Forgot your password?
typodupeerror

Comment: Re:Maybe it's for the best. (Score 2) 560

by Layzej (#46303871) Attached to: How Well Do Our Climate Models Match Our Observations?

The current sea level has been rising for hundreds of years and shows no acceleration. See http://sealevel.colorado.edu/

No. As your link points out, sea level has been rising at 3mm/year since 1991. Earlier in the century it was rising at a much lower rate. Prior to that (for the last 4000 years) it was not rising at all: http://upload.wikimedia.org/wi....

Comment: Re:Maybe it's for the best. (Score 1) 560

by Layzej (#46303821) Attached to: How Well Do Our Climate Models Match Our Observations?
Yes. Absolutely. Some amount of warming is probably a good thing. At some point though additional warming will/has become detrimental. Run away global warming is probably not in the cards, but substantial financial impacts are. We need to tone down the rhetoric and perform a cost benefit analysis. Some investment in mitigation is warranted. An ounce of prevention and all that.

Comment: Re:Minor Fluctuation? (Score 4, Interesting) 560

by Layzej (#46296331) Attached to: How Well Do Our Climate Models Match Our Observations?

Also a quick note, 20C over 10000 years is .002C/year. .7C over 30 years is .023C/year

Also worth noting is that the global temperatures didn't change 20C. The last glacial maximum was only 3C to 5C cooler than the present (http://www.ipcc.ch/publications_and_data/ar4/wg1/en/ch6s6-es.html). The height of the current interglacial period occurred about 8000 years ago. Since then temperatures have been dropping (up until recently).

Comment: Re:Minor Fluctuation? (Score 1) 560

by Layzej (#46296129) Attached to: How Well Do Our Climate Models Match Our Observations?

This is a good question. Some amount of warming may be (have been) good. Temperatures had been dropping slowly for the last 8000 years since the height of the current inter glacial. Reversing that trend was probably a good thing. At some point the consequences of added warming will (or possibly have) become detrimental. Small changes in global temperature can have large impacts regionally. As the globe warms, local climates will change more dramatically than the global mean. There will be winners as well as losers.

As others have pointed out, 0.7C doesn't seem like a lot, but it represents a rather large amount of energy. Small changes in global temperature have been seen to have drastic impacts - including moving the world between glacialinterglacial states.

Comment: Re:There are no comments (Score 2) 410

by Layzej (#46263343) Attached to: Obama To Ask For $1 Billion Climate Change Fund

"In 2013, there were 7 weather and climate disaster events with losses exceeding $1 billion each across the United States. These events included five severe weather and tornado events, a major flood event, and the western drought / heat wave. Overall, these events killed 109 people and had significant economic effects on the areas impacted." - http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/billi...

This may be considered an ounce of prevention.

Comment: Re:Steyn is Slime (Score 1) 393

by Layzej (#46094757) Attached to: Michael Mann Defamation Suit Against National Review Writer to Proceed

I pointed out that Mann could have committed fraud even though his results were correct. I didn't accuse him of having committed fraud. Nobody knows whether he committed fraud or not.

In one sentence, then in the next:

since Mann sought to produce that signal anyway, he stopped when he had produced it,

You may be a liar or you may be a fool. You may be deliberately fooling yourself or you may have a loose grasp on reason. You torture logic until it bends to your whim. Please don't misunderstand me. I'm not accusing you of anything.

Comment: Re:Steyn is Slime (Score 1) 393

by Layzej (#46094655) Attached to: Michael Mann Defamation Suit Against National Review Writer to Proceed
Ok. The theory of evolution is backed up by over a century of research, so we can trust it. The theory of greenhouse gasses is backed up by over a century of research, but the initial research done in the 1800's is not enough to prove the most recent findings so we cannot trust it. Sound.

Comment: Re:Steyn is Slime (Score 1) 393

by Layzej (#46092675) Attached to: Michael Mann Defamation Suit Against National Review Writer to Proceed

AGW research is interesting and plausible, but that it isn't mature enough to base global economic policy on it; no scientific field is after only a few decades. The theory of evolution, on the other hand, is backed up by more than a century of research.

Gotcha, but we've only known about the greenhouse effect since the 1800's, so that's clearly not a mature science.

FORTRAN rots the brain. -- John McQuillin

Working...