Post by: Desertdog on September 12, 2007, 05:15:54 PM
'Centuries of human history say warm periods are good for people'
http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=57605
Dennis Avery
More than 500 scientists have published evidence refuting the current man-made global warming scare, according to a new analysis of peer-reviewed literature by the Hudson Institute.
The assessment supports another study on which WND reported recently, one that revealed carbon dioxide levels were largely irrelevant to global warming. Those results prompted Reid Bryson, founding chairman of the Department of Meteorology at the University of Wisconsin, to quip, "You can go outside and spit and have the same effect as doubling carbon dioxide."
The newest analysis was released by Hudson Institute Senior Fellow Dennis Avery, who said of the 500 scientists who have refuted at least one element of the global warming scare, more than 300 have found evidence that a natural moderate 1,500-year climate cycle has produced more than a dozen global warmings similar to the current circumstances since the last Ice Age and that such warmings are linked to variations in the sun's irradiance.
"This data and the list of scientists make a mockery of recent claims that a scientific consensus blames humans as the primary cause of global temperature increases since 1850," he said.
"Two thousand years of published human histories say that the warm periods were good for people. It was the harsh, unstable Dark Ages and Little Ice Age that brought bigger storms, untimely frost, widespread famine and plagues of disease," he said.
Other researchers have found evidence that sea levels are failing to rise importantly, storms and droughts are becoming fewer and milder and human deaths will be reduced with warming because cold kills twice the number of people as heat. Another result was that corals, trees, birds, mammals and butterflies are "adapting well" to the routine reality of changing climate, the analysis said.
The issue of global warming, of course, erupted with the release of the film that former Vice President Al Gore made and stars in called "An Inconvenient Truth," which won an Oscar. It now has become mandatory for students in many high schools and colleges.
Despite the publication of such global warming debunking conclusions in journals including Nature, Geophysical Review Letters and Science, there's been little media attention, he said.
"Not all of these researchers would describe themselves as global warming skeptics," noted Avery, "but the evidence in their studies is there for all to see."
The scientists were compiled by Avery and climate physicist S. Fred Singer, who previously has reported there has been little or no warming since about 1940. The two also co-authored the new book "Unstoppable Global Warming: Every 1,500 Years," from peer-reviewed studies in specialties including tree rings, sea levels, stalagmites, lichens, pollen, plankton, insects, public health, Chinese history and astrophysics.
"We have had a greenhouse theory with no evidence to support it except a moderate warning turned into a scare by computer models whose results have never been verified with real-world events," added Singer. "On the other hand, we have compelling evidence of a real-world climate cycle averaging 1470 years (plus or minus 500) running through the last million years of history. The climate cycle has above all been moderate, and the trees, bears, birds, and humans have quietly adapted."
Singer said climate model-builders probably have developed a consensus of guesses. "However, the models only reflect the warming, not its cause," he said.
He said about 70 percent of the Earth's post-1850 warming came before 1940, and thus was probably not caused by human-emitted greenhouse gases. The net post-1940 warming totals only a tiny 0.2 degrees Celsius, he said.
The analysis said the historic evidence of the temperature fluctuations includes the 5,000-year record of Nile floods, 1st Century Roman wine production in Britain, and thousands of museum paintings that portray sunnier skies during the Medieval Warming and cloudiness during the Little Ice Age.
Physical evidence includes oxygen isotopes, beryllium ions, sea and pollen fossils and ancient tree rings.
For example, Constance Millar of the U.S. Forest Service studied seven species of relict trees that grew above today's treeline and concluded temperatures during the Medieval Warming Period on Whitewing Mountain in California were about 3.2 degrees warmer than today's temperatures.
Singer said experiments also have shown more or fewer cosmic rays hitting the Earth create more or fewer low, cooling clouds that deflect solar heat back into space which amplifies small variations in the intensity of the sun.
The earlier study "Heat Capacity, Time Constant, and Sensitivity of Earth's Climate System," was authored by Brookhaven National lab scientist Stephen Schwartz.
"Anthropogenic (man-made) global warming bites the dust," declared astronomer Ian Wilson after reviewing the study, which was accepted for publication in the peer-reviewed Journal of Geophysical Research.
Bryson's and Wilson's comments were among those from a long list of doubters of catastrophic, man-made global warming, assembled by Sen. James Inhofe, R-Okla., and posted on a blog site for the U.S. Senate Committee on Environment and Public Works.
Meteorologist Joseph Conklin, of the website Climate Police said "global warming" is disintegrating.
"A few months ago, a study came out that demonstrated global temperatures have leveled off. But instead of possibly admitting that this whole global warming thing is a farce, a group of British scientists concluded that the real global warming won't start until 2009," Conklin wrote.
WND has previously reported on significant doubts about global warming.
Last September, a leading U.S. climate researcher claimed there's a decade at most left to address global warming before environmental disaster takes place, but the federal government issued a report showing the year 1936 had a hotter summer than 2006.
"The average June-August 2006 temperature for the contiguous United States (based on preliminary data) was 2.4 degrees F (1.3 degrees C) above the 20th century average of 72.1 degrees F (22.3 degrees C)," said the NOAA report. "This was the second warmest summer on record, slightly cooler than the record of 74.7 degrees F set in 1936 during the Dust Bowl era. This summer's average was 74.5 degrees F. Eight of the past ten summers have been warmer than the U.S. average for the same period."
WND also reported on NASA-funded study that noted some climate forecasts might be exaggerating estimations of global warming.
Post by: Standing Wolf on September 12, 2007, 05:19:10 PM
Quote
This data and the list of scientists make a mockery of recent claims that a scientific consensus blames humans as the primary cause of global temperature increases since 1850
Leftists weep real tears.
Post by: drewtam on September 12, 2007, 05:35:44 PM
...The scientists were compiled by Avery and climate physicist S. Fred Singer, who previously has reported there has been little or no warming since about 1940. The two also co-authored the new book "Unstoppable Global Warming: Every 1,500 Years,"...
Ummm, which is it? Little or no warming or unstoppable global warming?
To beat a dead horse, I think current AGW is more inconsistent than 30rnds from AK off the hip. But I am not willing to accept anyone who comes along and tells me what I want to hear.
Drew
Post by: wooderson on September 12, 2007, 06:04:43 PM
However, on February 12, 2001, Singer wrote a letter to The Washington Post "in which he denied receiving any oil company money in the previous 20 years when he had consulted for the oil industry.""
Post by: wacki on September 14, 2007, 10:37:08 PM
http://logicalscience.blogspot.com/2007/09/global-warming-consensus-disproved.html
Post by: Scout26 on September 15, 2007, 01:41:29 AM
Post by: SkunkApe on September 15, 2007, 04:51:27 AM
http://www.news.com.au/couriermail/story/0,23739,22423319-5003402,00.html
Post by: wacki on September 15, 2007, 08:07:57 AM
Maybe these 500 scientists can book a cruise through the now-open Northwest Passage:
http://www.news.com.au/couriermail/story/0,23739,22423319-5003402,00.html
http://www.news.com.au/couriermail/story/0,23739,22423319-5003402,00.html
I know some of these 500 scientists. Trust me, they aren't skeptics. Read my link.
Post by: Ron on September 15, 2007, 08:31:48 AM
Quote
If there is global warming/cooling, I'm blaming the big ol' glowing yellow ball o' flame in the sky.
The sun responsible for global warming? What a concept, lol.
The cracks and fissures in the AGW juggernaut are starting to appear. The planet will warm and cool with mans presence on it just as it did without his presence throughout its history.
Global climate changes, adapt or perish.
AGW = tilting at windmills
Post by: Desertdog on September 15, 2007, 09:14:44 AM
Comsensus is not scientific.
con·sen·sus (kn-snss) KEY
NOUN:
An opinion or position reached by a group as a whole: "Among political women . . . there is a clear consensus about the problems women candidates have traditionally faced" (Wendy Kaminer). See Usage Note at redundancy.
General agreement or accord: government by consensus.
Do you remember reading in your history classes the consensus (it was believed) that the world was flat?
Do remember in your history classes the consensus (it was believed believed) that the sun revolved around the earth.
These consensus were prove wrong with time, and time will determine if we are in a global warming period to be followed by a cooling spell.
Note - Chicago had a record low this morning. Global Warming, we'll see.
Post by: Iain on September 15, 2007, 09:58:20 AM
Note - Chicago had a record low this morning. Global Warming, we'll see.
I thought this was the most nonsensical part of your post. Chicago isn't the world. Global means world, not Chicago and not the lower 48 states as some have also recently decided global actually means. There is little argument remaining about whether the globe is warming, only a few arguing as to why it is warming.
Global warming is a scientific theory, not a consensus. The consensus is reached because most scientists hold that this theory is the most likely explanation for what is occurring. Although consensus is not directly scientific, it does come about because of scientific understanding, and thus attacks on consensus as 'unscientific' are just silly.
Anybody else see the 1972 J R Sawyer paper from 'Nature' recently? That sort of undermined the whole 'they said it was cooling in the 70's' nonsense. You can find it on Connolley's blog (Stoat).
Post by: wacki on September 16, 2007, 12:23:17 PM
Global Warming, a consensus of a numer of scientist and Al Gore.
Comsensus is not scientific.
con·sen·sus (kn-snss) KEY
NOUN:
An opinion or position reached by a group as a whole: "Among political women . . . there is a clear consensus about the problems women candidates have traditionally faced" (Wendy Kaminer). See Usage Note at redundancy.
General agreement or accord: government by consensus.
Do you remember reading in your history classes the consensus (it was believed) that the world was flat?
Do remember in your history classes the consensus (it was believed believed) that the sun revolved around the earth.
These consensus were prove wrong with time, and time will determine if we are in a global warming period to be followed by a cooling spell.
Comsensus is not scientific.
con·sen·sus (kn-snss) KEY
NOUN:
An opinion or position reached by a group as a whole: "Among political women . . . there is a clear consensus about the problems women candidates have traditionally faced" (Wendy Kaminer). See Usage Note at redundancy.
General agreement or accord: government by consensus.
Do you remember reading in your history classes the consensus (it was believed) that the world was flat?
Do remember in your history classes the consensus (it was believed believed) that the sun revolved around the earth.
These consensus were prove wrong with time, and time will determine if we are in a global warming period to be followed by a cooling spell.
Consensus != scientific consensus
The scientific method is less than 70 years old.
http://www.logicalscience.com/skeptic_arguments/flat_earth.html
Quote
Note - Chicago had a record low this morning. Global Warming, we'll see.
Chicago != global average
Post by: grampster on September 17, 2007, 05:16:26 AM
Does that mean we should not be wary and careful about our activities? Certainly not. Does it also mean that America should throw itself back into the stone age while the rest of the developing world continues to pollute at monumental levels? No way! Follow the money and the politics.
Man causing climate change shows the arrogance of the secular, Neo Liberal, Leftist mind. Always these folks elevate their importance way beyond that which can squash them like a bug. The earth and the universe will go its way in spite of man. Good science states that Mars is warming as well. I suppose my pickup is responsible for that as well?
Post by: Iain on September 17, 2007, 06:56:02 AM
I don't believe there is any hard science that proves that at all.
...
Man causing climate change shows the arrogance of the secular, Neo Liberal, Leftist mind. Always these folks elevate their importance way beyond that which can squash them like a bug. The earth and the universe will go its way in spite of man. Good science states that Mars is warming as well. I suppose my pickup is responsible for that as well?
...
Man causing climate change shows the arrogance of the secular, Neo Liberal, Leftist mind. Always these folks elevate their importance way beyond that which can squash them like a bug. The earth and the universe will go its way in spite of man. Good science states that Mars is warming as well. I suppose my pickup is responsible for that as well?
That just reads like 'I have beliefs and opinions and will express them despite any contrary evidence'. I thought those leftists were the ones who had 'beliefs' in the face of facts.
I'm absolutely certain that you've posted pretty much the same thing in previous threads and been responded to with information that should at least cloud your certainties.
Post by: TexasRifleman on September 17, 2007, 07:00:13 AM
The lead smelting involved in making Prius batteries is just awful, but since it's not done here in the US the tree huggers are OK with it.
Out of sight out of mind I guess. Like you say, regardless of contrary evidence the object is to make everything the United States fault for some reason.
Post by: K Frame on September 17, 2007, 07:00:39 AM
Even a cursory examination of the impact that man has had on other massive, earth-wide systems should be more than enough to make people realize that yes, man can impact something as large as the earth.
Post by: AntiqueCollector on September 17, 2007, 11:14:07 AM
I know there's a lot of controversy over whether man has the capacity to change the climate, as if somehow the earth is far too big for man to affect in a meaningful way.
Even a cursory examination of the impact that man has had on other massive, earth-wide systems should be more than enough to make people realize that yes, man can impact something as large as the earth.
Even a cursory examination of the impact that man has had on other massive, earth-wide systems should be more than enough to make people realize that yes, man can impact something as large as the earth.
But given the evidence (sun warming, other planets warming, evidence of warm/cold periods throughout human history, volcanos giving off more "greenhouse gas" than human activities, etc.) and the foolish statements of some of the global warming activists (for example, blaming the moose in northern Europe for contributing, etc.) and the fact that many advocates of human caused global warming theories are at best questionable (ex.: Al Gore), I think that in this case, it's highly unlikely we're the cause of it. The environment overall is better off now than 100 years ago (just look at old photographs from a century ago and read descriptions).
Post by: K Frame on September 17, 2007, 12:08:09 PM
But we very well may be contributing to it in a significant way, possibly in ways that we've not yet realized.
To thrust one's head into the sand when positive steps can be taken, steps that would go a long way towards improving our world independent of any warming processes, is Ludditeism at its worst.
I'm not disputing that in SOME ways the world is better -- in other ways it's far, far worse than it was 100 years ago.
Post by: AntiqueCollector on September 17, 2007, 12:21:19 PM
Post by: Ron on September 17, 2007, 12:21:55 PM
To use scare mongering consensus pseudo science does a disservice to the issues surrounding energy independence. The issue can stand on its own merits without Al Gores blathering on about the end of the earth.
Hopefully when the AGW hysteria is shown to be overblown the energy independence and clean power issues won't be thrown out with the bath water.
Post by: richyoung on September 17, 2007, 12:29:13 PM
We may well not be the cause of it.
But we very well may be contributing to it in a significant way, possibly in ways that we've not yet realized.
To thrust one's head into the sand when positive steps can be taken, steps that would go a long way towards improving our world independent of any warming processes, is Ludditeism at its worst.
I'm not disputing that in SOME ways the world is better -- in other ways it's far, far worse than it was 100 years ago.
But we very well may be contributing to it in a significant way, possibly in ways that we've not yet realized.
To thrust one's head into the sand when positive steps can be taken, steps that would go a long way towards improving our world independent of any warming processes, is Ludditeism at its worst.
I'm not disputing that in SOME ways the world is better -- in other ways it's far, far worse than it was 100 years ago.
Could I have some objective proof of that part in red?
Post by: AntiqueCollector on September 17, 2007, 12:33:36 PM
This also forgets that when we depend on agricultural products for fuel besides just as food, food prices will rise and become the next oil...and solar power requires many petrochemicals to produce panels, batteries, wire insulation for wires, etc., etc. There are far more problems with all of the current alternative energy sources than solutions for them. Not that we shouldn't explore them and try to solve the problems, the problems are simply immense.
Post by: grampster on September 17, 2007, 01:16:25 PM
I don't believe there is any hard science that proves that at all.
...
Man causing climate change shows the arrogance of the secular, Neo Liberal, Leftist mind. Always these folks elevate their importance way beyond that which can squash them like a bug. The earth and the universe will go its way in spite of man. Good science states that Mars is warming as well. I suppose my pickup is responsible for that as well?
...
Man causing climate change shows the arrogance of the secular, Neo Liberal, Leftist mind. Always these folks elevate their importance way beyond that which can squash them like a bug. The earth and the universe will go its way in spite of man. Good science states that Mars is warming as well. I suppose my pickup is responsible for that as well?
That just reads like 'I have beliefs and opinions and will express them despite any contrary evidence'. I thought those leftists were the ones who had 'beliefs' in the face of facts.
I'm absolutely certain that you've posted pretty much the same thing in previous threads and been responded to with information that should at least cloud your certainties.
On the contrary. I have not seen any information at all that "clouds my certainties". I have not said that weather patterns have not changed or are changing or denied they will change. I've had some interesting reads furnished by a member of THR, who's opinion and research I respect, that believes land speculators would be well served to buy land in Alaska. He believes the science proves that climate change is occurring. He quotes a lot of sources. I've read a number of them. There is a lot of support for each other; those who believe as they do. and ignore those who do not. What I don't buy into is that man is the reason and somehow we need to take drastic steps in the direction of government intervention on a grand scale ie: draconian socialism.
Al Gore and his ilk are in it for notoriety, money and the power. The Global Warming thing is a political power/money grab. How many scientists wrung their hands over the oil well fires in Kuwait; that predicted those fires would bring on "Nuclear Winter". I agree with Dixie Lee Ray, Phd. who said that a lot of what we are fed is malarkey for reasons of power and money. She also said that the louder the scientist, the more shaky his science. But at the same time, in spite of the malarkey, it is reasonable to take what steps are necessary to be a good husband of our resources. I remember winter in my youth. The coal smoke hung over the land and cinders and ash darkened the snow. Running around like Al Gore screeching the sky is falling and propagating myth as truth does more harm than those of us who are skeptics. If Al Gore knew his hiney from a hole in the ground, he'd get much more attention by telling the truth and promoting the advance of clean, safe nuclear power. Not a word from Al. He's too busy letting Hollywood kiss his behind.
I'm no scientist, but there seems to be more scientists taking a position lately, including some early doom sayers that have reversed themselves regarding man's contribution, that counter the so called "consensus". Again, I'm not scientist, but I have lived long enough to have observed that the sky is not always falling because some scientists say so. In fact, most of the time their conclusions have been off the mark in a very wide variety of notions. I am especially wary of statist and socialist scientists. I'm also old enough to remember that in the early 70's we were all going to freeze to death suddenly because of global cooling.
Post by: tyme on September 17, 2007, 03:22:44 PM
Quote from: richyoung
Quote from: Mike Irwin
I'm not disputing that in SOME ways the world is better -- in other ways it's far, far worse than it was 100 years ago.
Could I have some objective proof of that [last] part in red?The statistics strongly suggest that there is climate change. What remains disputed is how much of it is caused by industrialization, how exactly industrialization is causing it, whether stronger environmental protection limits on industry would be effective in stopping it, and whether global warming is a potentially catastrophic problem that we need to fix right now.
For instance, it seems plausible to me that sludge we're dumping into the oceans might increase bioactivity on the low end of the food chain (which is being observed), which could heat up oceans fractionally.
It also seems plausible to me that increased efforts to curtail global warming might hamstring industry, preventing research in bioengineering, physics, and chemistry that might lead to real long-term solutions to global warming, either by counteracting it or eliminating its real causes.
Even if we were the primary cause of global warming, we've changed the biosphere so much that there might be nothing we can do about it now, other than continue on and look for artificial solutions. Simply cutting back CO2 production (if CO2 is in fact the primary cause of global warming) may not do anything if we've kicked the biosphere into some other equilibrium / local minimum where higher CO2 levels are expected.
Post by: wooderson on September 17, 2007, 03:48:00 PM
Quote
Al Gore and his ilk are in it for notoriety, money and the power.
Al Gore is already wealthy.Al Gore received more than 50% of the popular vote in a Presidential election and has shown no interest in running again: do you really think that PowerPoint lectures on global warming increased his 'notoriety' or 'power' compared to, say, becoming a power broker in the Democratic Party?
Now, who else are included in this ilk? What "money" and "power" have they grabbed?
Post by: jeepmor on September 17, 2007, 05:35:48 PM
Ice records show a direct link to the warming and cooling trends, and they have been associated with the solar activity.
Do I think that man cannot have an impact on the environment, no way, look at our overfished oceans for example.
However, do I believe there is a large political agenda forming on it to further tax us and free us of our hard earned money...you bet your bippy skippy.
Post by: MechAg94 on September 17, 2007, 05:36:16 PM
I don't know about 100 years ago, but I'm fairly sure there was no smog problem in urban areas 200 years ago.
No, but they had animal manure issues and problems of basic sanitation along with a host of other problems. Take away a couple, add a couple.
Post by: MechAg94 on September 17, 2007, 05:39:13 PM
Quote
Al Gore and his ilk are in it for notoriety, money and the power.
Al Gore is already wealthy.Al Gore received more than 50% of the popular vote in a Presidential election and has shown no interest in running again: do you really think that PowerPoint lectures on global warming increased his 'notoriety' or 'power' compared to, say, becoming a power broker in the Democratic Party?
Now, who else are included in this ilk? What "money" and "power" have they grabbed?
Post by: AntiqueCollector on September 18, 2007, 02:26:04 AM
My home state, Vermont, was almost bare of forests. Now it's covered in trees everywhere you look...
Post by: grampster on September 18, 2007, 05:11:33 PM
Post by: richyoung on September 18, 2007, 05:15:31 PM
Quote from: richyoung
Quote from: Mike Irwin
I'm not disputing that in SOME ways the world is better -- in other ways it's far, far worse than it was 100 years ago.
Could I have some objective proof of that [last] part in red?Your "fairly sure" would be absolutely wrong. Picture if you will a city the size of London, but with the homes heated and illuminated and food cooked...NOT with nukes, NOT with electricity, NOT with clean burning natural gas, NOT with kerosine or oil, but rather coal, wood, whale oil, and in some cases animal dung. Add in the smoke from burning garbage. Get an idea why "foggy old London" was so foggy?
Quote
The statistics strongly suggest that there is climate change.
For as long as there has been a climate, there has been climate change. So what? There never has been, and never will be, any guarantee that tommorow will be very much like 10, 100, or 1000 years ago. Seen "Green"land lately? You know, the place with the B-17s and P-38s under hundreds of feet of ice?
Quote
What remains disputed is how much of it is caused by industrialization, how exactly industrialization is causing it, whether stronger environmental protection limits on industry would be effective in stopping it, and whether global warming is a potentially catastrophic problem that we need to fix right now.
No dispute at all for anyone with a high school knowledge of science. On Earth, water vapor is the king kong gorilla of green-house gases, responsible for over 92% of the total greenhouse effect - and its 99.999% from natural souces. Nothing man can do...
Quote
For instance, it seems plausible to me that sludge we're dumping into the oceans might increase bioactivity on the low end of the food chain (which is being observed), which could heat up oceans fractionally.
It also seems plausible to me that increased efforts to curtail global warming might hamstring industry, preventing research in bioengineering, physics, and chemistry that might lead to real long-term solutions to global warming, either by counteracting it or eliminating its real causes.
Even if we were the primary cause of global warming, we've changed the biosphere so much that there might be nothing we can do about it now, other than continue on and look for artificial solutions. Simply cutting back CO2 production (if CO2 is in fact the primary cause of global warming) may not do anything if we've kicked the biosphere into some other equilibrium / local minimum where higher CO2 levels are expected.
It also seems plausible to me that increased efforts to curtail global warming might hamstring industry, preventing research in bioengineering, physics, and chemistry that might lead to real long-term solutions to global warming, either by counteracting it or eliminating its real causes.
Even if we were the primary cause of global warming, we've changed the biosphere so much that there might be nothing we can do about it now, other than continue on and look for artificial solutions. Simply cutting back CO2 production (if CO2 is in fact the primary cause of global warming) may not do anything if we've kicked the biosphere into some other equilibrium / local minimum where higher CO2 levels are expected.
Earth is a very stable system - not prone to thermal or biologic runaway. That means there are strong negative feedbacks to the things you fear - otherwise we would never have eveolved. Mankind is, other than locally, insignifigant. Further, a turnpike in New Jersey is every bit as much "natural" as a termite mound in Africa or a bee hive in Austraia.
Post by: wooderson on September 18, 2007, 05:19:24 PM
Quote
So, is the sky falling or not? If it's not falling, how do we pitch for more grant money....nevermind, it's falling, more grant money please.
This is an absurd argument.Was science not funded prior to the last ten years of climate change research?
If a scientist was concered about a steady paycheck, why wouldn't he just sign on to write for the energy companies as so many have? Exxon, for all its faults, does pay better than your average academic job.
Post by: SkunkApe on September 18, 2007, 06:12:02 PM
Keep it coming, guys. Keep it coming.
http://timlambert.org/2005/04/gwsbingo/
Post by: tyme on September 19, 2007, 03:09:27 AM
Quote from: richyoung
Get an idea why "foggy old London" was so foggy?
Maybe it's not clear that modern smog is qualitatively worse.. If you don't like that example, take a look at the oceans, where we've dumped industrial sludge, fertilizer run-off, and other goodies into it since the dawn of industrialization. That has dramatically altered the dynamics of the ocean's food chain. There's also the matter of all the unusual radioactive isotopes we've dispersed around the globe through nuclear testing. Those two changes can hardly be described as a change for the better.Quote
For as long as there has been a climate, there has been climate change. So what?
Alert... alert... I was agreeing with your sentiment.Quote
No dispute at all for anyone with a high school knowledge of science. On Earth, water vapor is the king kong gorilla of green-house gases, responsible for over 92% of the total greenhouse effect - and its 99.999% from natural souces. Nothing man can do...
I don't know where that number came from, but supposing the 92% figure is correct... you're saying that the remaining 8% is irrelevant and can't possibly cause the observed temperature increase? And don't increased temperatures mean increased ocean evaporation and increased atmospheric water vapor content? And what did you just say was responsible for 92% of the greenhouse gas effect?Quote
Earth is a very stable system - not prone to thermal or biologic runaway. That means there are strong negative feedbacks to the things you fear - otherwise we would never have eveolved.
Negative feedback is no guarantee against catastrophe, particularly given how much we're doing to the biosphere besides dumping "greenhouse gases" into the atmosphere. Until we have an accurate predictive model for how the biosphere works, and how we've changed it, we can't say with any certainty what a 6 degree temp increase will do... regardless of the observed historically tendency of the biosphere to clean up after itself.Quote
Mankind is, other than locally, insignificant. Further, a turnpike in New Jersey is every bit as much "natural" as a termite mound in Africa or a bee hive in Austraia.
It doesn't matter if we're locally insignificant or if everything we do is "natural" (which is just a semantics game). We can still screw up the biosphere, making it uninhabitable not only for us but for most animals and plants as well. We can do it intentionally with nuclear war, biowarfare, etc., and we can probably do it unintentionally.
Post by: MechAg94 on September 19, 2007, 06:39:29 AM
It is more of the arrogant "I believe man-made global warming is true, so I don't have to prove anything" crap.
Post by: MechAg94 on September 19, 2007, 06:47:18 AM
Quote
Maybe it's not clear that modern smog is qualitatively worse.. If you don't like that example, take a look at the oceans, where we've dumped industrial sludge, fertilizer run-off, and other goodies into it since the dawn of industrialization. That has dramatically altered the dynamics of the ocean's food chain. There's also the matter of all the unusual radioactive isotopes we've dispersed around the globe through nuclear testing. Those two changes can hardly be described as a change for the better.
Has the level of background radiation of the earth changed at all since before nuclear weapons were developed? I bet the answer it no. Have you seen the study that says if all of man's nuclear bombs were exploded, it would only increase the average background radiation of the planet by a small percentage? They would certainly affect small areas greatly, but the earth is a big place. The old lie that we have enough nukes to destroy the earth many times over was just an unsubstantiated political statement that was repeated until people believed it.
Post by: MechAg94 on September 19, 2007, 06:49:40 AM
Quote
Negative feedback is no guarantee against catastrophe, particularly given how much we're doing to the biosphere besides dumping "greenhouse gases" into the atmosphere. Until we have an accurate predictive model for how the biosphere works, and how we've changed it, we can't say with any certainty what a 6 degree temp increase will do... regardless of the observed historically tendency of the biosphere to clean up after itself.
If we don't have an accurate predictive model yet, how to we even know a 6 degree temp increase will happen? For that matter, how can we then blame the increase on any one factor, natural or artificial?
Post by: richyoung on September 19, 2007, 08:49:20 AM
Quote from: richyoung
Get an idea why "foggy old London" was so foggy?
Maybe it's not clear that modern smog is qualitatively worse.. You're right - its NOT clear that it is worse. In fact, with the exception of China and India, air quality is getting BETTER, world wide - by any objective measure...
Quote
If you don't like that example, take a look at the oceans, where we've dumped industrial sludge, fertilizer run-off, and other goodies into it since the dawn of industrialization. That has dramatically altered the dynamics of the ocean's food chain.
Fertilizer + phytoplankton = more fish for everybody. Explain how thats a bad thing...
Quote
There's also the matter of all the unusual radioactive isotopes we've dispersed around the globe through nuclear testing. Those two changes can hardly be described as a change for the better.
Without the nuclear testing, we don't have nuclear power, nuclear medicine, or the lack of WWIII for the last 60 years... a net PLUS, if you ask me. If you have some objective data otherwise, I'll be glad to look at it. But if we are going to discuss the BAD things soemthing does, fairness requires that we look at that in light of the GOOD it does also, and not just the bad things in a vacuum.
Quote
Quote
No dispute at all for anyone with a high school knowledge of science. On Earth, water vapor is the king kong gorilla of green-house gases, responsible for over 92% of the total greenhouse effect - and its 99.999% from natural souces. Nothing man can do...
I don't know where that number came from, but supposing the 92% figure is correct... These guys put it at 95%:
References to 95% contribution of water vapor:
a. S.M. Freidenreich and V. Ramaswamy, Solar Radiation Absorption by Carbon Dioxide, Overlap with Water, and a Parameterization for General Circulation Models, Journal of Geophysical Research 98 (1993):7255-7264
Many, many references to 92-93%.
Quote
you're saying that the remaining 8% is irrelevant and can't possibly cause the observed temperature increase?
The vast bulk of that 8% is ALSO from natural causes. Understanding that fact is CRUCIAL to understanding the "global warming" fraud. Almost ALL charst of so-called "greenhouse" gases in the Earth's atmposphere LEAVE OUT water vapor, which is almost all natural and by far the bigeest greenhouse gas. To do so deceitfully magnifies the effect of man. It is about 0.28%, if water vapor is taken into account-- about 5.53%, if not.
This point is so crucial to the debate over global warming that how water vapor is or isn't factored into an analysis of Earth's greenhouse gases makes the difference between describing a significant human contribution to the greenhouse effect, or a negligible one.
Water vapor constitutes Earth's most significant greenhouse gas, accounting for about 95% of Earth's greenhouse effect (4). Interestingly, many "facts and figures' regarding global warming completely ignore the powerful effects of water vapor in the greenhouse system, carelessly (perhaps, deliberately) overstating human impacts as much as 20-fold.
Water vapor is 99.999% of natural origin. Other atmospheric greenhouse gases, carbon dioxide (CO2), methane (CH4), nitrous oxide (N2O), and miscellaneous other gases (CFC's, etc.), are also mostly of natural origin (except for the latter, which is mostly anthropogenic).
Human activites contribute slightly to greenhouse gas concentrations through farming, manufacturing, power generation, and transportation. However, these emissions are so dwarfed in comparison to emissions from natural sources we can do nothing about, that even the most costly efforts to limit human emissions would have a very small-- perhaps undetectable-- effect on global climate.
Quote
And don't increased temperatures mean increased ocean evaporation and increased atmospheric water vapor content? And what did you just say was responsible for 92% of the greenhouse gas effect?
Pop quiz - is it WARMER or COOLER when a cloud passes overhead? More water vapor = more clouds = more reflectivity into space during the day and more retained warmth at night - a simultaneous negative-positive feedback loop.
Quote
Quote
Earth is a very stable system - not prone to thermal or biologic runaway. That means there are strong negative feedbacks to the things you fear - otherwise we would never have eveolved.
Negative feedback is no guarantee against catastrophe, particularly given how much we're doing to the biosphere besides dumping "greenhouse gases" into the atmosphere. Until we have an accurate predictive model for how the biosphere works, and how we've changed it, we can't say with any certainty what a 6 degree temp increase will do... regardless of the observed historically tendency of the biosphere to clean up after itself.You aren't going to see 6 degrees - you will see a fraction of one degree, which will enhance crop yields.
Quote
Quote
Mankind is, other than locally, insignificant. Further, a turnpike in New Jersey is every bit as much "natural" as a termite mound in Africa or a bee hive in Austraia.
It doesn't matter if we're locally insignificant or if everything we do is "natural" (which is just a semantics game). We can still screw up the biosphere, making it uninhabitable not only for us but for most animals and plants as well. We can do it intentionally with nuclear war, biowarfare, etc., and we can probably do it unintentionally.NO. You vastly overestimate man. Stuff still grows at Chernobal, Hiroshima, and Bopal. Who fed you this stuff?
Post by: Sergeant Bob on September 19, 2007, 09:18:13 AM
Quote
NO. You vastly overestimate man. Stuff still grows at Chernobal, Hiroshima, and Bopal. Who fed you this stuff?
As a matter of fact, the population of Hiroshima today is over one million and it is a major industrial center. Not bad for a nuclear wasteland.
Post by: wooderson on September 19, 2007, 09:47:33 AM
Quote
Get an idea why "foggy old London" was so foggy?
Because England is a low-lying island?
Post by: richyoung on September 19, 2007, 11:28:54 AM
Quote
Get an idea why "foggy old London" was so foggy?
Because England is a low-lying island?That was certainly a part - burning coal, peat moss, wood, animal dung, and garbage was also a big part...
Post by: wooderson on September 19, 2007, 01:22:38 PM
Post by: SkunkApe on September 19, 2007, 03:19:15 PM
SkunkApe, making a game of it so you can avoid having to actually prove it is really ignorant.
It is more of the arrogant "I believe man-made global warming is true, so I don't have to prove anything" crap.
It is more of the arrogant "I believe man-made global warming is true, so I don't have to prove anything" crap.
If you check the link in my post, you'll see the author provides links in each square that purport to discredit each of the arguments on the bingo board.
By the way, did you know a gun in the home is 42 more times likely to kill a family member than a criminal?
Post by: grampster on September 19, 2007, 05:01:30 PM
I'm curious if there are contemporary reports of the ground fog being 'smoke' (or whatever they would have called smog then) rather than 'fog.' I've never seen anything of the sort. Are there contemporary cities where visible pollution stands at human-level?
Well, there are smaller towns and townships today that have a lot of residences densely clustered around lakes, for example, where people are using wood burning furnaces designed to be placed outdoors that circulate heated water through a heat exchanger in the house. Low hanging, noxious wood smoke is becoming a problem to the point where these types of wood burners are being banned unless you own substantial acreage, or meet EPA standards for scrubbing the smoke.
Any area of dense population that uses coal will have a smoky pall as well as particulate being discharged into the air.
Post by: SkunkApe on September 19, 2007, 06:40:28 PM
http://www.smh.com.au/news/environment/find-out-how-to-earn-a-cool-10000-a-day/2007/09/19/1189881559357.html
Post by: Matthew Carberry on September 19, 2007, 07:15:32 PM
Quote from: Skunkape
Global warming, which isn't real...
Strawman. Be precise.
Quote from: Rational people
Global warming, which is almost certainly occuring, but which may or may not be occuring due to human influence, is now melting the Siberian permafrost... (and the ice on Greenland, similar to other apparently cyclical warming periods in the past.)
Would be a more correct representation of most of the "skeptic's" positions.
Post by: wacki on September 20, 2007, 03:12:43 AM
Does the climate change periodically? I think everyone who has a brain understands this is so. The historical record seems to point this out. Does man contribute to significant climate change or any climate change? I don't believe there is any hard science that proves that at all.
Does that mean we should not be wary and careful about our activities? Certainly not. Does it also mean that America should throw itself back into the stone age while the rest of the developing world continues to pollute at monumental levels? No way! Follow the money and the politics.
Man causing climate change shows the arrogance of the secular, Neo Liberal, Leftist mind. Always these folks elevate their importance way beyond that which can squash them like a bug. The earth and the universe will go its way in spite of man. Good science states that Mars is warming as well. I suppose my pickup is responsible for that as well?
Does that mean we should not be wary and careful about our activities? Certainly not. Does it also mean that America should throw itself back into the stone age while the rest of the developing world continues to pollute at monumental levels? No way! Follow the money and the politics.
Man causing climate change shows the arrogance of the secular, Neo Liberal, Leftist mind. Always these folks elevate their importance way beyond that which can squash them like a bug. The earth and the universe will go its way in spite of man. Good science states that Mars is warming as well. I suppose my pickup is responsible for that as well?
If your idea of good science is tobacco and oil funded think tanks then you are correct.
If your idea of good science is peer-review journals and major scientific societies then you would be incorrect.
Post by: wacki on September 20, 2007, 03:17:54 AM
But given the evidence (sun warming .... volcanos giving off more "greenhouse gas" than human activities, etc.)
Nothing could be further from the truth. Read this:
http://www.logicalscience.com/skeptic_arguments/the-sun-is-the-problem.html
For the volcanoes try searching the USGS website.
Quote
and the fact that many advocates of human caused global warming theories are at best questionable (ex.: Al Gore), I think that in this case, it's highly unlikely we're the cause of it.
Well you could say the same about whatever source of yours is blaming volcanoes. Try a real institution:
http://preview.tinyurl.com/ymdfdg
Post by: richyoung on September 20, 2007, 10:28:52 AM
If your idea of good science is tobacco and oil funded think tanks then you are correct.
If your idea of good science is peer-review journals and major scientific societies then you would be incorrect.
References to 95% contribution of water vapor to Earth's greenhouse effect:
a. S.M. Freidenreich and V. Ramaswamy, Solar Radiation Absorption by Carbon Dioxide, Overlap with Water, and a Parameterization for General Circulation Models, Journal of Geophysical Research 98 (1993):7255-7264
Mybe I didn't get the memo - is the "Journal of Geophysical Research" funded by tobacco & oil? BTW, exactly how does where the money come from CHANGE THE RESEARCH DATA? After all, as a scientist yourself, surely you would point out ERRORS IN THE RESEARCH (if there were any) rather than imply that the source of the funds somehow deligitimizes the data. Mankind is responsible for a fraction of a single degree of warming - unless you have data otherwise, based on gas percentages and their reletive greenhouse effectiveness?
Post by: gaston_45 on September 20, 2007, 04:12:14 PM
I don't know about 100 years ago, but I'm fairly sure there was no smog problem in urban areas 200 years ago.
Don't be so sure. It was actually worse due to coal usage.
http://www.j31.co.uk/home9.html
In 1285 the burning of coal was discouraged in London because of its sulphurous smell, and in 1685, 50 people died in 1 week from coal smog (London was England's only really large city, most 'cities of the period had populations smaller than present day Aston cum Aughton, e.g. Norwich in 1500 had a 12,000 population and was the 2nd largest city in England).
In 1873 when the industrial revolution was in full swing 700 people died in a London coal smog. The toll rose remorselessly and in 1880 there was a London smog that killed 2,000 people in 1 week and 90 days per year were recorded as having a yellow/brown/orange, well, sulphurous coal smog. The smoggy scenes so beloved of contemporary 19th century writers like Arthur Conan Doyle (Sherlock Holmes) and Robert Louis Stevenson (Dr Jeckyl and Mr Hyde) plus countless Jack the Ripper films, were dependent upon coal smog! London was the most populous and energy consuming city in the world back then, but it was coal that supplied the UK's energy needs, and the Yorkshire coalfields supplied much of the black gold.
Post by: MechAg94 on September 20, 2007, 05:29:37 PM
SkunkApe, making a game of it so you can avoid having to actually prove it is really ignorant.
It is more of the arrogant "I believe man-made global warming is true, so I don't have to prove anything" crap.
It is more of the arrogant "I believe man-made global warming is true, so I don't have to prove anything" crap.
If you check the link in my post, you'll see the author provides links in each square that purport to discredit each of the arguments on the bingo board.
By the way, did you know a gun in the home is 42 more times likely to kill a family member than a criminal?
Post by: Matthew Carberry on September 20, 2007, 05:36:15 PM
SkunkApe, making a game of it so you can avoid having to actually prove it is really ignorant.
It is more of the arrogant "I believe man-made global warming is true, so I don't have to prove anything" crap.
It is more of the arrogant "I believe man-made global warming is true, so I don't have to prove anything" crap.
If you check the link in my post, you'll see the author provides links in each square that purport to discredit each of the arguments on the bingo board.
By the way, did you know a gun in the home is 42 more times likely to kill a family member than a criminal?
I read that particular "fact" as sarcasm.
Post by: MechAg94 on September 21, 2007, 09:33:26 AM
Post by: Nitrogen on September 21, 2007, 11:44:56 AM
Post by: Sergeant Bob on September 21, 2007, 11:51:00 AM
Oh yeah? Well Junkscience.com take that!
Post by: richyoung on September 21, 2007, 12:01:08 PM
Post by: grampster on September 21, 2007, 01:09:43 PM
Post by: Nitrogen on September 21, 2007, 01:26:50 PM
http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=Junkscience.com
http://skepdic.com/refuge/junkscience.html
Quote
Milloy's so-called junk science page is full of misinformation and misleading claims, and makes little effort to separate science from policy claims made by scientists. He can cite articles by scientists who support his beliefs. The hundreds who come to different conclusions are attacked for their bad motives and junk methodologies. He cites articles favorably which deny a role for analogical reasoning in science (drawing inferences for humans based on animal studies). He suggests that lawyers who sue manufacturers of harmful products are bad but the manufacturers are good. He even has a favorable reference and link to a UC Berkeley Law professor who claims that in America scientists cannot criticize Darwin.
Post by: MechAg94 on September 21, 2007, 07:37:54 PM
Nitrogen, I always find it amusing that AGW advocates always play the good cop, bad cop game with posts and links. One guy can come around say all sorts of outlandish things and get shown that he is wrong, then all the links show up with all sort of quotes and claims about how those links are BS and aren't true. It gets pretty old. I have gone to trouble of reading all links posted by AGW people before only to find they don't really say what they said they said and they still prove nothing. And they were just as full of opinion and guesses as anything else. All these threads just go around in circles. A better use of time would be to start a thread on a specific fact or point and focus on it. As it is, everyone runs off in 18 different directions and it goes round and round. I would also suggest banning references to who gets money from whom or who is more credible. Those arguments get REALLY boring. It all really reminds of the creationist vs evolutionist arguments.
Again, I agree with grampster.
Post by: Sergeant Bob on September 22, 2007, 09:08:14 AM
http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=Junkscience.com
http://skepdic.com/refuge/junkscience.html
Quote
Milloy's so-called junk science page is full of misinformation and misleading claims, and makes little effort to separate science from policy claims made by scientists. He can cite articles by scientists who support his beliefs. The hundreds who come to different conclusions are attacked for their bad motives and junk methodologies. He cites articles favorably which deny a role for analogical reasoning in science (drawing inferences for humans based on animal studies). He suggests that lawyers who sue manufacturers of harmful products are bad but the manufacturers are good. He even has a favorable reference and link to a UC Berkeley Law professor who claims that in America scientists cannot criticize Darwin.
Yeah, well whatever. The only reason I even posted that link was because you did that drive by link posting with no comments, so I just posted the first thing that popped up on Google just to show you I could do the same thing.
Want some more?
Post by: MechAg94 on September 22, 2007, 03:21:05 PM
Post by: SkunkApe on September 23, 2007, 12:54:46 AM
I thought so also at first. It was just a bit out of place with the rest of it. I mean if he believes in AGW, who knows what he will believe.
I believe I'll have another drink.
Post by: CAnnoneer on September 23, 2007, 03:38:40 PM
It seems I am left to form my own interpretation of the available solid information. Yeah, the ice is melting and there is some desertification. Okay, so what? Climate has always changed through history.
Even if we just limit ourselves to the small section of "recorded" history, there are wide changes in climate. Egypt and North Africa used to feed the Ancient World. Most of it became desert or semi-desert well before even the beginning of the industrial age. And yet, Egypt is still a major argicultural area.
After the Industrial Revolution, one would expect a horrible greenhouse effect, taking into account the huge deforestation of Europe and the burning of wood to produce charcoal to make steel, as well as the burning of huge quantities of mined coal in ferrous and non-ferrous metallurgy, and in steam engines of all sorts. Well, guess what, the 1800s instead exprerienced protracted unusually cold weather. Something does not add up.
The reality is that climate formation is very complex and even the most advanced simulations cannot predict it or weather formation. Too many variables, too complex a system of differential equations, and probably some unknown/uncontrollable factors as well, such as volcanic activity and solar activity. How can we trust these guys to tell us what the climate is going to be like in 50 years, when they cannot tell us what the weather will be within a month with any meaningful accuracy?? Even weekly predictions are often quite off. And we are expected to march happily into global socialism out of fear of their prognosticated results? No, thanks.
I'll give a simple example for the kind of twisted motivations people really have when they talk about GW. One of my younger colleagues once got into a discussion with me on the subject and offered that Hummers should be outlawed or horribly taxed because they are bad for the environment. When I offered that Hummers are a very small percentage of the motor pool and that a much larger impact in polution is produced by other means, such as old inefficient cars or junk truck or bad driving, we went along a tangent that eventually culminated into the admission that he hates Hummer owners and wants to punish them because "they are rich and don't care". Enough said.
Post by: grampster on September 24, 2007, 05:16:49 AM
Post by: Iain on September 24, 2007, 05:30:48 AM
Can anyone attempt to point out some of CAnnoneer's basic inaccuracies - or is no-one capable of looking at nonsense and seeing it, regardless of how sympathetic they are to the basic intent of the post?
We can start with an attempt at understanding the sheer difference between the CO2 (and other greenhouse gases) emitted by 17th and 18th century populations (and only in large-ish quantities by the small percentage of industrialised peoples) as compared to over 6 billion people living on the planet right now - with a very large percentage of them industrialised and demanding more and more power etc.
Secondly - weather is not climate. Predicting overall climate is a very different procedure to predicting the weather. Crudely if I predict that the economy will grow 50% in the next fifty years, but someone in a different profession predicts the crash of a bank next month and gets it wrong - am I automatically wrong?
And why bother with the 'global socialism' paranoid conspiracy theory meme.
Anyway, I sort of enjoyed the fact that the much trumpeted (prior to publication, by Inhofe and Milloy and InMildog) 'Consensus doesn't exist' paper from Schulte will now not be published, not even by Energy and Environment. Oh noes - censorship - or perhaps it was just wrong.
Post by: MechAg94 on September 24, 2007, 07:05:18 AM
Not only that, but I have yet to see any real proof that even if we do believe it, that anything we can do short of stepping back 300 years will make a dent in things.
The science is still young in my opinion. Give it 20 years and see where things are. I think we'll find that there are still many mechanisms we don't understand today.
Post by: MechAg94 on September 24, 2007, 07:07:36 AM
Post by: richyoung on September 24, 2007, 07:24:54 AM
We can start with an attempt at understanding the sheer difference between the CO2 (and other greenhouse gases) emitted by 17th and 18th century populations (and only in large-ish quantities by the small percentage of industrialised peoples) as compared to over 6 billion people living on the planet right now - with a very large percentage of them industrialised and demanding more and more power etc.
YOU could start by explaining the fact that multiple proxies for temperature and CO2 and O2 isotope concenttrations, going back over 60 million years, show CO2 to be a LAGGING indicator of warming, if not uncoupled altogether! How the heck does an EFFECT occure before the CAUSE?
Quote
Secondly - weather is not climate. Predicting overall climate is a very different procedure to predicting the weather. Crudely if I predict that the economy will grow 50% in the next fifty years, but someone in a different profession predicts the crash of a bank next month and gets it wrong - am I automatically wrong?
To deny that the same computer models, the same assumptions, and the same techniques are used to forcast both, and to further attempt to delink the success (or lack thereof) rates is to betray a fundamental ignorance of the problem. There are too many variables, and far too little data, to accurately predict EITHER. You choose to ignore that weather forecasts are for days and weeks, n0ot decades and centuries. Just as with rifle shooting, the longer the distance, the bigger the groups. Temperature sensing stations are not evenly distributed thoughout the earth;s crust, seas and atmophere - the susequent "adjusting" for this fact is greater than the alleged warming detected. The proxies used for determining past temperatures are even worse. Tree ring data? Trees don't GROW above the Artic circle, above 11,000 feet on mountains, in deserts, or in water. Since wate covers the majority of the earth, the ttree rings tell us NOTHING about the temperature over the ocean - or the other treeless places. Ice cores? Better forget learning anything about the equatorial climate, the oceans, the deserts....see any probblems?
]
Post by: CAnnoneer on September 24, 2007, 08:13:05 AM
We can start with an attempt at understanding the sheer difference between the CO2 (and other greenhouse gases) emitted by 17th and 18th century populations (and only in large-ish quantities by the small percentage of industrialised peoples) as compared to over 6 billion people living on the planet right now - with a very large percentage of them industrialised and demanding more and more power etc.
You should not just compare rates. You should integrate over the time the rates were working to produce a cumulative effect. 6 billion is an extremely recent development. Europe, North Africa, and the Near and Middle East has been deforested since ancient times. Integrate that effect over three millenia, then compare it to the effect of 6 billion, the crushing majority of which live essentially as they did 1-2 thousand years ago. The cumulative effect should be quite significant already by the 18th c., yet 19th c. experienced a mini-ice-age. Please explain that since your side professes a superior understanding of the underlying science.
Quote
Secondly - weather is not climate. Predicting overall climate is a very different procedure to predicting the weather. Crudely if I predict that the economy will grow 50% in the next fifty years, but someone in a different profession predicts the crash of a bank next month and gets it wrong - am I automatically wrong?
The underlying physical phenomena are the same. Richyoung made a good comparison with shooting groups, but the reality is even harsher, because group spread is essentially linear, whereas differential calculus is generally not. This means that small initial deflections in the model produce DISPROPORTIONATELY large errors in the final result. Anyone who has ever done numerical simulations on differential models knows that only too well.
On the other hand, if you will not use weather formation to predict climate (
), then you are stuck with horribly incomplete "historical data" that correlates parameters that we don't even know if they correspond to what we think they do. The amount of guesswork done to fill the gaps borders on the ludicrous. It is like trying to assemble a jigsaw puzzle when you are missing 70-95% of the pieces, and yet have the temerity to insist whose picture it is we are looking at. The reality is that we know very little about ancient climate.Quote
And why bother with the 'global socialism' paranoid conspiracy theory meme.
Please. With Robespierre, it was the aristocrats and traitors. With Napoleon, it was the interventionists. With Lenin, it was the counterrevolutionaries. With Stalin, it was the spies and wreckers. With Hitler, it was the jews and the Dictat of Versailles. Every dictatorship identifies (or fabricates) an external or internal enemy or problem, to rile up support for itself and keep people scared and in line. Often the same people who say WOT is an excuse for PA refuse to see that GW is an excuse for GS.
Let's be completely cynical and ask ourselves who gives a crap about Kyoto. If the West is further burdened with regulations and "carbon-neutral", while China blatantly disregards that rubbish and gains a larger market share, will the environment benefit? The West leadership cannot (or refuses to) make China respect something as basic and undeniable as patent law. How can we possibly hope that China will respect a Kyoto-like agreement? Sheer fantasy.
Let me tell you what is really going on here. Socialists want to cripple the West and build up the Turd World to bridge the gap in living standards and build their global cumbaya bullshit. Ideologues at high places have been ranting about this forever, in different forms. It is all part of a big movement of globalization. GW is just the ticket that can help them saddle the West with even more ridiculous "added expense", and not just the heavy industry (which has already mostly left) but light industry, and the consumer himself. That would be the single biggest indirect tax increase in history.
The situation is essentially analogous to my colleague's thinking. I told him that if polution is the problem with Hummers, then he should propose to punish/tax all those guys with old guzzlers that do 15 mi/gal or all those guys with junk trucks that stink something awful. He then said we cannot because those guys cannot afford it, while the Hummers can. So, it is not really about who polutes the most or what is good for the environment, after all.
Here is another one for you. If humanity is the cause of climate change, and modernization increases carbon emissions, then why modernize the Turd World at all? Improvements in efficiency will be a droplet in the ocean when several billion people are "promoted" to our living standard and resource consumption. If GW is correct, that will kill the planet much faster. If anything, econuts should spend their efforts at keeping the Turd World where it is and giving away contraceptives.
Post by: richyoung on September 24, 2007, 09:32:20 AM
Post by: CAnnoneer on September 24, 2007, 10:10:05 AM
Here is another one for you. The same people that clamour about HIGW are the ones that also want to modernize the third world to first-world economy still based on fossil fuels past the H-peak. If the Goracle is such a genius as to invent the internet, lose to an alcoholic DUI AWOL C-student, and single-handledly save humanity from itself, how come he cannot divine what will happen to the environment when 6 billion people live like Americans, provided HIGW is such a solid fact???