This one was a real laugher: Hansen counsels against extreme scenarios, yet clearly notes the potential for unstoppable ice sheet collapse.
Try reversing the phrase to: Hansen clearly notes the potential for unstoppable ice sheet collapse, yet counsels against extreme scenarios. if you don't see the humor.
Despite your protestations that you don't post nonsense 'ever', you have posted nonsense right here and now. Your regurgitated website information states, on the 1940-75 cooling:
But why did the temperature not simply rise in line with the post-war increase in greenhouse gas emissions?
In fact, as is well-known, the absence of a global rise in temperature between 1945-75 is explained by the release of large amounts of industrial pollutants,
This is, in a word, NONSENSE.
The IPCC itself rates the understanding of aerosol forcing 'VERY LOW' so much so that the sign of the overall forcing is not even known. How does this compare to the above assessment 'well-known'?
Back to the comedy, you state Nonsense is in the eye of the beholder, just like beauty.
And this is what really convinces me that you have no idea what you are talking about, but simply parrot others who believe what you would like to believe.
Nonsense is not in the eye of the beholder. We all have access to that universal decoder ring known as LOGIC. Please try to understand that he very basics of climate variability on the time scales of decades to centuries, in a general sense, is simply NOT UNDERSTOOD, no matter how many scientists would like to believe their models and their intuition surely know better.
If the general mechanics are not understood, then the specific theory of greenhouse-forced warming is SPECULATION.
I am totally befuddled how someone who bills himself as a 'cogitator' can actually believe that nonsense is in the eye of the beholder. Are you really so suckered by the relativist mentality pervading modern society? I hope for your sake you are smarter than that.
I don't see the humor. Unstoppable, irreversible ice sheet collapse is not an extreme scenario with business-as-usual carbon emissions to the atmosphere. If you might read the link I posted, Hansen defines "Dangerous Anthropogenic Influence" there -- that being an additional radiative forcing such that ice sheet collapse becomes inevitable. The world may not be there yet. It may get there soon.
But why did the temperature not simply rise in line with the post-war increase in greenhouse gas emissions? ... "In fact, as is well-known, the absence of a global rise in temperature between 1945-75 is explained by the release of large amounts of industrial pollutants," ... This is, in a word, NONSENSE. ... The IPCC itself rates the understanding of aerosol forcing 'VERY LOW' so much so that the sign of the overall forcing is not even known. How does this compare to the above assessment 'well-known'?"
The effect of sulfate aerosols by themselves is well-known -- ask Mt. Pinatubo. The IPCC's uncertainty is for the entire range of aerosol types (dust, soot, smoke, aircraft exhaust, a variety of chemical species).
Supporting references:
Senator Inhofe on Climate Change "The current consensus view is that warming in the 1940s was likely a combination of increasing GHG and solar forcing combined with a significant amount of internal variability, particularly associated with the North Atlantic. The subsequent cooling was related to the post-war increase in (mainly) sulphate aerosols."
Combinations of Natural and Anthropogenic Forcings in Twentieth-Century Climate (PDF)
Attribution of twentieth century temperature change to natural and anthropogenic causes
Please try to understand that the very basics of climate variability on the time scales of decades to centuries, in a general sense, is simply NOT UNDERSTOOD, no matter how many scientists would like to believe their models and their intuition surely know better. ... If the general mechanics are not understood, then the specific theory of greenhouse-forced warming is SPECULATION.
I sat pondering this for a considerable amount of time. Ultimately, my opinion of what is understood and what can be understood is vastly different from yours. For that reason, you have the ability to pin a label of "nonsense" or "speculation" on the same scientific knowledge that I determine to be valid. My evaluation process is not relativistic, or spur of the moment, or the whim of the wind.
The distance between the way you and I think about this issue is similar to the distance between adherents of Scientific Creationism and those who understand the facts of conventional geology and biology. No amount of argument from either side will be capable of altering the internal thought processes of the other.
If the general mechanics are not understood, then the specific theory of greenhouse-forced warming is SPECULATION.
---<>---<>---<>---<>---<>---
Absolutely.
No amount of modelling is able to change this situation. There are simply too many variables that are too unknown to model this clearly chaotic system. Anybody who believes that the "models" can predict that which they do not understand is a complete fool.
Clearly, there is something - many somethings - of major import being left out of the climate models. ANYTHING based on them is bogus. Anybody in the scientific community who has ever done work with these complex models can come up with example upon example of results from models that proved wrong when physical testing was actually done. And in the realm of modeling, there are few models which are more complex and LESS understood than the GCMs.
Acceptance of anything they come up with is based not on science, but on fanatical religious faith.