cohenite,

There's no doubt about your confidence in opposition to scientific agreement on AGW. "Elites" vs "ordinary people" is probably a reasonable strategy to run with for the time being.

I came across a pertinent passage by that elitist brainbox, Charles Darwin, who wrote the following in his introduction to "The Descent of Man":

"It has often and confidently been asserted, that man's origin can never be known: but ignorance more frequently begets confidence than does knowledge: it is those who know little, and not those who know much, who so positively assert that this or that problem will never be solved by science."

So "those who know much" (ie. climate scientists) are given the epithet "elitists" - and "those who know little" (about climate science) are titled "ordinary people", salts of the earth, heartlessly manipulated by the former and their supporters.

Fascinating narrative.

http://darwin-online.org.uk/content/frameset?itemID=F937.1&viewtype=text&pageseq=1

Hi Poirot,

Your quote of Charles Darwin's raises a question:

"So "those who know much" (ie. climate scientists) are given the epithet "elitists" - and "those who know little" (about climate science) are titled "ordinary people", salts of the earth, heartlessly manipulated by the former and their supporters."

Is this your interpretation of how some critics (is one allowed to be a critic these days ? Isn't that getting dangerously close to becoming - dare I use the word ? - a 'sceptic' ?) might be using the words ?

Isn't it possible that what some people mean by 'elitist' is an observation that, in the minds of some other people, if you are not an expert, you should shut up and keep out of the discussion ?

And given that this thread has something to do with free speech for all, i.e. the obverse of the above approach, then the views of the most boorish, ignorant, blathering and bigoted must be given free rein, no matter how much we disagree with them ?

After all, the problem is who decides ? Who should be the guardian of what should be allowed ? Who defines proper thought and speech ? Who sets the boundaries of what 'ordinary people' should be allowed to say ? i.e. the ignorants amongst us (or at least a few suburbs over) ?

Or - eventually - think ? In a properly ordered society, one suspects crosses some minds, 'surely only the elites can deliberate over what should be said and, therefore, thought' ? 'Sadly,' this line of thought goes on, 'will there always be a need for the thought police and the extraction squads, even in the best of Utopias' ?

Cheers,

Joe

:)

Hello Joe

1. Average world temperature has risen by 0.9 degrees in the past century?

Yes. Some regions have experienced even higher averages, especially as you move away from the equator and towards the poles.

http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/sotc/service/global/global-land-ocean-mntp-anom/201001-201012.gif

2. sea-levels have risen by around two inches in the last century?

No. The global average sea level has risen about 20 cm.

Sea levels rose at an average of about 1.7 millimetres per year during the 20th century and 3.4 millimetres per year for about the last 20 years

The oceans are the major heat-sink for global warming. As water warms, it expands in volume. This thermal expansion of the ocean has been the major cause of sea level rise in the 20th century.

Other contributors to sea level rise are the melting of glaciers and ice sheets from Greenland and the Antarctic continents.

3. Average world temperatures haven't risen by anything much in the last fourteen years.

Yes, but you’re a realist Joe : )

Copy this link to your browser and click the graph:

https://plus.google.com/u/0/112435942355572461782/posts/3VkBXqgC9mk

In statistical terms, you have to separate the ‘noise’ (natural variability) from the ‘signal’ (climate change) you are trying to measure. A 30 year period is nominally required, 14 years is really not long enough.

Consider this; 1998 was one of the hottest years in recorded history, so was 2010/11. 1998 in El Niño, 2010 in La Niña. This should tell you something about trends.

FYI

• The average combined global land and ocean surface temperature for June 2012 was 0.63°C above the 20th century average of 15.5°C. The fourth warmest June since records began in 1880.

• The Northern Hemisphere land and ocean average surface temperature for June 2012 was the all-time warmest June on record, at 1.30°C above the average.

• The globally-averaged land surface temperature for June 2012 was also the all-time warmest June on record, at 1.07°C above average.

Your last 2 questions Joe;

Life does not end in 2100. We have to adapt to a warmer and wetter world, it would be prudent to slow the rate of increase. Yes/No?

Thank you, Bonmot,

1. 0.9 degrees, on average. As you write, some regions have experienced higher rises. Which suggests to a fool like me that some regions must have experienced lower lises, or none at all perhaps. But 0.9 degrees on average.

2. Sea-level rises must be much more to measre, what with tectonics, and coastal rise following on from the Ice Age or uplift, as in the case of the east coast. 20 cm, eight inches, certainly may not be evidenced by erosion of beaches, since the sand has to go somewhere, but probably can be measured by, say, rise in algal or marine-growth lines on sea-walls, that sort of thing. Or gradual swamping of low sea-walls or berms or groynes, or whatever. For all that, eight inches sound a bit much. Areas can get swamped for other reasons too, such as land submergence, as in Pacific atolls.

Yes, I suppose as water warms, it expands in volume (although we learnt in shool physics that it didn't). But from 0 to about 2 degrees, we learnt, it decreases in volume. Oops, fodder for your case :)

And this past June was "The fourth warmest June since records began in 1880" ? The other three warmer Junes were when ? 1998 and twice more since then ?

As you write, "it would be prudent to slow the rate of increase. Yes/No?"

Of course. Switching to renewables, and paying higher electricity prices if that is what it takes. Creating algal blooms or whatever to suck CO2 out of the oceans. Culling whales to allow more plankton to grow, or whatever. As I wrote,

".... there are a range of remedies that might mitigate the awful effects of Global Luke-Warming .... , from nuclear power to tree-planting to switching of the kitchen light, etc. Yes ? No ?"

Most governments seem to be coming around to doing something, even China and maybe even, one day, India.

[TBC]

Bonmot

[continued]

I guess what gets up the noses of many people though, Bonmot, is this suspicion that somebody, for their own ends, is crying 'wolf'. And that is why we ALWAYS need freedom of expression for all the sceptics and doubters and assorted fools who don't want to get kicked in the nuts, whether by politicians or by 'experts', or by their useful idiots.

Let a hundred flowers bloom, let a thousand schools of thought contend. Seriously.

Cheers,

Joe

:)

I see bonmot has wandered in from his exalted place and made some declarations about various terrifying consequences of AGW which are happening right now; one is sea level; Houston and Dean [2010] have provided the definitive paper on sea level rise; they say:

"Without sea-level acceleration, the 20th-century sea-level trend of 1.7 mm/y would produce a rise of only approximately 0.15 m from 2010 to 2100; therefore, sea-level acceleration is a critical component of projected sea-level rise. To determine this acceleration, we analyze monthly-averaged records for 57 U.S. tide gauges in the Permanent Service for Mean Sea Level (PSMSL) data base that have lengths of 60–156 years. Least-squares quadratic analysis of each of the 57 records are performed to quantify accelerations, and 25 gauge records having data spanning from 1930 to 2010 are analyzed. In both cases we obtain small average sea-level decelerations. To compare these results with worldwide data, we extend the analysis of Douglas (1992) by an additional 25 years and analyze revised data of Church and White (2006) from 1930 to 2007 and also obtain small sea-level decelerations similar to those we obtain from U.S. gauge records."

So, sea level rise is DEcelerating not ACcelerating and that is consistent with trends for the last 100 years and contradicts the predictions of AGW sea level rise into the future.