[Doofy]

Don't tell me that it's man made. Seriously. Don't.

Not when they're transporting flowers from Kenya to Europe on a daily basis by air (or were, before the ashocalypse).

Fresh goods for supermarkets rot in Kenya as volcano grounds flights - Telegraph

The East African nation flies up to £1.3 million of freshly cut flowers to Europe each day

I mean, really? I'm told I have to cut back on car use and walk around in the dark while these stupid CFL bulbs warm up, but they're flying flowers across continents?

[ghporter]

Originally Posted by Doofy 

Don't tell me that it's man made. Seriously. Don't.

Not when they're transporting flowers from Kenya to Europe on a daily basis by air (or were, before the ashocalypse).

Fresh goods for supermarkets rot in Kenya as volcano grounds flights - Telegraph



I mean, really? I'm told I have to cut back on car use and walk around in the dark while these stupid CFL bulbs warm up, but they're flying flowers across continents?

This has less to do with logic than with impatience. "I want out of season flowers, and I want them now!" Even though there are HUGE greenhouses in Belgium that offer an enormous variety of flowers and can provide them with LESS ENERGY COST anywhere in the Continent, there's a pastiche involved-"imported from Africa? Get me those now!!!" Dumb, stupid, ignorant and did I say dumb?

[Uncle Skeleton]

Originally Posted by Doofy 

Don't tell me that it's man made. Seriously. Don't.

Not when they're transporting flowers from Kenya to Europe on a daily basis by air (or were, before the ashocalypse).

Fresh goods for supermarkets rot in Kenya as volcano grounds flights - Telegraph



I mean, really? I'm told I have to cut back on car use and walk around in the dark while these stupid CFL bulbs warm up, but they're flying flowers across continents?

So... for your indicators of accurate science, you look to Africa? Does this mean you also believe that you can cure AIDS by raping a virgin?

[Doofy]

Originally Posted by Uncle Skeleton 

So... for your indicators of accurate science, you look to Africa? Does this mean you also believe that you can cure AIDS by raping a virgin?

Ummm. Way to miss the point.

I suppose I'd better spell it out for you.
Western governments are banning incandescent light bulbs left and right, putting up wind farms all over and taxing the hell out of motorists... ...all in the name of the environment.

So why aren't they banning imports of useless tat, which, as Glenn points out, can be made locally? I'm sure we could all live without year-round flowers if it means saving the polar bears from drowning.

The only logical answer once one follows the money is that there's no such thing as AGW. It's all crap designed to extend control and maximise tax revenue.

Here's another little factoid: For the last few years, Germany has been importing exactly the same quantity of potatoes from the UK that the UK has been importing from Germany. How does that make any sense if we're supposed to be watching our carbon output?

Have a look at this:
Top 10 potato exporters, 2004
Netherlands … 1.7 million metric tons (23.9% of top ten total)
France … 1.4 million metric tons (20.2%)
Germany … 1.3 million metric tons (18.6%)
Belgium … 972.8 thousand metric tons (13.7%)
Canada … 428.1 thousand metric tons (6%)
Israel … 394.4 thousand metric tons (5.6%)
Spain … 232.5 thousand metric tons (3.3%)
United States … 220.7 thousand metric tons (3.1%)
United Kingdom … 217.4 thousand metric tons (3.1%)
Italy … 183.3 thousand metric tons (2.6%).

Top 10 potato importers, 2004
Spain … US$236.9 million (15.6% of top ten total)
Netherlands … $204.9 million (13.5%)
Belgium … $190 million (12.5%)
Germany … $189.4 million (12.5%)
United Kingdom … $186 million (12.3%)
Italy … $176.4 million (11.7%)
France … $125.8 million (8.3%)
United States … $84.4 million (5.6%)
Portugal … $64.1 million (4.2%)
Greece … $56 million (3.7%).

How does that make any sense at all from a "all the polar bears are drowning, we must do something!" perspective? It doesn't. Not at all.
Thus, AGW is BS.

[SpaceMonkey]

Originally Posted by Doofy 

Ummm. Way to miss the point.

I suppose I'd better spell it out for you.
Western governments are banning incandescent light bulbs left and right, putting up wind farms all over and taxing the hell out of motorists... ...all in the name of the environment.

So why aren't they banning imports of useless tat, which, as Glenn points out, can be made locally? I'm sure we could all live without year-round flowers if it means saving the polar bears from drowning.

The only logical answer once one follows the money is that there's no such thing as AGW. It's all crap designed to extend control and maximise tax revenue.

Your proof that global warming cannot be man-made is that countries have not initiated coherent and consistent responses to it?

[Doofy]

Originally Posted by SpaceMonkey 

Your proof that global warming cannot be man-made is that countries have not initiated coherent and consistent responses to it?

Yep. And I don't know what you're laughing for - they've managed to initiate coherent and consistent bullshit about it.

[SpaceMonkey]

Originally Posted by Doofy 

Yep. And I don't know what you're laughing for - they've managed to initiate coherent and consistent bullshit about it.

I'm laughing because the argument is absurd. It's like arguing that McDonald's can't possibly be bad for you, because people still eat it.

[Doofy]

Originally Posted by SpaceMonkey 

I'm laughing because the argument is absurd.

No it ain't. When you're passing a bill dictating emissions from car manufacturers and the banning of incandescent lightbulbs and the legally-binding targets for renewable energy, how hard is it to slip a "and we can't buy useless tat from other regions if we can make that useless tat ourselves" line in there? It ain't hard at all.

[SpaceMonkey]

Originally Posted by Doofy 

No it ain't. When you're passing a bill dictating emissions from car manufacturers and the banning of incandescent lightbulbs and the legally-binding targets for renewable energy, how hard is it to slip a "and we can't buy useless tat from other regions if we can make that useless tat ourselves" line in there? It ain't hard at all.

Which says nothing about the legitimacy of the problem. How hard is it for a fat person to not eat McDonald's? Gee, not hard at all. I guess there's nothing wrong!

[Uncle Skeleton]

Originally Posted by Doofy 

Ummm. Way to miss the point.

I suppose I'd better spell it out for you.
Western governments are banning incandescent light bulbs left and right, putting up wind farms all over and taxing the hell out of motorists... ...all in the name of the environment.

So why aren't they banning imports of useless tat, which, as Glenn points out, can be made locally? I'm sure we could all live without year-round flowers if it means saving the polar bears from drowning.

Got to start somewhere. How do you know they're not taxing the hell out of flower importers too?

Here's another little factoid: For the last few years, Germany has been importing exactly the same quantity of potatoes from the UK that the UK has been importing from Germany. How does that make any sense if we're supposed to be watching our carbon output?

Is it the same kind of potato?

How does that make any sense at all from a "all the polar bears are drowning, we must do something!" perspective? It doesn't. Not at all.
Thus, AGW is BS.

Or maybe... government policies are less than 100% efficient?

[Doofy]

Originally Posted by SpaceMonkey 

Which says nothing about the legitimacy of the problem. How hard is it for a fat person to not eat McDonald's? Gee, not hard at all. I guess there's nothing wrong!

I'm tired of your McDonald's strawman now.

You're attempting to talk about not doing things on a personal level. I'm talking about the banning of things at governmental level.

Can't buy iSight cameras in the name of the environment because of a government ban. Yet we can fly roses from Kenya. Governmental ban on iSights. No governmental ban on flying roses.
Why the inconsistency? Surely we need to do everything we can if the polar bears are going to drown next week?

I'll tell you why. The "cure" for man made global warming has always been to ban or nobble the things which the political left hate. Cars (especially in the status symbol category), industry, etc..
The political left don't hate Kenyan roses, so hence no ban on their import in the name of the environment.

Which tells me that there's no AGW. Just a healthy dollop of political pathmaking.

[Warren Pease]

Originally Posted by Doofy 

Here's another little factoid: For the last few years, Germany has been importing exactly the same quantity of potatoes from the UK that the UK has been importing from Germany. How does that make any sense if we're supposed to be watching our carbon output?

Have a look at this:
Top 10 potato exporters, 2004
Netherlands … 1.7 million metric tons (23.9% of top ten total)
France … 1.4 million metric tons (20.2%)
Germany … 1.3 million metric tons (18.6%)
Belgium … 972.8 thousand metric tons (13.7%)
Canada … 428.1 thousand metric tons (6%)
Israel … 394.4 thousand metric tons (5.6%)
Spain … 232.5 thousand metric tons (3.3%)
United States … 220.7 thousand metric tons (3.1%)
United Kingdom … 217.4 thousand metric tons (3.1%)
Italy … 183.3 thousand metric tons (2.6%).

Top 10 potato importers, 2004
Spain … US$236.9 million (15.6% of top ten total)
Netherlands … $204.9 million (13.5%)
Belgium … $190 million (12.5%)
Germany … $189.4 million (12.5%)
United Kingdom … $186 million (12.3%)
Italy … $176.4 million (11.7%)
France … $125.8 million (8.3%)
United States … $84.4 million (5.6%)
Portugal … $64.1 million (4.2%)
Greece … $56 million (3.7%).

Your numbers suck. They don't in any way validate your 'factoid.'

Germany both import nearly the same (monetarily, but necessarily by tonnage) amount of potatoes. But no indication whence they are being imported.

Also, saying during 'the last few years' and using a single set of numbers from 2004. Awesome.

[Doofy]

Originally Posted by Uncle Skeleton 

Is it the same kind of potato?

Yep.
It's a political requirement that they do this. As is our milk exchange system with France.

Originally Posted by Uncle Skeleton 

Or maybe... government policies are less than 100% efficient?

Oh purlease. The most Stalinesque government in the history of the UK is inefficient? No.

Global warming is merely the stick with which to beat western civilisation and its trappings. Kenya isn't western civilisation, so doesn't get a beating.

[SpaceMonkey]

Originally Posted by Doofy 

I'm tired of your McDonald's strawman now.

You're attempting to talk about not doing things on a personal level. I'm talking about the banning of things at governmental level.

Can't buy iSight cameras in the name of the environment because of a government ban. Yet we can fly roses from Kenya. Governmental ban on iSights. No governmental ban on flying roses.
Why the inconsistency? Surely we need to do everything we can if the polar bears are going to drown next week?

I'll tell you why. The "cure" for man made global warming has always been to ban or nobble the things which the political left hate. Cars (especially in the status symbol category), industry, etc..
The political left don't hate Kenyan roses, so hence no ban on their import in the name of the environment.

Which tells me that there's no AGW. Just a healthy dollop of political pathmaking.

That's all well and good, but even if the motivations you have described are correct, you have presented absolutely no logical reason why both cannot be true: that the "cure" for man-made global warming is politically motivated, and man-made global warming is real. The McDonald's strawman is absolutely appropriate, because it addresses the same logical disconnect.

You being you, I'm actually surprised this has not occurred to you, that someone might exploit a real problem for political gain or to further a certain agenda.

[Doofy]

Originally Posted by Warren Pease 

Your numbers suck.

They're not my numbers. They're official numbers.
So, you can accuse reality of sucking if you like.

Originally Posted by Warren Pease 

Germany both import nearly the same (monetarily, but necessarily by tonnage) amount of potatoes. But no indication whence they are being imported.

Oh, you thought I got the UK <> Germany potato quantities from those numbers? No. Obviously not.

The question remains. Why does "country A" import xxx tonnes of potatoes when they've just exported damn near the same amount that they've grown themselves. Aren't we all supposed to be saving the polar bears? Why do we import Kenyan roses when we can grow the things ourselves? Think of the children!

[Doofy]

Originally Posted by SpaceMonkey 

That's all well and good, but even if the motivations you have described are correct, you have presented absolutely no logical reason why both cannot be true: that the "cure" for man-made global warming is politically motivated, and man-made global warming is real. The McDonald's strawman is absolutely appropriate, because it addresses the same logical disconnect.

You being you, I'm actually surprised this has not occurred to you, that someone might exploit a real problem for political gain or to further a certain agenda.

There's no disconnect here.
Yes, global warming is probably real. Man made? No. Political capital being made by attempting to convince us it's man-made? Yes. Which is kind of the point of this thread.

[SpaceMonkey]

Originally Posted by Doofy 

There's no disconnect here.
Yes, global warming is probably real. Man made? No. Political capital being made by attempting to convince us it's man-made? Yes. Which is kind of the point of this thread.

And my point is that nothing in this thread speaks to the bolded part. It is possible that GW is man-made and people are making political capital off of it. Really, this isn't hard.

[Warren Pease]

Originally Posted by Doofy 

They're not my numbers. They're official numbers.
So, you can accuse reality of sucking if you like.

No, I'm accusing you of sucking.

Originally Posted by Doofy 

Oh, you thought I got the UK <> Germany potato quantities from those numbers? No. Obviously not.

So why post them in the first place!?

And obviously I'm asking you again to post numbers/links that support your 'factoid.' (And not a copy and paste from some uncredited gov't source which you admit has no relevance to your argument).

Originally Posted by Doofy 

The question remains. Why does "country A" import xxx tonnes of potatoes when they've just exported damn near the same amount that they've grown themselves. Aren't we all supposed to be saving the polar bears? Why do we import Kenyan roses when we can grow the things ourselves? Think of the children!

I don't think you've proven that it does happen.

I don't necessarily disagree that it's not happening, you just haven't shown it to be true. I can imagine from a political perspective that it might be desirable to inflate export/import numbers to reflect well on the economy, even if it is more wasteful.

Fiji exports water around the world to countries where the municipal water supply is of high-standard. That doesn't make sense either.

Do we need flowers from Africa (The US gets many from South America too)? Do we need water from Fiji? No. But there is money to be made from their import because people will buy it. This reflects more on capitalism than environmentalism.

Does the average person even know the flowers that they are buying are from overseas? I'd bet that less than 20% know/care.

Lots of people believe that being 'environmental' consists solely of recycling, and forget the first of the "r's" - reduce. It's great that you recycle your Fiji water bottles, but at that point the effect is essentially nullified by everything that came before.

[mduell]

What's wrong with transporting flowers from producer to consumer?

Do you have the same objection to transporting them from the florist to your home, rather than growing them in your backyard?

Or your backyard to your home, instead of growing them in-situ?

[ShortcutToMoncton]

"Flowers are next on the list"

[Doofy]

Originally Posted by Warren Pease 

No, I'm accusing you of sucking.

M.O. suggests you're a Dem then. Nice to know.

Originally Posted by Warren Pease 

So why post them in the first place!?

Do you not know the difference between source data and supporting data?

Originally Posted by Warren Pease 

And obviously I'm asking you again to post numbers/links that support your 'factoid.'

Can't post real life conversations with an insider to the Internet. I forgot that you're all lamers who don't believe anything unless it's got a URL attached to it. Oh well. My bad.

[Doofy]

Originally Posted by mduell 

What's wrong with transporting flowers from producer to consumer?

Nowt.

Originally Posted by mduell 

Do you have the same objection to transporting them from the florist to your home, rather than growing them in your backyard?

I don't have any objection to flowers being imported from Kenya. I have an objection to having the shit taxed out of me in the name of the environment while they allow said imports through unhindered. Pretty sure a plane load of those flowers generates more CO2 than I do.

[Uncle Skeleton]

Originally Posted by Doofy 

Can't buy iSight cameras in the name of the environment because of a government ban.
...
I'll tell you why. The "cure" for man made global warming has always been to ban or nobble the things which the political left hate.

The Left hates iSight cameras?

[Uncle Skeleton]

Originally Posted by Doofy 

Yep.
It's a political requirement that they do this. As is our milk exchange system with France.

So what? Over here we had a political requirement to instantiate Saddam Hussein, and another political requirement to depose him. Does that mean that the problems we thought we were solving with these actions were lies? Threat from Iran: lie? Iraqi WMDs: lie? Or is it just that we chose a bad method to respond to legitimate problems?

Kenya isn't western civilisation, so doesn't get a beating.

Or... Kenya's carbon emissions are 30 times lower than the UK already, so beating on them wouldn't have much impact on global warming.

[Uncle Skeleton]

Originally Posted by Doofy 

Do you not know the difference between source data and supporting data?

I know: a "factoid" is something without source data, and an actual "fact" has source data

[Warren Pease]

Originally Posted by Doofy 

Can't post real life conversations with an insider to the Internet. I forgot that you're all lamers who don't believe anything unless it's got a URL attached to it. Oh well. My bad.

Funnily enough, my insider was just telling me the opposite thing about those potatoes. So you'll just have to believe me.

[Doofy]

OK guys, you win.
Man-made global warming does exist and flying roses into Europe from Kenya doesn't contribute to it at all.

[Uncle Skeleton]

Originally Posted by Doofy 

OK guys, you win.
Man-made global warming does exist and flying roses into Europe from Kenya doesn't contribute to it at all.

Your inability to separate these into two distinct thoughts is downright odd

[DrTacoMD]

Originally Posted by Uncle Skeleton 

Your inability to separate these into two distinct thoughts is downright odd

This. I fully agree that it's somewhere between pointless and illogical to ban certain things for their carbon footprint, but ignore others. But that being said, I agree with Skeleton and SpaceMonkey that this dat, while disconcerting, does nothing to show whether global warming is man-made or not. All it does is indicate that governments tend to be short-sighted and inconsistent, which isn't surprising in the least.

[screener]

Doofus.

[DrTacoMD]

Originally Posted by screener 

Doofus.

I think the quality of political discourse in this entire forum just went up a notch with that one. Bravo, my good man.

[screener]

The OP's argument is stupid.

If his screen name is similar to my post, it was intentional.

[ghporter]

Originally Posted by Uncle Skeleton 

Your inability to separate these into two distinct thoughts is downright odd

But both statements are equally as undigestible. It is still a matter of "whom do you believe" whether or not humankind is significantly altering the global climate (I believe we certainly aren't helping anything), but if that is the case, than how can we accept the rather expensive (in money and carbon) practice of flying flowers from Africa to England as being a "good thing?"

[mattyb]

In reply to your original post Doof, it could be (I personally think that we have contributed to the warming of the planet. I mean, all those hamburgers came from cows that farted loads didn't they?), but there are far more natural events that contribute. Like this one. Or this one.

[Uncle Skeleton]

Originally Posted by ghporter 

how can we accept the rather expensive (in money and carbon) practice of flying flowers from Africa to England as being a "good thing?"

How can we accept the rather illegal practice of jaywalking as being a "good thing?" Our police are enforcing murder and arson laws, while jaywalkers flout the law with impunity! Oh the hypocrisy!!!

[Warren Pease]

Originally Posted by mattyb 

In reply to your original post Doof, it could be (I personally think that we have contributed to the warming of the planet. I mean, all those hamburgers came from cows that farted loads didn't they?), but there are far more natural events that contribute. Like this one. Or this one.

Volcanoes do contribute. But recently, their contribution, specifically Eyjafjallajoekull, has been to reduce CO2 emissions. By grounding commercial air travel.


Planes or Volcano?

[Lint Police]

*estimated = in other words, yet another thing we have absolutely no ****ing clue about but if you just give us some money to research it, we will give you the data that you want to fit the agenda you want.

[andi*pandi]

Things being shipped all over is part of the emissions problem, certainly. That's why there is a local foods movement. Very tiny though in relation to big business.

Kenyan flowers must be some capitalists profit-maker though, right?

[Warren Pease]

Originally Posted by Lint Police 

*estimated = in other words, yet another thing we have absolutely no ****ing clue about but if you just give us some money to research it, we will give you the data that you want to fit the agenda you want.

Until we have a balloon large enough to directly capture, then measure said guesses, we will have estimates. Though even then, that probably would not satisfy you.

What is the weight of the Earth? What is the length of a continent's coast? The answers to these questions will never been known exactly, but can be estimated with small margins of error, enough to know that we are way more correct than we could be wrong.

[ghporter]

Originally Posted by Uncle Skeleton 

How can we accept the rather illegal practice of jaywalking as being a "good thing?" Our police are enforcing murder and arson laws, while jaywalkers flout the law with impunity! Oh the hypocrisy!!!

My question addresses logic, not a traffic regulation. Jaywalking is a minor infraction set up to keep pedestrians relatively safer when crossing busy streets. Using a jet aircraft to cart roses from Kenya to London - with the understanding that at the very least this is a polluting activity - is not terribly logical.

[Uncle Skeleton]

Originally Posted by ghporter 

My question addresses logic, not a traffic regulation. Jaywalking is a minor infraction set up to keep pedestrians relatively safer when crossing busy streets. Using a jet aircraft to cart roses from Kenya to London - with the understanding that at the very least this is a polluting activity - is not terribly logical.

Roses from Kenya is a minor infraction. No one said it's a "good thing," it's just not a big enough target to earn attention (yet?). Roses are small, Kenya is small, and the combination is even smaller. There are about 10,000 juicier targets than that if your interest is in quelling carbon waste. You would be insane to try to make laws against every conceivable use of fuel, one by one, instead of trying to cast a single wide net to reduce fuel use in general.

I don't know why this concept is so hard to grasp, it can be conveyed in just two words: BIGGER FISH. Obviously they will start with the bigger targets and THEN work their way down to the smaller targets. If they didn't, then THAT would be a legitimate reason to object. The same reason police start with the bigger targets (murders) and work their way down to the smaller targets (jaywalkers), IF they have time.

[Wiskedjak]

Originally Posted by SpaceMonkey 

Your proof that global warming cannot be man-made is that countries have not initiated coherent and consistent responses to it?

I think he's arguing for an increase in such inefficient practices as importing flowers from Africa and importing as many potatoes as one exports.

[Wiskedjak]

Originally Posted by mattyb 

In reply to your original post Doof, it could be (I personally think that we have contributed to the warming of the planet. I mean, all those hamburgers came from cows that farted loads didn't they?), but there are far more natural events that contribute. Like this one. Or this one.

actually, if you'd read your own link, you'd see that volcanic activity is far more likely to cause *global cooling* than global warming.

[ghporter]

Originally Posted by Uncle Skeleton 

Roses from Kenya is a minor infraction. No one said it's a "good thing," it's just not a big enough target to earn attention (yet?). Roses are small, Kenya is small, and the combination is even smaller. There are about 10,000 juicier targets than that if your interest is in quelling carbon waste. You would be insane to try to make laws against every conceivable use of fuel, one by one, instead of trying to cast a single wide net to reduce fuel use in general.

I don't know why this concept is so hard to grasp, it can be conveyed in just two words: BIGGER FISH. Obviously they will start with the bigger targets and THEN work their way down to the smaller targets. If they didn't, then THAT would be a legitimate reason to object. The same reason police start with the bigger targets (murders) and work their way down to the smaller targets (jaywalkers), IF they have time.

No argument about that here. Except that the issue came up because "flowers rotting at the airport" was picked up by the press. Slow news day or not, I think that it's a good illustration of how we tend to, as a society, squander energy and other people's time (airport workers, air crews, all the others that actually move those roses from place to place) for silly stuff. Roses from Belgium can't be that bad...

[Uncle Skeleton]

Originally Posted by ghporter 

No argument about that here. Except that the issue came up because "flowers rotting at the airport" was picked up by the press. Slow news day or not, I think that it's a good illustration of how we tend to, as a society, squander energy and other people's time (airport workers, air crews, all the others that actually move those roses from place to place) for silly stuff. Roses from Belgium can't be that bad...

It's a bad example of what we do "as a society," it's more an example of what we do "as individuals." There is no policy to ship roses around the world (or a million other things that are equally silly). The only policy in play in this example is to let individuals act in their own best interest (aka capitalism). They only do it because they make money that way, not because they think it's some sort of "right thing to do for society."

[mattyb]

Originally Posted by Wiskedjak 

actually, if you'd read your own link, you'd see that volcanic activity is far more likely to cause *global cooling* than global warming.

Strange, I saw these sentences for the Laki volcano and thought otherwise : "The summer of 1783 was the hottest on record" and "The weather became very hot, causing severe thunderstorms with hailstones that were reported to have killed cattle, until the haze dissipated in the autumn." and "The meteorological impact of Laki continued, contributing significantly to several years of extreme weather in Europe.". Bizarre that the effects can be so different from one volcano to the next.

My point was that natural events have far more impact than any man made events, except perhaps for nuclear war. Such as the highest CO2 emitter being our oceans and seas.

Warren Pease, any figures for the estimated 1500 other active volcanoes around the world?

[Warren Pease]

According to the U.S. Geological Survey (USGS), the world’s volcanoes, both on land and undersea, generate about 200 million tons of carbon dioxide (CO2) annually, while our automotive and industrial activities cause some 24 billion tons of CO2 emissions every year worldwide. Despite the arguments to the contrary, the facts speak for themselves: Greenhouse gas emissions from volcanoes comprise less than one percent of those generated by today’s human endeavors.

I always remembered the stat that humans produce 130x more annually than is produced naturally. These numbers put it at 120x.

The numbers are averages. Large eruptions like this one, Pinatubo put out more CO2 on those years than when there are no large volcanic eruptions. But as the figures I posted earlier, even very large (note- and newsworthy) eruptions put out a lot in a very short period of time, but not as much as we are capable of.

[Lint Police]

Originally Posted by Warren Pease 

Until we have a balloon large enough to directly capture, then measure said guesses, we will have estimates. Though even then, that probably would not satisfy you.

What is the weight of the Earth? What is the length of a continent's coast? The answers to these questions will never been known exactly, but can be estimated with small margins of error, enough to know that we are way more correct than we could be wrong.

I believe in estimates. I don't believe in estimates that are produced simply to push an agenda.

[Warren Pease]

Originally Posted by mattyb 

Strange, I saw these sentences for the Laki volcano and thought otherwise : "The summer of 1783 was the hottest on record"

There's also a big [citation needed] right after that

Originally Posted by mattyb 

and "The weather became very hot, causing severe thunderstorms with hailstones that were reported to have killed cattle, until the haze dissipated in the autumn." and "The meteorological impact of Laki continued, contributing significantly to several years of extreme weather in Europe."

Extreme weather goes both ways - cold and hot.
Also...

The winter of 1784 was most severe; Gilbert White at Selborne in Hampshire reported 28 days of continuous frost. The extreme winter is estimated to have caused 8,000 additional deaths in the UK. In the spring thaw, Germany and Central Europe reported severe flood damage

One of the first-hand accounts says it was warmer and there's no reason to doubt it. The other two accounts talk about an exceedingly cold winter and cold even in the summer.

Originally Posted by Ben Franklin

[The sun's rays] were indeed rendered so faint in passing through [the volcanic fog], that when collected in the focus of a burning glass they would scarce kindle brown paper. Of course, their summer effect in heating the Earth was exceedingly diminished.

Again no reason to doubt their accounts either.

Originally Posted by mattyb 

Bizarre that the effects can be so different from one volcano to the next.

From 3 accounts, not very well placed temporally, it's hard to say definitively what happened. Ash fall is probably likely to soak up the suns rays (and heat) but will be the first part of an eruption to be removed from the atmosphere, SO2 (cooling) gasses remain for many years afterwards. So perhaps, initially heated volcanic ash produced higher temperatures locally, but the overall effect was cooler temperatures.

It's an interesting question. Is Europe experiencing warmer temperatures now?

[Warren Pease]

Originally Posted by Lint Police 

I believe in estimates. I don't believe in estimates that are produced simply to push an agenda.

So your assumption is that these estimates were produced 'simply to produce an agenda'. Prove it.

The reason I ask is that people actually do this kind of work on their own. A friend of mine from college (M.S. in igneous petrology) tweeted her estimation of the volcanic eruption. She was off by a factor of 2. Regardless, her agenda for doing the calculation? Well, I can't think how that would benefit her at her job as an office temp. (Unfortunately for her, igneous petrology is not terribly employable.)

Maybe her boss bought her a new keyboard or something.