Gary, ES, you both speak the truth, the real challenge is to figure it out.

---

"And the fourth angel poured out his vial upon the sun" :-)

Remember you are talking to the guy who owns the palm tree franchise for Washington DC and I am pissed I am not rich as I was promised.

I will swap you the Ice machine franchise that I have for all of the Arctic, and throw in my KY jelly distributorship in the Virgin Islands as a sweetener.

We already have the start of droughts, heatwaves, flooding, severe snowstorms. There will be the associated famines and plagues that come with that.

Really? Or it is just short attention spans brought on by the telly?

---

But when it has been ice free the earth had a tropical climate almost to the arctic circle, definitely at for north as England. Sounds pretty good to me.

Then you are an idiot.

---

ML, a countryman of yours, Thomas Malthus predicted this in the 18th century, he just did not know the climate would be a major driver. Too many people with too many wants and finite material resources exacerbated by a short term outlook.

So true. To many mouths to feed. Natural selection. A population collapse is required.
...

What a ridiculous statement.
Required?

Yes required. Look at a world population graph. It is exponential. Exponential growth results in a crash.

Sorry to break it to you but all your proposed fixes are linear. As you know from math exponential growth always trumps linear decline.

They are not. You are simply incorrect about this. Once the birth rate is below 2 per couple then eventually the population will decline. The population is no longer growing exponentially in China and is expected to start to decline around 2030.

The most surprising demographic crisis
The one child policy is no longer a factor in keeping population low and the same drops in the birthrate have been observed in most western countries.

Sorry to also break it to you but humans are animals.

No sh*t Sherlock.

All that applies to animals applies to humans.

This is factually incorrect. Humans have the ability to predict the long term consequences of their behavior and alter it. This is a factor in our evolutionary success.

There are already too many of us on the planet. Unless we cull ourselves, nature will cull us. When nature does it is won't be pretty. The cull will happen.

It won't be pretty, but again, we currently have enough land and resources to feed the world. However, you have an obesity crisis in the US while people in South Sudan are starving. Any current crises in food stability are not beyond human control. Once climate change really starts to bite that will be a whole different story.

Since you have such rosy glasses,

Yeah, because I'm really known for my rosy view of the world. It must be prediction for global famines and plagues that gave you that idea.

perhaps you should just look at China; one child per family China now tell me if their population is still increasing.

You figure out the long term trend:

As for food look to Cuba in addition to China. Both command economy. Can they produce enough food? Cuba went from the worlds largest exporter of sugar to being entirely dependent on imports.

Cuba has been under economic sanctions for 52 years. They are doing quite well considering.

China is seriously worried about starvation in a few short years.

No they aren't. They're more concerned about supporting their aging population.

If those systems don't have enough control how can you ever think a western country will have enough control? Take your rose colored glasses off and look at the world as it is.

What is it with this stupid rose coloured glasses sh*t? You are the one that is burying your head in the sand about climate change.

It is one thing to wave you arms and say "make it so" it is another thing to do it. People always act in their own selfish interest, they rarely if ever act in their collective interest.

That's quite obvious from the climate denier rhetoric in this thread.

---

Reality Internet Personality

The following excerpt that you omitted is more relevant than the ones you cherry-picked.

But they warned that firm conclusions should not be drawn until more research had been carried out.

That's just Scientific Research 101. Only one study ever has reached this conclusion. It's far from validated.

I thought wind power was the answer to CO2 caused global warming.
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2137170/Wind-farms-link-rising-temperatures-detrimental-impact-wildlife-weather-say-scientists.html

Wind farms linked to rising temperatures: Scientists concerned about impact on wildlife and weather.

Wind turbines could warm local climates up to ten times faster than the natural rate...

Publishing their findings in the scientific journal Nature, they said: ‘We attribute this warming primarily to wind farms.

‘The temperature change could be due to the effects of the energy expelled by farms and the movement and turbulence generated by turbine rotors.

But could it, really? How much energy do wind farms expel? Since wind farms make electrical energy available by converting mechanical energy to electrical energy, the amount of energy they "expel" into the air is, by definition, less than zero. How much turbulence do turbine rotors generate? This is a more complicated matter of fluid dynamics, but also irrelevant because turbulence does not equal more energy (although very fast flows become turbulent as they pass an obstruction). Anyway, proposing and defending a mechanism by which wind farms create turbulence which in turn increases temperature is the researchers' burden, not the reviewer's. The appeal to "turbulence" is a red herring and the "hypothesis" that warming "change could be due to the effects of the energy expelled by (wind) farms" is simply garbage.

You might be interested to know that the author of the scientific study on which this article was based has written a statement claiming misrepresetation of the work's findings.
- ryan , Hampshire, 02/5/2012 11:41

So, presumably that garbage hypothesis belongs to the "journalist" Rosie Taylor, and not to the SUNY scientists whom, in a flagrant act of journalistic malpractice, she neglected to name.

Q: Why don't you ever cite reputable sources, Gary?

A: Because reputable sources don't tell the lies that Gary wishes to believe.

---

Gary, I do not believe prevarication was the least bit involved and you demean yourself stating that. The fact that you have data which does not agree with what others have does mean they are telling a lie.

I believe some who spread the FUD here have the brains to realize it is FUD but still continue to spread it. To be fair others have been deluded by the FUDists and are simply repeating the lie they heard as truth.

What rankles me the most about the FUDists is they scream their model says such and such. They can't it through their head that their model has been proven wrong. They made assumptions about atmospheric mixing in the model which are not correct. GIGO applies. The conclusions they draw are useless. Who found the holes in their assumptions? NASA via remote earth sensing technology. Go fix the assumptions and run the model again.

---

Is that really surprising, if you think about it. When you force hydraulic fluid to do work it warms up, so why shouldn't the air warm up when forced to turn a turbine.

P.S. I am not an expert in these things, I just worked on the electronics and computers that controlled hydraulic machinery.

Then how do you fail to know the difference between a motor and a generator?

---

Not all idiots are global warming deniers, but all global warming deniers are idiots.

The world governments have to come together and ... then take unilateral action to combat it in the most practical and sensible ways.

Big Latin-derived words like "unilateral" can either camouflage your ignorance or serve as a bright, flashing announcement that you are nothing but a psuedo-intellectual poseur who knows nothing of what you speak, but speaks anyway. When "world governments ... come together and decide uniformly" on any action, that is the opposite of unilateral action. You folks presume to gainsay 97% of climate scientists but you can't even get your basic vocabulary right.

By the way, what does a liter of petrol cost today at your nearest filling station? Or national average in the UK, or last time you looked or whatever current figure you have? One of my fellow countrymen foolishly asserted that doubling or tripling gasoline prices would be catastrophic, so I'd like to get the figures from somebody who, like that one, is a global warming denier. Thanks in advance, idiot.

---

BS.

... their model says such and such. They can't it through their head that their model has been proven wrong. They made assumptions about atmospheric mixing in the model which are not correct. GIGO applies. The conclusions they draw are useless. Who found the holes in their assumptions? NASA via remote earth sensing technology. Go fix the assumptions and run the model again.

Cite the report and name the "assumptions" it contradicts and how those "assumptions" are used in current GCMs.

---

If there were global warming there would be more snow since warmer air holds way more moisture.

Not necessarily. Temperatures and precipitation were both above average in New York last year. The precipitation just wasn't snow.

On a statewide and seasonal level, 2011 was a year of temperature and precipitation extremes for the United States. Most states east of the Rockies had annual temperatures which were above average. Sixteen states had annual temperatures among their ten warmest. Delaware was record warm for the period, with an annual temperature of 58.2 degrees F (14.6 degrees C), or 3.5 degrees F (1.9 degrees C) above average. Texas had its second warmest year on record, with an annual temperature anomaly of 2.2 degrees F (1.2 degrees C), just shy of the annual record of 2.5 degrees F (1.4 degrees C) set in 1921. The western states had annual temperatures which were near average, with the exception of Oregon and Washington, which were the only two states with annual temperatures below average.

Although the CONUS as a whole was drier than average for the year, several states and cities were record wet during the year. Above-average precipitation was widespread across the northern CONUS during 2011, with the wettest part of the country being the Ohio Valley and Northeast. Seven states across the two regions — Connecticut, Indiana, Kentucky, New Jersey, New York, Ohio, and Pennsylvania — had their wettest year on record. Below-average precipitation was present across the West, and along the southern tier of the country. Georgia (5th driest) New Mexico (6th), Louisiana (7th), and South Carolina (8th) had annual precipitation totals among their ten driest. Texas was record dry for the year, with 14.89 inches (378 mm) of precipitation — 13.03 inches (338 mm) below the 20th century average. The year 2011 surpassed 1917 as the driest year on record for Texas, when 14.99 inches (381 mm) of precipitation was observed across the state. When the wetter-than-average conditions across the northern CONUS are averaged with the drier-than-average conditions across the southern CONUS, they nearly cancel each other out in the nationally averaged precipitation total. When the precipitation extremes are combined cumulatively, like in the U.S. Climate Extremes Index (CEI), they tell a different story. The combined percent area of the country experiencing either extremely-wet or extremely-dry conditions during 2011 was record high at 58 percent.

A list of select cities breaking annual temperature and precipitation records during 2011 can be found here.

That was last year. Who knows if next year's report will include any extreme precipitation events when it's released in mid-January? /sarcasm

---

Cite the report and name the "assumptions" it contradicts and how those "assumptions" are used in current GCMs.

Already cited. Go check out the previous editions of this thread.

---

ML, a countryman of yours, Thomas Malthus predicted this in the 18th century, he just did not know the climate would be a major driver. Too many people with too many wants and finite material resources exacerbated by a short term outlook.

So true. To many mouths to feed. Natural selection. A population collapse is required.
...

What a ridiculous statement.
Required?

Yes required. Look at a world population graph. It is exponential. Exponential growth results in a crash.

Sorry to break it to you but all your proposed fixes are linear. As you know from math exponential growth always trumps linear decline.

They are not. You are simply incorrect about this. Once the birth rate is below 2 per couple then eventually the population will decline. The population is no longer growing exponentially in China and is expected to start to decline around 2030.

The most surprising demographic crisis
The one child policy is no longer a factor in keeping population low and the same drops in the birthrate have been observed in most western countries.

Did I say just China when saying it was exponential? No. The word there is WORLD.

Sorry to also break it to you but humans are animals.

No sh*t Sherlock.

All that applies to animals applies to humans.

This is factually incorrect. Humans have the ability to predict the long term consequences of their behavior and alter it. This is a factor in our evolutionary success.

Hubris. Man is the center of the universe! Poppy cock! To think man is somehow special and not an animal ... oh wait you did agree man is an animal.

There are already too many of us on the planet. Unless we cull ourselves, nature will cull us. When nature does it is won't be pretty. The cull will happen.

It won't be pretty, but again, we currently have enough land and resources to feed the world. However, you have an obesity crisis in the US while people in South Sudan are starving. Any current crises in food stability are not beyond human control. Once climate change really starts to bite that will be a whole different story.

Since you have such rosy glasses,

Yeah, because I'm really known for my rosy view of the world. It must be prediction for global famines and plagues that gave you that idea.

perhaps you should just look at China; one child per family China now tell me if their population is still increasing.

You figure out the long term trend:

The question is: "was is it increasing?" Clearly this shows it is still going up and has a positive growth rate.

Stop confusing the second derivative with the first derivative. As a teacher you should know the difference.

As for food look to Cuba in addition to China. Both command economy. Can they produce enough food? Cuba went from the worlds largest exporter of sugar to being entirely dependent on imports.

Cuba has been under economic sanctions for 52 years. They are doing quite well considering.

Still has some rather big trade partners in the Soviet Union and China. However you choose to ignore the actual issue. You can wave your hands all you want as leader and order people to to all kinds of things. Getting them to obey your hand waving is another matter. Unless you are trying to say the only export market for Cuba was the USA. Better have facts if that is what you wanted to imply.

China is seriously worried about starvation in a few short years.

No they aren't. They're more concerned about supporting their aging population.

They are very much worried about starvation. The aging population is another matter entirely. But if you refuse to open your eyes there is no hope. Hint, it is a side effect of the one child policy and industrialization.

If those systems don't have enough control how can you ever think a western country will have enough control? Take your rose colored glasses off and look at the world as it is.

What is it with this stupid rose coloured glasses sh*t? You are the one that is burying your head in the sand about climate change.

It is one thing to wave you arms and say "make it so" it is another thing to do it. People always act in their own selfish interest, they rarely if ever act in their collective interest.

That's quite obvious from the climate denier rhetoric in this thread.

Have I ever said that it isn't getting warmer? NO!

I have questioned the magnitude, as others have and they found it wasn't as fast as originally claimed.

I have questioned the link between humans being the 100% cause of the warming. I find the evidence tenuous at best. We simply still do not know enough about the things happening on this planet to draw such a conclusion.

I have never said we should not cut back on emissions. That is a good thing in general climate warming or not.

What I do find extremely FUD is this poppy cock that if we do some linear cut back we can stave off exponential growth. Not going to happen.

If the catastrophic promoters are correct and there is a tipping point being fast approached, then the only solution we have is to drop human civilization back into the bronze age. I'll push the button. But I won't do it on flimsy evidence.

---

You figure out the long term trend:

The question is: "was is it increasing?" Clearly this shows it is still going up and has a positive growth rate.

Stop confusing the second derivative with the first derivative. As a teacher you should know the difference.

Your graph may be bigger than my graph, but even you can see that the long term trend is that at some point in the future the growth rate will be negative.

Perhaps I should have spelt it out for you. I thought me giving a date of 2030 and a graph was clue enough of what I meant.

*sigh* You really are very rude and partronising sometimes.

---

Reality Internet Personality

Cite the report and name the "assumptions" it contradicts and how those "assumptions" are used in current GCMs.

Already cited. Go check out the previous editions of this thread.

Good wild goose chase from you...

Care to save us all the wasted chasing and list your reference please?


Or all just a smoke screen and FUD from you as always?

This is still our only one planet for everyone,
Martin

---

See new freedom: Mageia Linux
Take a look for yourself: Linux Format
The Future is what We all make IT (GPLv3)

Cite the report and name the "assumptions" it contradicts and how those "assumptions" are used in current GCMs.

Already cited. Go check out the previous editions of this thread.

Good wild goose chase from you...

True, and typical of these people.

---

Cite the report and name the "assumptions" it contradicts and how those "assumptions" are used in current GCMs.

Already cited. Go check out the previous editions of this thread.

At the moment, you have 8770 posts and I see no way to filter them according to the specific thread in which you posted them. I'm new here, so you'll excuse me if I'm missing some way to make a search for that one post of yours a reasonable effort. But from where I'm sitting, your challenge to wade through so many pages just to have an argument with one anonymous dude on the Internet gives the impression that your source is garbage, and that you know it's garbage. I wouldn't expect you to provide information that proves my point, but when you claim some information supports your point but then you refuse to simply link to it, now this makes it look like you're just full of **it, and worse, that you know you're full of **it.

---

Your graph may be bigger than my graph, but even you can see that the long term trend is that at some point in the future the growth rate will be negative.

Perhaps I should have spelt it out for you. I thought me giving a date of 2030 and a graph was clue enough of what I meant.

*sigh* You really are very rude and partronising sometimes.

I see the rate of growth flattening out to around 0.4%. I don't see it going below the zero line. It may, but I don't think the data supports that conclusion at this time. In other words people are finding ways to game the system to have more than one child per couple. IIRC a birth rate of about 2.1 is required for zero population growth. It should be obvious that China isn't able to have enforce its policy of a birth rate of 1.0. Note: birth rate is a different scale than the population growth scale on the charts.

Now would you like to talk about a policy of forced abortion and forced sterilization? If China with this is having a problem getting their growth rate to zero is there any hope at all?

---

Cite the report and name the "assumptions" it contradicts and how those "assumptions" are used in current GCMs.

Already cited. Go check out the previous editions of this thread.

Good wild goose chase from you...

Care to save us all the wasted chasing and list your reference please?

IIRC you replied to it at the time.

ed: found it and your replies martin.

---