This forum is about wrong numbers in science, politics and the media. It respects good science and good English.
I actually think you've overestimated the efficacy of controlling the rainfall on your roof. ;-)
DaveE - if that was a 'climate sceptic' statement it should I think have said 'underestimated'.
I'm more interested, now, in the reasons why people want to believe in AGW. Pointing out the bad science gnaws away at the foundations, but what really turned many people off AGW wasn't a scientific argument but the revelation that the CRU scientists were acting in a duplicitous manner, in a way that normal people could understand. There's also a slowly dawning realisation that some people stand to make offensively large amounts of cash out of AGW. In the same way, a person discovering that his or her local priest was doing something heinous could be more of a challenge to that person's faith than any amount of philosophical argument.
If we understood better the psychological reasons why eschatalogical ideas such as 'death by carbon dioxide' appeal so much we might be able to turn the debate into a scientific one rather from a moral and political panic.
You are correct Frank. Controlling the rainfall on the roof may have a small though immeasurable effect.
And be impossible to distinguish from the volume of water coming in and out of the Puget Sound through the Straights of Juan de Fuca. Tides range from -4 ft to +12 ft occasionally getting to +15 during a storm surge.
'Cause and Effect' presumes some sort of direct association.
Since about 1870 CO2 has increased from 290ppm to about 390ppm, that is a 33% increase.
Since 1870 the world's average temperature(estimated) has increased from about 13 C to 14 C.
13 C = 286K
14 C = 287 K.
1K is about an increase of 1/2 of 1%.
A 33% increase in CO2 causing a 1/2 of 1% change in temperature seems a RATHER weak association to use to claim 'causality'!!
The rain water flowing off of your roof is just as strong an association!! :)
This question has probabily been answered but; have any of the AGW people ever said just what is the optimal average world temperature and why that temperature is optimal????
That would be one of those questions that has already been answered by "experts", but when pressed for where to find that answer, you become a conspiracy theorist.
There is a new class of Fallacy here.
Argument from other guy is a conspiracy theorist.
You claim that this question hasn't been answered by experts, experts wouldn't let such an answer go unanswered, therefore you are claiming a conspiracy among the experts to suppress this information, therefor you are a conspiracy theorist and are no better than a 9/11 truther or Holocaust denier!
"This question has probabily been answered but; have any of the AGW people ever said just what is the optimal average world temperature and why that temperature is optimal????"
The AGWers don't have a specific optimum global average temperature, but they do have a sort of optimum temperature band. This forms the basis of the idea, widely used by (and specifically invented for) AGW promoting politicians, that the global average temperature must be limited to not increasing by more than 2 degrees C above pre-industrial temperature levels. The 2 degree C figure usually appears in statements made by politicians at the various international climate change summits that seem to take place every year.
The story about where the 2 deg C figure comes from, which was invented by some German climate scientists back in the mid-1990s, is given in this link:
"The story of the two-degree target began in the German Advisory Council on Global Change (WBGU). Administration politicians had asked the council for climate protection guidelines, and the scientists under Schellnhuber's leadership came up with a strikingly simple idea. "We looked at the history of the climate since the rise of homo sapiens," Schellnhuber recalls. "This showed us that average global temperatures in the last 130,000 years were no more than two degrees higher than before the beginning of the industrial revolution. To be on the safe side, we came up with a rule of thumb stating that it would be better not to depart from this field of experience in human evolution. Otherwise we would be treading on terra incognita.""
So from that the above it looks like pro-AGW climate scientists are assigning an optimum temperature band to what they think the homo sapiens species has already experienced in its history. The 2 deg C rise figure would go outside this optimum band. It's an application of the precautionary principle.
As far as I'm aware climate scientists don't think a 'catastrophe' would occur if the limit is exceeded (for example Schellnhuber, who invented the limit, doesn't think that) but Green-leaning politicians often treat it as though it is a catastrophic limit.
The Green lobby, it goes without saying, claim that an apocalypse would occur if the 2 deg C limit is exceeded. For example the Stop Climate Chaos Coalition in the UK (a coalition of about 100 Green-leaning NGOs) have this webpage:
An extract from the link:
"But with a rise of 2 degrees C or more, southern Europe will suffer serious drought every decade; billions of people will not have enough water; 550 million will go hungry; 3 million will die from malnutrition.
In the UK coastal flooding will impact up to 170 million people. And many plant, bird and butterfly species will be consigned to the history books."
The above extract also gives the biggest Greenie numerical howler I think I've ever seen. They're claiming 170 million people in the UK would be affected by coastal flooding when the current total population of the UK is something like 60 million.
Thank you very much.