Posted on 08/07/2008 6:16:01 AM PDT by RogerFGay
you did not bow down when you mentioned the chosen one. please be observant of proper respect.
as for transportation, i will await the arrival of the high priest you mentioned.
many thanks.
Falsus in uno, falsus in omnibus, Cogi. You might want to bring Michaels up to speed on the Milankovitch Cycle. While you're at it, remind yourself that these wankers are intent upon using this Global Warming twaddle to collapse the economies of the West.
What's Latin for "ridiculous"? I concern myself with what the scientists are doing, and I'm pretty sure there are very few climate scientists intent on wrecking Western civilization. I happen to think that Michaels knows about Milankovitch cycles -- and what's happening now has precious little to do with 'em. Read my profile, point #5.
Now how does Pat Michaels contrast this with the last 2500 years of known climate changes in one direction or another?
Not speaking for him, but the effects of anthropogenic factors are superposed on the natural factors.
Good work! My motto is “If you can’t stand the heat, open the fridge door!” I once had an customer who couldn’t understand why I refused to pur the condensing unit in the conditioned space.
I repent! < rending garb and smearing ash in hair >
Splendid! Zackly the way the MSM likes its Republicans! Keep up the good work and watch your mailbox (or Wheaties Box) for your very own, glo-in-the-dark McCain Campaign Button.
Must dash. Okrah Book Club reading Nancy Pelosi tonight, then a PETA meeting, later distributing literature for Algonquin J. Obama, AKA The Saviour.
I wish those on the left ... including left-wing boffins of my acquaintance ... did, as well. Now, as to the anthropogenic factors:
Why would not anthropogenic factors also apply to Global Cooling? Goose/Gander.
Starting from the bottom: I assume you know that naming the island Greenland was a public relations ploy by Erik the Red?
As clearly were the sheep, cattle, and ponies Eric's colonists raised, not to mention the oats and cabbage?
Please do not report me. I had no idea my camera was on. (t's the one I use to meet Gaia-concerned singles over 70.)
We had long and detailed technical arguments, not ideological anything. My belief that the Stefan Boltzman law has not been repealed in favor of your own ideological nonsense, is not itself ideological, it is just plain physics. I offer you the bet and you accepted it, nearly 5 years ago now, that warming over the next decade would match my null model of direct CO2 power and not your inflated mystical feedback figure of 4 times as much. The subsequent data have fit my prediction quite well, and yours not at all. When this is pointed out to you, you smear and run away. The bet stands.
The direct power signal from CO2 is insufficient to cause 4C warming over 100 years, as the global warming alarmists maintain. It is sufficient to cause a warming on the order of 0.6C, or to be generous, less than 1C. You claimed to be willing to submit these predictions to the test of the next few data points. You were not, and your continued adherence to the alarmist rather than the physical position has been revealed to be an unfalsifiable and unscientific ideological commitment, thereby.
“please do not report me!”
rotflmao
i shall not do so, considering your great affection for gaia-concerned singles over 70, for many more gaia lovers are needed for our brilliant future.
correction: gaia-lovers
To disagree a little and shove some words in Michaels' mouth, I think his 0.17 /decade warming trend is an AGW estimate from CO2 plus feedback, not an observation of the actual trend. The actual trend could be 0.2 (satellite), 0.4 (biased ground readings) or some other reading above 0.17. But the warming above 0.17 would be natural (basically the sun plus feedback with lag and smoothing). If that's not his position, I will take it as mine.
Regardless, we know the real issue is CO2 sensitivity, and his observation (or prediction) of 0.17 degrees / decade with roughly 18ppm increase in CO2 per decade yields about 2,2C per doubling. That's the 0.6 already warmed (280ppm to 386ppm) plus the (580-386) / 18 * 0.17 That's assuming linear response to CO2 (not true, it's log) and linear response in feedback (highly doubtful).
You're absolutely right, Global Warming is real. And the only way to beat Global Warming is to buy Carbon Credits.
Al Gore's Carbon Credits are alright, but to really beat Global Warming you need to buy "Grizzled Bear's Superior Deluxe Carbon Credits."
They're only $500 each. You want a few dozen, right?
One decade of data is totally insufficient to judge anyone's model. Pat Michaels made this point forcefully in front of an audience of skeptics. Find what you think I bet you on, and state it again. Note that surface temperatures have warmed about 0.4 C over the past 25-27 years. Multiply that by 4 = 1.6 C. That's my lower bound and (unsurprisingly) it matches Pat Michaels' upper bound. My best estimate (which I'll never be around to find out if it's accurate) is a 2.5 - 3 C warming by 2100.
They do. I.e., SO2.
As clearly were the sheep, cattle, and ponies Eric's colonists raised, not to mention the oats and cabbage?
Greenland was slightly less forbidding for a couple of centuries back then, but it was never a benevolent paradise. There was such a thing as the Medieval Warm Period, sponsored by a couple positive tenths of natural variability over a couple of centuries. When the natural variability reversed, slowly but inexorably as those things do, Greenland got nasty and the remnant Vikings left. But the historical fact is that Greenland wasn't named that because it was green, but because Erik the Red wanted a few gullibles to think it was.
Don’t forget what’s in the ocean.
You’ve only got the half of it. Global dimming is countering global warming. It is official, the same group of morons advising us of the horror of global warming is concerned with global dimming - which explains the computer models’ abysmal problems with (any near where) predictions about the CO2 effects leading to global warming. And when we clean up fossil fuel emissions, then we will really be in for it - 10 degrees centigrade warming, 25 meters sea risings, flood, famine, tornadoes, hurricanes, devils, zombies, locusts, scorpions, disease, aargh!
Frightening!
I have noticed over the past 60 years of my life that weeds seem to be growing faster. Not too much else. No 25 meter floods, no 100 year famines, no more super storms, no more plagues, no more aliens from outer space, no more familiars, no more ghosts, no more devils. We are as safe as we have always been - subject to asteroid strikes, volcanism, disease, even cosmic rays that have wiped out life on earth in the past.
Oh yeah! And typical warm temperatures in summer, and cold temperatures in winter. Dingbat!
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.