SkepticLance

An ancient Egyptian hydraulic lift. That actually could work. I am not quite sure how, but I am sure a competent engineer could work something out.

To Pangloss Thank you for your support. I fully appreciate you are not supporting my argument, but just my right to free speech without personal attacks being levied against me. I applaud your priorities. The free speech issue is far more important. Some people frequently forget the simple fact that these forum discussions actually do not matter terribly much. No Great Man - mover and shaker in the climate scene - is going to be reading these comments and acting on them. I never forget that contributing to these threads is a form of recreation - not something that really matters. For this reason, I find it a great shame when some contributors get so emotionally involved in these unimportant discussions that they start getting personal and insulting. Fortunately, I do not permit small minded attacks to bother me on a personal level. I was advised many years ago, when still a teen ager, that it takes two people for an insult to be delivered. The insulter, and someone who is prepared to accept the insult. I have operated on the policy since then that I will not accept insults, and hence cannot be insulted. I am quite happy to ignore them, and continue the debate with those people who are able and prepared to carry on the discussion amicably and with courtesy, whether they agree with me or not. Thank you again for your support Pangloss. It is always uplifting to know that there are people who will stand up for our rights to free speech.

A good example of an advantageous allele that has been lost is the crucial one in the Vitamin C manufacturing process inside the body of Homo sapiens. A large number of mammals can make their own vitamin C. We cannot. We must get it in our food. Yet we have most of the genetic apparatus for making the stuff. One crucial gene has been lost. This probably happened during a time when our pre-human ancestors ate a lot of fruit. The change would not have been of any consequence then, and the crucial gene was lost.

Certainly transporting stones by barge makes good sense. It has been suggested that many of the stones at stonehenge must have been carried this way. Of course that does not solve the business of getting the stones into place up a pyramid. I think we are still dependent on earth ramps and lots of people pushing over rollers.

Swansont said " "Which seems like a linear projection to me." You are correct, but I did specify which assumption needed to be made in that case. I accept that there are no certainties in relation to future warming, and in fact that is a big part of my argument. Future warming may be linear, positively or negatively exponential, or any variation. My statement that warming in the near future is unlikely to be massive, is based entirely on the trend over the past 30 years. While it probably will not continue in a linear manner, it would be a major change to allow 3 Celsius warming in a short time. Long term trends normally do not do this. And the long term trend over the past 150 years is less than 0.2 C per decade. On the testing of computer models. As I have pointed out before, looking at what they predict for the past 30 years is not much of a test. We had a very simple situation, with one driving parameter, and one result, which was close to linear. You could calculate the result on the back of an envelope, to within reasonably low error, if you were a climate scientist with good mathematical ability. When the models looked at temperature change before 1976, at a time when other factors were strongly influential, they were not anywhere near as accurate.

Lockheed said "Are you even aware of how small the uncertainty or the magin of error is in these climate models?" No, I am not. And neither are you. The problem is that the major source of error comes not from what we know, but from what we do not. The climate models make a range of assumptions, which require that certain unknowns are considered not to matter. For example : a warming Earth has a wide range of biological effects, primarily an increase in plant growth. How much will this feed-back into the system? No-one knows. In cold temperate and Arctic regions, which are exactly those regions that will experience the greatest warming, there will be an explosion of life with greater warmth. Yet this is not factored into climate models. It can't be, since we do not know how it will impact. But it will have a big, albeit unknown impact. Ditto for the effects of changing cloud formations. The last 30 years have been very stable in terms of non anthropogenic factors. This will not last. There will be large changes in solar activity as shown by sunspots. There will be volcanoes of unpredictable size. There will be changes due to human activity that have not yet been predicted. Thus, the error factors are to a large degree unknown. Predictions based on computer models cannot be reliable.

Swansont said " "On what basis do you support the claim that the temperature increase will be linear?" I don't believe I made that claim. I said that the warming over the past 30 years was essentially linear, and we do not know what the pattern will be in the future. I also said it appears that a rise of 3 Celsius in less than 100 years is unlikely. Not impossible. Just unlikely. Depending on the way the warming goes in the future, the time to achieve a 3 Celsius temperature rise could be anything from 200 years (if warming is at 0.15 C per decade) to 50 years (if warming increases to 0.6 C per decade, which appears unlikely). To suggest major warmings in the near future requires an assumption that the rate of warming will increase dramatically. It has not done so for 30 years, and a dramatic increase in the near future would be a major diversion from the historic pattern, making it seen unlikely. Swansont also said "Poor science is poor science. And IMO policy shouldn't be based on poor science." Absolutely, I could not agree with you more. The problem is that you think that the most complex and unreliable computer models ever constructed represent good science. I do not. They are unreliable and fallible. Good science includes recognising that which is uncertain. And I am pointing out the uncertainty of future warming predictions.

To Swansont If you look at the warming over the last 30 years, on any graph produced by a reputable authority, you will see a warming that bounces up and down. However, a straight line is not a bad fit for this warming, if we ignore the minor fluctuations up and down. Of course, if you try a longer time scale, extending further into the past, the straight line no longer fits. If you assume that the higher part of the warming range (ie. 0.2 C per decade) is correct, then it will take 150 years for a 3 Celsius increase in average temperature on Earth. Of course, the warming may not stay anything like linear. It may accelerate, or it may decelerate. You will, no doubt, argue that it will accelerate. However, when you do that, you are gazing into a crystal ball, or a computer model, which is also unreliable. The simple truth is, we do not know. In any case, I believe that I am correct in saying that a 3 Celsius increase is not likely in the near future, assuming near future means less than 100 years. Swansont, I am not a global warming denier. Just a sceptic of those who make extravagent claims. I accept the world is warming, and that over the past 30 years, the main agent for that warming is human activity. I also accept that a need exists for remedial action. However, I do not accept that we should be precipitated into panic action. Action needs to be well thought out, well tested, and well managed. Currently the biggest problem is that we lack acceptable alternatives for a lot of the carbon releasing activities we do. For example : If someone comes to me and tells me I have to give up my car, and ride a bicycle everywhere, that guy is likely to end up with a thick lip. I do not, and very few others do, agree that a bicycle is an acceptable alternative to a car. Yet those alternatives are under development. Let's put resources into developing the alternatives, and then implement them. Let's NOT allow anyone into panicking us into ill considered actions that we will regret later.

To iNow What an overreaction! We got into an argument over my statement that warming over the past 30 years was 0.15 to 0.2 C per decade. I posted two separate references to support that, and, in fact, as you now realise, I was correct. My original statement was not in the least bit controversial - it is merely the accepted scientific reality. Let's leave it at that, huh?

My thanks to Pangloss. It is nice that someone else can see how ridiculous iNow is being. I have given two references, and the data is widely accepted as correct, so there is no point continuing.

To Swansont Said Danish committee reversed its findings later, and apologised. If you are interested, I suggest you obtain a copy of Lomborg's book, and read it. I am sure your local library will be able to help. To iNow This is beyond getting ridiculous. As I told you, the figure of 0.15 to 0.2 C per decade for the last 30 years is obtained from the total warming over that period divided by 3. Rather basic really. Total warming over the past 30 years was about 0.5 Celsius, plus or minus the error factor. This is shown in the Wiki reference. Here is another reference with a suitable graph showing 0.5 C warming over the last 30 years. http://geology.com/news/2006/01/global-warming-graph-and-map.html If you still continue to deny the basic data, then that is your affair. I do not intend to continue down this ridiculous argument.

To iNow The claim I made in post 27, which you for some weird reason object to, was : The world is currently warming at an average rate of 0.15 to 0.2 Celsius per decade. My response to your rather strange query was : This data is available bloody near everywhere! For example : the Wiki article on global warming http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Global_warming which shows a warming of 0.5 C over 30 years. Allowing for error factors, say 0.4 to 0.6 C over 30 years, and divide by 3 for warming per decade. Now, I could quote any of dozens of sources, including IPCC, Realclimate, or others. They all will say the same thing - that in the past 30 years, the world has warmed 0.4 to 0.6 C on average. What is your quibble? Is the Wiki quote not satisfactory? Even my old debate partners are not arguing this point, because they know it is a simple piece of widely available data. For Finagles sake, this is not even controversial!

Quantum randomness is the current paradigm. A recent New Scientist article suggested that it may change, when we understand more of what lies behind and beneath the quantum world. The article suggested that there may be a deterministic underlying truth, which we have yet to discover. Don't ask me. I just write here.

To iNow What now? Are you dismissing Lomborg? Have you read him? I read both Lomborg and the SciAm scandalously incompetent and biased tirade against him. The editor of SciAm should have been sacked over that. Scientific American is supposed to be an unbiased scientific magazine. Instead, he made it a vehicle for politically correct morons. So he found 9 errors. Wow! I have my copy of The Skeptical Environmentalist in front of me, and there are 352 pages of text; 81 pages of explanatory notes, and 70 pages of bibliography. 9 errors out of that lot is such a small amount as to constitute a total bloody miracle!! I would be struggling to write 20 pages without making at least 9 errors. Basically Lomborg wrote an extraordinarily competent and thoroughly researched book, but touched a raw nerve, and exposed a whole lot of mistakes that the environmental lobbies were making. The reaction was similar to throwing Potassium metal into water.

I know this is not a religious web site. But the arguments for a God who hides leaves me irritated. It makes no sense. The Christian view is that God loves us all and wants us to know him and worship him and pray to him and so on and so on. Yet he hides. An omnipotent God could prove his own existence a million times over beyond a shred of doubt if he wished. He wants us as worshippers. And yet he hides. Sorry. That does not compute.

To iNow I am a bit puzzled. When you ask "Do you have a source, are you referring to my statement that warming over the past 30 years has averaged 0.15 to 0.2 C per decade globally? If you are, it leaves me wondering. This data is available bloody near everywhere! For example : the Wiki article on global warming http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Global_warming which shows a warming of 0.5 C over 30 years. Allowing for error factors, say 0.4 to 0.6 C over 30 years, and divide by 3 for warming per decade. I am not a great fan of Wiki, but the same information can be picked up from numerous web sites.

bombus Have your read Lomborg's book? You need to. I recommend it. The thing is that he offended the delicate sensibilities of those people who firmly believe that everything humans do is destructive. Those people needed a solid kick in the fundamentus. Sadly, presenting truth does not mean truth is accepted, and most people still think with their gonads.

To iNow The period I refer to for the 0.15 to 0.2 C increase per decade is the past 30 years. If the increase were linear, I would not need to present the data as a range. However, the last set of figures I looked at were still below 0.2. I do not know how the warming will go over the next 30 years. In spite of some naive people's total faith in computer models, no-one does. It may increase or not. Much will depend on nations such as China. However, an increase by 3 Celsius is still seriously unlikely in the near future, meaning anything less than 100 years. If we can develop new technologies and implement them globally in the next 50 years, the 3 Celsius rise will simply not happen. We already have hybrid petrol/electric cars. The research is already underway to further develop transport that uses far less fossil fuels, and electricity generation that is based on non carbon emitting methods. I have no doubt that the ability to achieve this will be with us within, say 20 years. The third leg of the anti-CO2 tripod is to combat deforestation. Or rather, to make sure reafforestation exceed deforestation. We have already achieved this in the western world, and it just requires the spread of this philosophy and practise into the third world.

To Chris C I don't think Lomborg ever said that we should do nothing to better manage climate change. He is more against the ridiculous and 'heroic' measures that some idiots are advocating. What is needed to better manage climate change is a blend of new technology (eg. Hydrogen fuel cell cars. New generation nuclear power), better environmental management (stop Indonesia chopping down forest and converting peat bogs to CO2), and a degree of adaptation on our own part to the inevitable climate change that will remain after taking reasonable steps. The world is currently warming at an average rate of 0.15 to 0.2 Celsius per decade. An increase of 3 Celsius is unlikely in the near future. We have time to implement sensible measures - not idiotic measures that will drastically reduce the standard of living of all people and drive the poorest into starvation.

Chrichton is a suspect source of information. However, Lomborg is not. His Skeptical Environmentalist book is a carefully compiled mass of objectively derived data. SciAm did not like the results, but that shows their shortcoming, not Lomborg's. I bought a copy of Lomborg's book and read it cover to cover. Even now, some years later, I have found very little that could be pointed to and called wrong. The Drake Equation may or may not be called scientific. I would think of it more as scientific speculation. Sagan and Drake applied their best guesses to fit values for the equation, and came up with a result of one million alien civilisations in our galaxy. SETI may not have achieved very much, but it makes this result seem seriously unlikely. If there are a million advanced civilisations, what are the chances that none use any communication method that SETI can detect?

When I bought my new computer, I had a real problem getting the old operating system. Vista comes pre-loaded with all sorts of anti-piracy software, which stops you playing DVD's that have been copied. This sounds all very well. However, there are a heap of videos out there that do not have the Hollywood marker software. In my case, my hobby is making underwater videos. If I had Vista, I would not be able to play my own DVD's on my own computer. AAAArrrghhh!

Fred asked : Seriously? How about flood mythologies Any modern fiction writer will tell you that their themes are ultimately based on real life experience. Floods were a factor of every day life in the era of 3000 to 4000 years ago. Thus, those who invented the original biblical stories would have no problem coming up with flood stories.

To Fred We cannot determine what creation mythology was based on. It was all invented so many thousand years ago that no record remains of its inception. Even the record in Genesis was written down long after the myths were actually invented. We can only speculate. There was no scientific method at the time, and no-one actually knew anything about what the stars were, or the planets, or how long the Earth had existed etc. My own speculation is that it all began with stories, invented by a story teller. The ancient equivalent of a fantasy novelist.

It appears that there is a pre-Cambrian period in which iron oxide is gradually precipitated. A rather long period - one billion years. The interpretation is that this happened after the first photosynthesizing bacteria appeared - of which stromatolites are the only ones to leave clear fossil imprints. Iron was in some other form, and was converted to iron oxide by free oxygen from the photosynthesis. It is suggested from this observation that after the first appearance of photosynthesizing bacteria, it took a billion years before the Earth's atmosphere had much free oxygen at all. My authority on this is the great David Attenborough; so it has GOT to be correct.

Economic damage comes not from discussing GW. It comes from some of the policies that are likely to be implemented in response. It is well known that excessive taxes hurt businesses and slow down economic growth. Carbon taxes, often excessive, are the main means suggested by which governments put pressure on people and businesses to cut carbon emissions. This is good for said governments, who end up with lots more money to buy votes - but very bad for the businesses and productive people who just want to earn a living.