Don't worry, be happy!Originally Posted by arkansasbob
|
|
|
|
|
Don't worry, be happy!
The "climate" where? the Australian climate? The Russian climate?? The Canadian climate?? Climate refers specifically to defined regions. One of the above could be getting warmer, others getting colder................just as is happening right now!!!!!!!
Climate is an intensive property just like temperature. There is no single temperature on Earth and an "average" is meaningless!!!!
My guess, and please emphasize "guess", is that overall the Earth may be slightly warmer in 50 years.................................... ( and that may not be all bad), but then who really knows?????? 40 years ago some of the same "experts" now taking taking Holy Communion in the CGW were warning of an impending "new Ice Age" that would destroy us.
Here's my overall take at this point:
- The vast majority of the "data" that supports rapid GW come from MODELS, not observed actual measurements.
- These models -- although state of the art ---- are extremely coarse and contain very subjective approximations for parameters they cannot model because of current computer limitations. The current models have "cell sizes" that are measured in hundreds of kilometers. They can't even account for thunderstorms, one of the major players in regulating the Earth's "temerature." Slight changes in input boundary conditions can make these predict a wide variety of outcomes.
- The current generation of models consistently fail to be able to "predict" known short term ( read that as "last 100 years") climate history. If a model can't duplicate known history, then it is virtually useless as a future prediction tool. BTW, you won't be able to find any reference to this fact in the IPCC Summary report. But if you talk to the folks who actually build these models, they are very up front about these limitations. But this fact -- which is the weak link in all of the GW hype -- gets swept under the carpet.
- There are severe limitations in the extremely sparse ACTUAL TEMPERATURE MEASUREMENTS that we have. Most of the temperature input data to the models is data based on correlations and approximations that have significant levels of uncertainty.
- So we put all this sparse and uncertain data into very imprecise models and then try to predict a 4 or 5 degree global temperature change way out in the future. This is akin to trying to measure something a few microns wide with a yardstick!!!!
- On a very broad evidential basis, primarily from geologic studies we can definitely say that there have been significant periods of cooling and then warming in Earth's recent history. Since man was not burning fossil fuels during the earlier warming periods and CO2 levels were probably lower (fewer animals and humans) Then what caused the warming then??????????? At this point I don't think anyone knows, but it seems a lot more logical that it is due to natural cylces caused by sun spot activity or very slight changes in the our orbital motion than anything man is putting into the air.
Well, that about wraps it up. If any of you guys who haven't drunk the kool-aid yet, change your mind please let us know.
BTW, even if there is a 10% chance that AGW is occurring because of the build-up of CO2 emissions from burning fossil fuels, we need to take action to control said emissions because the consequences would have horrible impacts on human civilization.
^ Change at what cost, though? Would level of productivity should we sacrifice on a 10% chance that GW is happening AND we cause it? What about 5%? 2%? Less than 1%? In my uneducated view (which happens to be more educated than most policy makers in Washington) I place the odds, subjectively calculated of course, at less than 2%. Sure I can't say for certain that its not happening and we are not causing it, but the anthropogenic contributions to greenhouse gases (when you account for water vapor) seems to be STATISTICALLY INSIGNIFICANT. If you were doing an algebra problem you would have rounded those decimel spots off when reporting the answer. Implementing measures to reduce production of CO2 is not free (and letting the poor starve so that they do not contribute CO2 appears to be an unpopular solution on this board). If you really want to help, please stop having children. Children simply increase demand on limited natural resources and contribute to the growing problem of overpopulation.
Aha, I see you've been talking to Aubunique.^ Change at what cost, though? Would level of productivity should we sacrifice on a 10% chance that GW is happening AND we cause it? What about 5%? 2%? Less than 1%? In my uneducated view (which happens to be more educated than most policy makers in Washington) I place the odds, subjectively calculated of course, at less than 2%. Sure I can't say for certain that its not happening and we are not causing it, but the anthropogenic contributions to greenhouse gases (when you account for water vapor) seems to be STATISTICALLY INSIGNIFICANT. If you were doing an algebra problem you would have rounded those decimel spots off when reporting the answer. Implementing measures to reduce production of CO2 is not free (and letting the poor starve so that they do not contribute CO2 appears to be an unpopular solution on this board
I place the odds of AGW at about 98%. Controlling CO2 doesn't have to reduce our productivity. Rather, it can improve it.^ Change at what cost, though? Would level of productivity should we sacrifice on a 10% chance that GW is happening AND we cause it? What about 5%? 2%? Less than 1%? In my uneducated view (which happens to be more educated than most policy makers in Washington) I place the odds, subjectively calculated of course, at less than 2%. Sure I can't say for certain that its not happening and we are not causing it, but the anthropogenic contributions to greenhouse gases (when you account for water vapor) seems to be STATISTICALLY INSIGNIFICANT. If you were doing an algebra problem you would have rounded those decimel spots off when reporting the answer. Implementing measures to reduce production of CO2 is not free (and letting the poor starve so that they do not contribute CO2 appears to be an unpopular solution on this board
two completely unsupported (and rediculously uninformed) statements.
Yeah, I think the only way you could argue that controlling CO2 makes us more productive is to invoke an argument against the sustainability of fossil fuel use as a primary energy source. There may be some validity to the sustainability argument, but that's certainly not telling the whole story. There is a very good reason to believe that continuing the big oil profits that we are seeing is actually the best way to solve the sustainability question - after all, the oil industry is perhaps the single biggest funder of alternate energy R&D (in house, at universities, etc.). So more money flowing to that industry might not be such a bad thing if we want to sustain energy usage levels.
And there's no way that controlling CO2 makes us more productive NOW.
I bet we will begin to hear more, from various heads of state around the world, that aren't cramped and held quiet by the PC crowd in their countries.
President of Czech Republic Calls Man-Made Global Warming a 'Myth' - Questions Gore's Sanity
Mon Feb 12 2007 09:10:09 ET
Czech president Vaclav Klaus has criticized the UN panel on global warming, claiming that it was a political authority without any scientific basis.
In an interview with "Hospodárské noviny", a Czech economics daily, Klaus answered a few questions:
Q: IPCC has released its report and you say that the global warming is a false myth. How did you get this idea, Mr President?•
A: It's not my idea. Global warming is a false myth and every serious person and scientist says so. It is not fair to refer to the U.N. panel. IPCC is not a scientific institution: it's a political body, a sort of non-government organization of green flavor. It's neither a forum of neutral scientists nor a balanced group of scientists. These people are politicized scientists who arrive there with a one-sided opinion and a one-sided assignment. Also, it's an undignified slapstick that people don't wait for the full report in May 2007 but instead respond, in such a serious way, to the summary for policymakers where all the "but's" are scratched, removed, and replaced by oversimplified theses.• This is clearly such an incredible failure of so many people, from journalists to politicians. If the European Commission is instantly going to buy such a trick, we have another very good reason to think that the countries themselves, not the Commission, should be deciding about similar issues.•
Q: How do you explain that there is no other comparably senior statesman in Europe who would advocate this viewpoint? No one else has such strong opinions...•
A: My opinions about this issue simply are strong. Other top-level politicians do not express their global warming doubts because a whip of political correctness strangles their voice.
• Q: But you're not a climate scientist. Do you have a sufficient knowledge and enough information?•
A: Environmentalism as a metaphysical ideology and as a worldview has absolutely nothing to do with natural sciences or with the climate. Sadly, it has nothing to do with social sciences either. Still, it is becoming fashionable and this fact scares me. The second part of the sentence should be: we also have lots of reports, studies, and books of climatologists whose conclusions are diametrally opposite.• Indeed, I never measure the thickness of ice in Antarctica. I really don't know how to do it and don't plan to learn it. However, as a scientifically oriented person, I know how to read science reports about these questions, for example about ice in Antarctica. I don't have to be a climate scientist myself to read them. And inside the papers I have read, the conclusions we may see in the media simply don't appear. But let me promise you something: this topic troubles me which is why I started to write an article about it last Christmas. The article expanded and became a book. In a couple of months, it will be published. One chapter out of seven will organize my opinions about the climate change.• Environmentalism and green ideology is something very different from climate science. Various findings and screams of scientists are abused by this ideology.•
Q: How do you explain that conservative media are skeptical while the left-wing media view the global warming as a done deal?•
A: It is not quite exactly divided to the left-wingers and right-wingers. Nevertheless it's obvious that environmentalism is a new incarnation of modern leftism.•
Q: If you look at all these things, even if you were right ...•
A: ...I am right...•
Q: Isn't there enough empirical evidence and facts we can see with our eyes that imply that Man is demolishing the planet and himself?•
A: It's such a nonsense that I have probably not heard a bigger nonsense yet.•
Q: Don't you believe that we're ruining our planet?•
A: I will pretend that I haven't heard you. Perhaps only Mr Al Gore may be saying something along these lines: a sane person can't. I don't see any ruining of the planet, I have never seen it, and I don't think that a reasonable and serious person could say such a thing. Look: you represent the economic media so I expect a certain economical erudition from you. My book will answer these questions. For example, we know that there exists a huge correlation between the care we give to the environment on one side and the wealth and technological prowess on the other side. It's clear that the poorer the society is, the more brutally it behaves with respect to Nature, and vice versa.• It's also true that there exist social systems that are damaging Nature - by eliminating private ownership and similar things - much more than the freer societies. These tendencies become important in the long run. They unambiguously imply that today, on February 8th, 2007, Nature is protected uncomparably more than on February 8th ten years ago or fifty years ago or one hundred years ago.• That's why I ask: how can you pronounce the sentence you said? Perhaps if you're unconscious? Or did you mean it as a provocation only? And maybe I am just too naive and I allowed you to provoke me to give you all these answers, am I not? It is more likely that you actually believe what you say.
[English translation from Harvard Professor Lubos Motl]
Developing...
http://www.drudgereport.com/flash.htm
Last edited by TYLERTECHSAS; 02-12-2007 at 12:45 PM.
Air pollution has a large medical and economic price tag attached to it. Petroleum is a finite resource that should be conserved instead of being used for transportation.
Dumping 6 billion tons of CO2 every year into the atmosphere hurts the environment beyond just the global warming aspect. Or are you denying that we dump 6 billion tons of CO2 into the environment every year?
Most of Big Oil's profits goes into exploration for additional petroleum reserves.
Thanks for your opinion. It and 75 cents will get me a cup of coffe at mcDonalds.
Yeah, plants have no use for that shit. The annual exchange rate of C02 between the atmosphere and the biosphere + oceans is in the magnitude of 200 billion metric tons.
Hopefully. That way they can sustain the profits needed to fund more alternative energy research.
So running my lawnmower is feeding my grass AND my weeds?
You are correct on this point Salty. It that didn't happen they would'nt be in business very long.
But the point that another poster made here that most of the money researching alternative energy sources has come from oil and gas companies is correct!!! The industry has supplied over 85% of the total in the last decade!!
Share with us just how you calculated those odds, Salty.
And then explain to us just how "controlling CO2" will increase productivity.
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote
