. Slowing of the Atlantic meridional overturning circulation at 25ºN. Nature, 438, 655-657.

Knight, J.R., et al., 2005. A signature of persistent natural thermohaline circulation cycles in observed climate. Geophysical Research Letters, 32, doi:10.1029/2005GL024233.

[ltmquik]

Anybody even consider the fact that the increased rate of population could be a factor. The population is increasing at a hyperbolic rate and yet the GHGs are entirely to blame.

Some one pointed out that humans are like virus'. I tend to think that humans are no different than any living thing on this planet. Observe ants for example. They will move onto a tree, counsume the 'resources' and move on to the next one, all the while reproducing.

[Madclicker]

Hyperbolic? Beam me up Scotty!

[jsage]

For amusement only.

Fizzissist,

On the insurance I was talking future. I took a quick look at AIG. They are extremely diversified multi line company. I'm not sure there are many pure play minimally diversified insurance companies out there. One example would be what yahoo references a portion of AIG business with some language resembling "non systemic risk". Best example is Lloyds of London which insured unique risk situations like a cargo ship crossing the atlantic. My insurance carrier, State Farm, has Lloyds tacked on to the name. I live on the very edge of town. Mega subdivisions, high end large lot developments, I'm backed up to a couple thousand acres which include city owned watershed properties.

As for how much measurement it would require to answer the core question. I don't complete buy what they are saying. Similarly, I can create a long bibliography list at the end of my research but kind of like Rodney Dangerfield in Back to School, don't buy used books because the guy who highlighted it before you could have been a complete idiot ; ) Further being constrained by others works limits your methodologies. These methodologies may not have been intended to answer the question at hand. Lastly, the path of interpretation might not be the most relevant, concise or expedient. Yes peer reviewed, but peers like it when you agree with there work.

I keep seeing the detractors use words like Clinton when he said, "I did not have sexual relations with that woman" Using one of your recent posts, Global hurricanes. Anyhow we are in the preliminary stages, 30 years from now a model may be moot point. I'm reading a fictional book on some global effect and ironically they curtailed funding all predictive modeling; )


Heisenberg:



I believe that the existence of the classical "path" can be pregnantly formulated as follows: The "path" comes into existence only when we observe it.

--Heisenberg, in uncertainty principle paper, 1927

In the sharp formulation of the law of causality-- "if we know the present exactly, we can calculate the future"-it is not the conclusion that is wrong but the premise.
--Heisenberg, in uncertainty principle paper, 1927

My view if we knew the future with great certainty then we might curl up and die. Not necessarily in reference to this question but because the predictibility would be a bit soul deadening.

A few final things.

In my experience if your models show that the outcome could be none to severe the median outcome is a moderate effect the corresponding probabilities are smaller on either side (none or high). Of course it is emphasizing the quality of predicting a given outcome.

Again, I'm not saying the end is nigh. Anyone saying there will be some important effects will attract great scrutiny and attacks. Confidence that nothing major will occur is better than considering some imminent threat. Look at what happened to the market after 9/11 and the bursting of y2k exhuberence.

Anyhow, I think we can circle around with point, counterpoint but I'm not sure if this really productive. That's why I didn't respond until now and am bowing out. Kinda like a tickle, it's amusing but you want it to stop

[Wade]

Quote: "I hate using this because it is a bit silly but the old saying for lack of nail a shoe was lost, for lack of shoe a horse was lost, for lack of horse a soldier was lost, for lack of a soldier a war was lost."

Or my version: "To get the money and gain control we promoted environmentialism to the level of a unitary religion, to promote the religion we saw justification in fabrication, in fabrication we created hystria, in hystria the masses over reacted, the over reaction killed the economy, in killing the economy we reduced the masses to burning wood and animal dung, in buring the dung we dirtied the skies, with the skies dirtied and our bellies empty we saw no reason to look up, while looking down a metor hit us........"

I think they called it chaos theory. Be careful of your cure, it might be worst than the "problem".