Why so much anger in anti-AGW circles?

[truthisfree]

So how much is the Earth going to warm up in the next decade?

[Cassandra Syndrome]

It is just another straw-man that Theodor Landsheidt should be discounted because he is an "amateur climatologist". Such persons could in fact contribute to science (however doubtfull).
Amateur astronomers have contributed to Astronomy. So it is not outside the realm of possibility that an "amateur climatologist" could contribute toward our understanding of climatology.
I would exercise caution however, amateurs in Astonomy and Climatology are not 2 sides of the same coin.

The reason Theodor Landsheidt should be discounted is because he is an Astrologer.
Astrology has zero scientific basis and is worthy only of our derision.
Any adherent to such ridiculous nonsense should not be taken seriously in an scientific discussion.

Why someone would cite a paper by this loon, while casting aside actual scientific papers is someone with a loony agenda.

Perhaps Cassandra Syndrome would explain to us laymen, why Theodor Landsheidt's paper is trumps over all the other papers i've linked to in my earlier post. (and would be happy to link to again).


Note also that Theodor Landsheidt's "credentials" are a bit suspect:

I asked you for your criticisms, which you haven't furnished as of yet.

And typical of your community to chastise another philosophy. I have nothing but contempt for liberal hypocrisy. Oh if someone makes a Politically Incorrect remark they will be crucified. But there you are insulting Astrologers. What harm do they do? If they were politicised and handicapping economic development and people's liberties, but they don't. And they don't have generous funding neither.

As for the report, if you read it you might learn something. There is a correlation between Solar cycles the Earth's 36 year orbital cycle and our climate dating back to when Galileo started counting Sunspots.

[ibis]

So how much is the Earth going to warm up in the next decade?

Oooh...about 0.15 degrees, maybe. Thereabouts, anyway.

[truthisfree]

Oooh...about 0.15 degrees, maybe. Thereabouts, anyway.

That's not a lot, is it?

[ManfredJudge]

"Fact is that I have written a book that provides statistical evidence that the astrological tradition does not conform with reality. Prof. Eysenck, London, has written the foreword to this book critical of astrology."

He is still down on wikipedia as an astrologer though he wrote a book debunking it.

I suppose he was too close to the London School.

[Cassandra Syndrome]

Hurin,

That's away too much tripe to reply to. Simply put, you want to control people, I want to liberate people.

I have clearly said on several occasions on this forum that I want a world with renewable energy. Newsflash! The whole world wants that choice. Its a fundamental within the Laws of Demand and Supply, a branch of economics that there is a negative relationship between price and demand of normal goods, including energy. I appreciate your crew of clinical and cold Technocrats cannot grasp its concept as it is a Social Science. But Human Beings are governed by emotions and will make decisions based upon budget constraints and optimum utility (happiness) derived from a good.

So cheap and easy energy is a no brainer as a natural choice for people over expensive finite fossil fuels. Energy is a not finite resource. With that in mind the natural mechanism of the market will move to this equilibrium. However to get to that equilibrium we need capital production of the devices that will provide this energy. We need fossil fuels to achieve this. But again the natural mechanism of the market will facilitate this if you do not interfere with it.

That is my problem. Selfish interests have inserted a massive negative market externality in this development. In an Anarcho capitalist reality, AGW would not be an issue because we would be moving swiftly to renewable energy and ditching oil as fast as possible. The so called "right wing" conspiracy theorists that your tribe demonise advise people to set up their own solar panels and wind turbines as part of learning how to do without government. Rather than being grateful at such carbon emissions reducing inititive, you still demonise them. Why? Because they are choosing to be free. No regulations, no technocratic laws or wealth that can be extracted from these people for the technocrat fat cats.

I have said this before and the fact you refuse to at the very least discuss it speaks volumes about the ulterior motives of your tribe. So you can fire away the insults at my level of intelligence till you are blue (or green) in the face, but it is only serves to show up the level of sickening pompous hypocrisy within the Green movement.

[ibis]

That's not a lot, is it?

Not really, no. Could be as much as twice that, but it's still not a lot at first glance. It's one of the things that makes it fairly pointless talking about whether 1998 or 2005 was hotter than this year - the global temperature varies by a degree or so from year to year, but the AGW trend is only about 0.015 degrees per year.

[truthisfree]

Not really, no. Could be as much as twice that, but it's still not a lot at first glance. It's one of the things that makes it fairly pointless talking about whether 1998 or 2005 was hotter than this year - the global temperature varies by a degree or so from year to year, but the AGW trend is only about 0.015 degrees per year.

So if this trend of 0.015 degrees a year continues, what can we expect in the next few decades?

[owedtojoy]

So if this trend of 0.015 degrees a year continues, what can we expect in the next few decades?

The best place to answer that is Mark Lynas' book "Six Degrees"

Six Degrees: Our Future on a Hotter Planet: Amazon.co.uk: Mark Lynas: Books

0.015 degrees per year is about 0.15 per decade.

Lynas (and most climate scientists) agree that if the earth adds more than 1.5C average surface temperature, then the human race is in real trouble - mainly from sea level rise which will inundate the most densely inhabited regions of the globe (Ganges delta & valley, Yangtze valley), and eliminate square miles of arable farmland. Assuming an already-achieved (conservatively estimated) rise of 0.5C in the 20th century, at that rate, we will have reached the max permissible temperature about 2070. I will not be around, but my grandson Isaac will probably be, and his children.

Remember, there is no confidence that the rate will remain regular. The earth has never been this warm since humans evolved. The rate is probably more exponential than linear so the rise this decade may be 0.02 per year, 0.025 the decase after etc. etc. We do not know if the recent rise will not trigger other effects like the realease of methane from the permafrost which will pour more greenhouse gas into the atmosphere.

Lynas shows that with rises of over 3,4,5, & 6 degrees successively, the earth becomes progressively more uninhabitable to most forms of life, but especially to humans.

Now, you can argue this is alarmist. But there is a simple principle called the precautionary principle which states that we take steps to prevent even improbable outcomes, like wearing a seat belt to save our lives in car accidents, because the consequences of inaction may be so catastrophic.

[truthisfree]

So how much can the sea level rise before it stabilises?