We're not even going to talk about the data until you're able to offer an explanation for the behavior I'm about to detail.
Why? Though most of your post is itself ridiculous mischaracterization to my mind, I find no reason to get into a debate with you about it. People reading along can (or have already since we discussed much of it previously) come to their own conclusion about who is saying what about whom. I want to focus on analysis of the data and that seems wholly irrelevant to these other points.
In fact that is all I will address, as I'm sure more people are interested in that anyway.
Once I was able to penetrate the deep conflusion most of your posts create, I see that the position you've elucidated is actually quite reasonable.
My initial post to RAZD was pretty clear in what I was addressing and what you have yet to admit is true... Contrary to your statements... The scientific community:
1) Has not had convincing evidence for 40 years that CC was occuring.
2) That temps have never been higher. You have corrected my understanding of your position to be "sustained temps of this height (which are not the highest ever) since we have had agricultural based civilizations". I have gone on to show that is NOT a correct understanding of data from the Holocene period.
3) That the data is "unimpeachable". That is not a correct understanding of science, much less what the scientific community maintains at this point in time. CO2 being able to increase temps in general is pretty well substantiated. That human production of CO2 (in conjunction with other activities) has resulted in an increase in temps is strongly suggested by the data. However, other factors (including natural ones) play some role in the overall increases we have seen, and may play a syncretic role. Further we do not have strong evidence of how much CO2 increases can drive temps in a longterm way, what effects might occur from them, and that larger scale natural forces which have previously driven down temps might not do so again.
More issues have been added, like the concept of "longterm cooling trends", but the above were the starting issues which RAZD seemed in part to be accepting (or at least letting slip by) and I was challenging. I also called into question the use of graphs to make points about paleoclimatology as they are deceptive. What you "see" is not necessarily a correct conclusion to make about the data.
Let me make it absolutely clear. My position is in no way contentious:
Points one and two are not in contention. I agree with them. The third is possible but not without some contention, even within scientific circles. Let us look at it...
Elevated atmospheric temperatures can be expected to have certain effects which can be expected to have serious economic consequences for human civilizations. Two that I have mentioned would be the inundation of several low-lying coastal cities as ocean levels rise above their historic maximums, and famines as crucial agricultural land experiences a drastic decline in precipitation. Perhaps defenses against these threats will be erected in time; I sincerely hope that they do. But if nothing is done the consequences will, most likely, be severe indeed - much as the consequences of other inaction have been severe in the past (Katrina.)
Expected to have? Based on what evidence? We do not have models that are specific/accurate enough to make such a claim. Famines already occur despite enough food and there is no indication there would be a realistic drop in food producation such that more famines would necessarily occur than they do today for those same reasons. In fact if glacial retreat, and regional warming occurs, it is possible that we will have more land on which to farm which we could not previously. It also does not consider increased use of aquaculture for both vegetable and meat products.
Regarding inundation of coastal areas. As explained already ALL coastal or flooplain cities must deal with the problems of water incursion. Current models show a possible 1m rise within 100 years. Even if true that is more than enough time for those that would be effected to deal with those effects. If people choose not to do something, that is irrelevant to this discussion. That means they'd be facing the same problems at some other point just the same (just like we saw happen with NO or Indonesia).
Obviously I agree that if we can avoid having to build stronger defenses, or postpone such enterprises, why not? It makes sense to me. But there is no evidence to support terms of "severity".
As an aside, commentary in the 3rd point contains what I refer to as "apocalyptic visions". Historic maximums (as if that means something?). Drastic decline. Perhaps defenses will be erected, and I hope they do. If you dislike the term "apocalyptic", then substitute "alarmist", "catastrophic", "disastrous". The point is that it is loaded terminology to suggest a level of effect or consequence for immediate emotional rather than carefully considered rational response. This is not sober discussion, and seriously distorts the nature of science and scientific evidence on the subject.
This is similar to using the disaster in NO, when discussing possible effects of CC. To my mind that is inaccurate and unhelpful. It is essentially abusing the victims of a wholly separate tragedy to scare people, rather than educate them about what they might actually face. The problems of rising sea level (even the most dire predictions) does not suggest cities will face what NO did, which was a breach in an existing water defense that was not properly maintained and strengthened given known conditions about NO at the time.
You don't have to address this "aside", and especially not in the context of blaming you for using it. If you want to deal with it, then address what utility such references have in the discussion of CC before the public, particularly in the media.
I'm not away of any danger of New York sinking beneath the sea, except in regards to the rise in ocean levels predicted by global warming. If there's a future scenario where New York sinks beneath the sea even without global warming, I've never heard it, so it wasn't something I was previously concerned about. Of course, Holmes gives no reason at all to believe this will ever be the case.
1) You have yet to present any evidence on that "NY sinks beneath the sea" model.
2) All coastal environments experience erosion and therefore sea incursion. It is a "falling into" rather than "sinking under" but the results and defenses will be similar. The only exception are environments where the coasts are growing outward because of accumulation of material. I believe I HAVE mentioned this before. You let me know what littoral environment NY and especially manhattan is.
as easy as it is to provide a link to an image in a post, you've consistently refused to do so.
This is a personal issue, but one I feel compelled to address. I HAVE provided a link to an image in a post. The only thing I had not done, up until that point, is provide a link such that a viewer would see the image directly in the post, rather than going to it or opening up a separate window to view it. You have yet to explain why that is something others would be incapable of doing, and so some nefarious device I was resorting to rather than hotlinking. I have yet to understand why you used that as a criticism of how I approached supporting my arguments.
holmes {in temp decloak from lurker mode}
"What a fool believes he sees, no wise man has the power to reason away." (D.Bros)
™ Version 4.2