Jump to content
Curious Cosmos
RainmanTime

Anthropogenic Global Warming is Bunk Science

Recommended Posts

Here we are at the end of 2008. Take a look at the data from 4 temperature sources over the last 8 years, including a linear regression of those last 8 years:

 

ALL_SINCE_2002.jpg

 

The last 8 years of data show NO WARMING.

 

There is no global warming! Repeat it to yourself over and over, because it is true!

 

THERE IS NO GLOBAL WARMING!

 

Data proves this!

 

RMT

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

looks like 2007 was hotter than 2002. and it looks like it was hotter, earlier.

 

 

2007 represents a single data point in the time series of a closed-loop, thermodynamic cycle.

 

Do you understand linear regression, how it works, and why it is so important in time-based analysis?

 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Linear_regression#Applications_of_linear_regression

 

"Linear regression is widely used in biological, behavioral and social sciences to describe possible relationships between variables. It ranks as one of the most important tools used in these disciplines."

 

and

 

<font color="black"> "A trend line represents a trend, the long-term movement in time series data after other components have been accounted for. It tells whether a particular data set (say GDP, oil prices or stock prices) have increased or decreased over the period of time." [/color]

 

This, coupled with the dataset shown in the graph, shows that the trend in temperatures has been down since 2000.

 

RMT

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I have an even more in depth webbie--that I am pretty sure you know about Ray.

 

But i will post it anyway..

 

http://wattsupwiththat.com/

 

In fact, he actually has a historical representation on a graph from 1810..enjoy.

 

 

Thanks Kanigo. I know Anthony's blog quite well, you are right. He has more than catalogued all the reasons why AGW is da bunkum...Gore's new religion.

 

RMT

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

lol, interesting indeed...

 

//dsc.discovery.com/news/2008/11/07/climate-change-warming.html

 

 

So some questions for you:

 

1) Do you believe this?

2) Would you cease to believe it if you were shown additional data that contradicted it?

3) Do you believe what Al Gore is telling the world?

 

RMT

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

"Do you believe this?"

 

well, i hope its true. im all for warm weather.

 

"Would you cease to believe it if you were shown additional data that contradicted it?"

 

ummm... does it really matter that much?

 

"Do you believe what Al Gore is telling the world?"

 

last time i heard anything about gore, he was running for president.

 

i just think its funny how scientists dont agree on facts. :)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Firstly I will state that I am no more than an interested layman on this.

 

I suspect though that the issue of global warming/cooling is a bit more complex than a single graph showing 8 years worth of data. While that graph shows a downward trend it is also a fact that the polar regions are melting.

 

I think I'll do a bit more reading and join this thread again later. :)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I suspect though that the issue of global warming/cooling is a bit more complex than a single graph showing 8 years worth of data.

 

 

Precisely why the IPCC's climate models should undergo rigorous Verification, Validation, and Accreditation (which they have not). I have plenty of data that shows their climate models are just plain wrong... especially since they used their models in the late 90s to predict the "hockey stick" temperature trend... and it never manifested. That right there would indicate we should be suspicious of their predictions of unchecked "Anthropocentric Global Warming".

 

For me, I am all about debating what the data says... the conclusions that some people come to vs. others. IPCC (back by the UN and a bunch of bureaucrats) claims the warming trend (which is no more) is caused by people and us liberating more and more CO2. There are other scientists who point to the clear correlation between solar cycles and warming/cooling trends. The IPCC not only disagrees that the sun is the largest impactor of our global weather, they even refuse to address the solar-temp data I am talking about.

 

While that graph shows a downward trend it is also a fact that the polar regions are melting.

 

 

Interesting point. Check out this article on that topic from Anthony Watt's pages:

 

Sunlight has more powerful influence on ocean circulation and climate than North American ice sheets

 

It speaks directly to what I am saying that it is the Sun not mankind that is "behind global warming." When you look at ALL the data, not just the data the IPCC uses to make its (weak) case, you will see that we cannot really control global warming cycles. The sun is in charge!

 

RMT

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

"Would you cease to believe it if you were shown additional data that contradicted it?"

 

ummm... does it really matter that much?

 

 

What "the masses" believe could very well affect everyone's lives. If you buy into a lie, it is usually because someone in power somewhere wants you to believe it. Did you know that Al Gore owns a part of a company that would become much more wealthy if his idea of "carbon caps and trading" was adopted? So... doesn't he really have a big conflict of interest?

 

i just think its funny how scientists dont agree on facts.

 

 

It is not the "facts" (data) they are disagreeing about. It is the inferred conclusions they come to based on the facts. One side (the IPCC and Al Gore) claim "the time for debate is over" or "the science is settled....mankind is the cause behind global warming." The other side says "but the data (facts) show a strong correlation between warming (and cooling) to solar cycles."

 

One group appears to only want to look at part of the data. The other groups wants to look at ALL OF THE DATA. Here are some troubling words that come from the report from which the graphic in my original post came from:

 

http://icecap.us/images/uploads/monckton-global_warming_has_stopped.pdf

 

"Chameides' graph overleaf appears to have been tampered with to exclude the very rapid

cooling that occurred between 2007 (the curve stops in January 2007, when a strong el

Nino artificially but temporarily boosted temperatures) and 2008. The fall in temperatures

between January 2007 and January 2008, carefully not shown on Chameides' graph, was

the greatest January-January fall since records began in 1880.

 

Furthermore, Chameides's graph – instead of presenting a proper five-year running mean

– merely cherry-picks certain points on the running-mean graph (which is not itself

shown) so as to suggest, falsely, that global temperatures are still rising."

 

When you only include data that supports your belief, and carefully omit data that counters your belief, then you are guilty of a very unscientific offense called "confirmation bias". For a scientist to "cook the data" to tell a story that represents his personal belief is dangerous. It is what leads to people believing ridiculous (and unsupported) things, such as "9-11 was an inside job".

 

RMT

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

"There are other scientists who point to the clear correlation between solar cycles and warming/cooling trends. The IPCC not only disagrees that the sun is the largest impactor of our global weather, they even refuse to address the solar-temp data I am talking about."

 

i agree. i think that solar cycles make up for a big part of it. i think you should put some kind of solar intensity graph next to the other graph. i think there are also other factors involved, but in my opinion, the sun is the biggest culprit. a billion cars running every second of everyday doesent neccesarily help things out though.

 

let me ask you this: does your data account for pressure systems, cold fronts, wind chill/heat index, and stuff like that? the reason i ask is that because this time last year, it was a comfy 80 degrees. last night it was 40 degrees. i could say that the world must be cooling, but i'd be wrong. its just that a cold front came through and this time last year, it took until well after christmas to get here.

 

btw, even though i agree, i still think your a gigantic A-hole. :P

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

What "the masses" believe could very well affect everyone's lives.

 

 

True but can you honestly say that being in a downtown core breathing that air all day is preferable to being out in a middle of nowhere in the country? Combustion engine has to go. I hate Al Gore's lies, his technique, and the fact that they both work. But I'll look the other way while he does his thing unless I'm invested in one of the companies that is going to loose money because burning oil goes out of style ;-)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

let me ask you this: does your data account for pressure systems, cold fronts, wind chill/heat index, and stuff like that?

 

 

Nope. And that is because it is "just data". What you are describing would be termed a "model". But your point is well taken, which is why a great many scientists and engineers are calling for the IPCC climate models to be properly vetted and validated against reality for a whole host of factors (not the least of which are climactic feedback effects...a big point of argument about the validity of their models).

 

btw, even though i agree, i still think your a gigantic A-hole.

 

 

Don't worry, it won't keep me awake at night! ;) And you know, you could always "put me in my place" by getting that degree.... that would "show me", now wouldn't it? :D

 

RMT

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

"Don't worry, it won't keep me awake at night! And you know, you could always "put me in my place" by getting that degree.... that would "show me", now wouldn't it?"

 

nah, thats a big waste of time. theres far easier ways to "show you." fortunately for me, i dont have time to waste on insignifigant things. now, back to the topic at hand.

 

 

"Nope. And that is because it is "just data".

 

you put the period outside of the quotation marks... :D OK, now i dont have time to waste on insignifigant things. :)

 

i agree that they should take into account all variables. but how can you be sure that you have made the correct assesment without all of the variables?

 

i would also suggest that you compare day/night temperatures of 1960-70 with 1998-08. i think it will tell an interesting story. i think it will say that nowadays there are hotter days and colder nights. i think it is from a partial loss of atmosphere. call it a hunch.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

nah, thats a big waste of time.

 

 

That's too bad you say that. Folks who can't, or are too lazy, to get their degree often use this as a means of cover. Oh well.

 

i agree that they should take into account all variables. but how can you be sure that you have made the correct assesment without all of the variables?

 

 

Several answers here:

 

1) The major argument is about whether the globe, as a whole, is warming. Hence, we are more concerned about macroscopic and long-term effects, and temperature is the primary parameter that will either confirm, or deny, the speculations. As such, microcopic and short-term events such as weather patterns passing thru an area end up being averaged-out. (In fact, these short-term, variable events are what are responsible for a lot of the up-and-down, high frequency content you see in the data).

2) As you progress from a "single input/single output" model (again, make the distinction between just taking data and trying to model something) to multi-valued problems, the uncertainty goes way up. This means making conclusions WITHOUT a model that has been verified and validated is dangerous.

3) Summary: I am again stating that your concern is correct. But the answer to your concern is the domain of modeling. And you can't just build a model and issue your conclusions (which is what the IPCC and Al Gore are doing). You have to formally verify and validate that your model predicts reality by comparing your model predictions to what really happens. And so far, the IPCC climate models that predicted a linear temperature rise for the 2000-2020 time frame have been proven to be invalid. So the data clearly shows they are not properly taking everything into account, as you point out. Many climate experts have written papers explaining exactly where they believe the errors are, and it has to do with modeling feedback effects.

 

i would also suggest that you compare day/night temperatures of 1960-70 with 1998-08. i think it will tell an interesting story. i think it will say that nowadays there are hotter days and colder nights. i think it is from a partial loss of atmosphere. call it a hunch.

 

 

Hunches can be wrong. If we were experiencing "loss of atmosphere" (partial or not), we would see this in long term atmospheric pressure readings across the globe. It would be easy to detect. The atmosphere is essentially a closed pressure vessel. (This is why we teach atmospheric modeling in the very first, ARO 101 course). If pressure were "leaking" from the atmosphere, even by a relatively small amount, it would be very obvious.

 

But hey, I don't expect you to just trust me (seeing as how you think I am a giant A-hole). Take a read of what a Professor Emeritus in atmospheric science says about the whole AGW nonsense:

 

Over-Hyping of Green

By William M. Gray

The author is a Professor Emeritus of Atmospheric Science at Colorado State University where he has worked since 1961. He holds a Ph.D. degree from the University of Chicago in Geophysical Science.

 

The US green movement is moving forward with its agenda to reduce carbon dioxide (CO2) gas emissions. Colorado Governor Ritter has proposed various CO2 reduction measures. Many US state legislatures are beginning to mandate that various percentages of future electrical energy generated come from renewable energy sources. Renewable energy is currently much more expensive than traditional fossil fuel energy. Many cities and states across the US are starting to implement costly programs to reduce CO2 emissions. I doubt that the public is aware of the heavy economic penalties to be paid by efforts to substantially reduce CO2 gases. These CO2 reduction efforts are beginning to be made just at the time we must start to adjust to the serious economic problems associated with the recent severe stock market downturn.

 

There is little the US can do about reducing global CO2 amounts. China, India and other third world countries will not agree to limit their CO2 emissions. It is important for our country to maintain its vibrant and growing economy to have sufficient resources to invest in research on new energy sources and in further development of our, as yet untapped, domestic energy supplies. It is more important to make progress on reducing our dependence on foreign energy than reducing CO2. We should not let an organized cabal of environmentalists, government bureaucrats, and liberal media groups brainwash us into going in a direction not in our country's best interest.

 

I have been studying and teaching weather and climate for over 50 years and have been making real-time seasonal hurricane forecasts for a quarter-century. I and many of my colleagues with comparable experience do not believe that CO2 gas emissions are anywhere near the threat to global climate as the environmental and liberal media groups have led us to believe. Most people are not aware of how flimsy are the physical arguments behind the human-induced warming scenarios. There has yet to be a really open and honest scientific dialogue on this topic among our country's most experienced weather and climate experts. Most knowledgeable global warming skeptics have been ignored and/or their motives questioned. Many have been falsely tagged as tools of the fossil fuel industry – reminding me a bit of the McCarthy period. By contrast, those harping the loudest on the dangers of CO2, such as Al Gore, typically have little real understanding or experience in how the atmosphere and ocean really function.

 

The Global Climate Model (GCM) simulations by large US and foreign government laboratories and universities on which so much of the warming science scenarios are based have basic flaws. These global models are not able to correctly model the globe's small-scale precipitation processes. They have incorrectly parameterized the rain processes in their models to give an unrealistically warming influence from CO2 increases. These GCMs also do not properly model the globe's deep ocean circulation which appears to be the primary driving mechanism for most of the global temperature increases that have been observed. Most GCMs indicate that a doubling of atmospheric CO2 towards the end of the 21st century will lead to global warming of 2-5oC. My best estimate of global warming for a doubling of CO2 is about 0.3-0.5oC, 5-10 times less than the models estimate. These GCMs have yet to demonstrate predictive skill at forecasting the next few years of global temperature. Why should we believe their predictions 50 to 100 years in the future?

 

Many thousands of scientists from the US and around the globe do not accept the human-induced global warming hypothesis as it has been presented by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) reports. The summary statements of the IPCC reports are strongly biased to upholding the human influence on climate. The IPCC summaries often do not conform to the material in the reports. Most known warming skeptics, such as myself and a number of my very experienced colleagues were never invited to participate in the IPCC process or even contacted by the IPCC for our views.

 

It is impossible to objectively separate the small amount of CO2 induced global warming that may have occurred from the large natural induced global temperature changes which are always occurring. There has been little global warming the last 10 years. Due to recent changes in the global ocean circulation that I and others foresee as the basin for a modest cooling of global temperature in the next 10-15 years. This would be similar to the global cooling that was experienced between the mid-1940s to mid-1970s.

 

Reducing atmospheric CO2 will not by itself solve any of the globe's many environmental problems. A slightly warmer globe due to CO2 increases would, in the net, likely be more beneficial to humankind than a slightly cooler globe. Crop and vegetation growth would be stimulated by higher amounts of atmospheric CO2. We should not allow ourselves to be stampeded into costly CO2 reduction programs of little or no real benefit but much economic detriment.

 

RMT

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

nah, thats a big waste of time ( getting a degree )

 

 

Trust me it not a waste of time. I'm approaching 50 and regret not getting one. Don't make the same mistake I did, Ruthless. It is far easier to obtain one when younger, than older. You never know what you might decide to do later on in your life, would be good to keep as many options open as possible.

 

Whats a couple of years of your time, as opposed to many years of regret ?

 

And, even if I got one now...most places I would "love" to work, would not hire me because I'm too old.

 

Another aspect to having a degree...I worked in the Home Improvement Industry for years as a sub-level manager...my bosses were pretty dumb...why they were my bosses ? Because they had a degree in "something", and were hired directly into the upper manager positions, and in the corporate positions, as well.

 

I also know for a fact, that the road of life is a bit more difficult without any "structured" higher education. There are those who make do without, but those numbers are rather small.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

i appreciate your concern, but i doubt that i will ever get the chance to go to school. now ray may tell you that i can make all the excuses in the world, but its still my fault, but i will tell you that i have a choice to make.

 

i can decide to be a father to my two children and i can choose to try to help my mentally deranged wife through her "living dead girl" routine (she hasnt been home today and is surely out doing deconstructive things). OR i can say screw them and go get my education.

 

but the fact is, someone has to be there for the kids and my wife is not well off. she has attempted suicide before and at this time, she is very mentally unstable.

 

so where one man sees excuses, i see a choice.

 

i made a choice once that i was most important in my life. i finally told my mother that i was going to live my life and i was not going to help her with her problems anymore because it was an endless cycle of stupidity. i told her, "F you." and walked away with a box of clothes and nothing else.

 

now, i could do the same thing with my wife. i could go and get my box of clothes and leave again. i could go and live the life i dream of living. i could say to her, "im alive too woman. i have a life i want to live too." but i remember what happened with my mother. i never got to speak to her again. she was murdered/commited suicide... hell i dont know what happened, but now she is dead and i will always blame myself for that.

 

i couldve just ignored what you said to me, and i couldve wrote you this in a pm. but i made the decision to write it publicly and there is a reason. i appreciate the fact that people encourage me to go to school, but the problem is, it hurts more than it helps. i already want to go to school and if i had no morals, i would be in school. if i felt no overwhelming guilt everytime i told my wife, "screw you you cheating whore. its time for me to live my life." i would be in school.

 

i know that i cant keep on doing this forever, but i have to. it would be nice if i had help, but i know that everyone else in this world puts themselves first. so, from now until the day i die, i will do what i have been doing for the past ten years: pray that god makes it go all away and i can finally, for the first time in my life, live a normal life.

 

so, until i figure out a way to make it all ok, i will continue to try to reach out to people and i will continue to tell my story, hoping it makes a difference in someones life. maybe a wife or a husband will read this and realize how their spouse feels and they can finally have meaning in their marriage.

 

i will coninue to hope for the best and learn all i can in my spare time. that is all i can do.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I understand. I made an assumption that was incorrect, and for that assumption, I apologize.

 

There is absolutely nothing wrong with your choice, and my respect for you has grown exponentially.

 

There are lessons to be learned in all circumstances, and the lessons you are learning are of things that no school could ever teach.

 

In a way, I believe what you have expressed here and the way you have expressed it, demonstrates a type of man that is rare and the world could use more men like you.

 

I wish I could offer you more, however, all I have to give is my hand in friendship, and my prayers for you and your family.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

thank you. not many people have said that to me and i appreciate it. its moments like these that keep me going, that fuels my fire.

 

thank you.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

All I know is from what I have been reading we are still suppose to have another ice age in the next 10,000 to 100,000 years and it is suppose to more more sever than past ice ages. So, by that point in time global warming may of just helped. And, we are going through another mass extinction

including plants as well as animals. Too bad I won,t live long enough to see how it all works out.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I read something recently about a river of water beneath certain glaciers helping the large chunks move.Of course, just the weight of the ice will melt it underneath, but...

 

A possibility that occurs to me is that perhaps the crust of the Earth has been warming. This would accelerate the melting of the ice on rock, and probably raise ocean temperatures, but might not affect air temperatures.

 

 

 

 

"Don't know nothin' about the Middle Ages. I look at the pictures and turn the pages."

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The last 8 years of data show NO WARMING.

 

There is no global warming! Repeat it to yourself over and over, because it is true!

 

THERE IS NO GLOBAL WARMING!

 

Data proves this!

 

RMT

 

 

The data proves nothing of the sort.

 

Given the large yearly fluctuations in the graph, it is clear that the observed short-term "trend" doesn't prove anything. It might be the result of short-term noise and nothing else.

 

You might want to try and do a rigorous statistical analysis on this one. Make a null hypothesis, such as "global warming is less than +0.02C/year" and calculate the confidence level. Your exact results will depend on your exact assumptions, but there is no way you'll reach anything over 95%. And this is simply not enough to cause us to disregard a full century of data, which clearly demonstrates that global warming was real in the past 100 years.

 

The only debatable point here, is whether this warming was caused by human greenhouse emissions or by something else. But does it really matter? For curiosity's sake, I suppose it does. But from the practical standpoint, it doesn't change anything. Even if the global warming of the 20th century was natural, this doesn't mean that we can sit back and do nothing. And it certainly doesn't mean that we should go on emmitting greenhouse gases, and make the naturally sticky situation even worse.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The data proves nothing of the sort.

 

 

It uses the same linear regression that IPCC used on data to proclaim warming was occurring (note also that their "hockey stick" never occurred). So by using the same analysis technique they used to proclaim warming, we have a definite cooling trend. Any argument you make as for "short-term noise" would also have to apply to the apparant warming of the 90s.

 

The only debatable point here, is whether this warming was caused by human greenhouse emissions or by something else.

 

 

If you know anything about closed-loop system dynamics, then that is a huge point.

 

But does it really matter? For curiosity's sake, I suppose it does.

 

 

It most certainly does, especially if no matter how much much we spend (or can no longer make as a result of restrictions) we cannot do anything to affect the outcome! I mentioned closed-loop system dynamics, and this can show us how it is more than just curiosity. A phenomenon previously known as Pilot-Induced Oscillations is a result of the human pilot's dynamics coupling with the natural airplane dynamics. In essence, the pilot is the forcing function that drives the system to higher levels of dynamic instability. The first lesson the test pilot learns with regard to PIO is "just let go...stop giving the system inputs because you can and will only make it worse."

 

This applies to bad AGW science because, if we are NOT the cause of the warming (and there is plenty of data that does show statistical correspondence with sunspot activity) then anything we DO to take action on a bad hypothesis can make things worse! Happens all the time in dynamical systems that are not well understood. It is called "being out of phase with the system." Since no one can show an accurate picture of the dynamic response of the climate system, NO ONE (not even the self-proclaimed zealots of AGW, the IPCC) can predict whether anything we do would be "in phase" or "out of phase" with nature.

 

But from the practical standpoint, it doesn't change anything.

 

 

Wrong. It is a highly practical point because: If data shows CO2 is not the mechanism, and we are not (largely) responsible then NOTHING we could possibly do will change it...and we could even make it worse. Compare all of humankind's power spectral density to that of the sun's. We are not even showing up as a minor blip!

 

Even if the global warming of the 20th century was natural, this doesn't mean that we can sit back and do nothing.

 

 

Not do nothing, but you should certainly not take actions based on an INCORRECT climate model which does not even measure the impacts of oceanic currents, and has disputable feedback gains for CO2! What you should do is continue to take data, and continue to improve models until you CAN reliably predict something...anything about the state of the climate. But right now I am afraid the IPCC climate predictions made at the end of the 90s simply have NOT COME TO PASS. That means they failed, and so why should we believe their models?

 

And it certainly doesn't mean that we should go on emmitting greenhouse gases, and make the naturally sticky situation even worse.

 

 

Actually, those climate scientists who actually consider the impact of the sun (as opposed to the AGW zealots who like to ignore the sun's impact) are suggesting (based on sunspot activity that matches early in the 20th century) that we may be on the verge of a massive cooling event. If that is the case then we will need all the hydrocarbons we can get our hands on (AND "alternate energy" technology) just to keep ourselves warm.

 

RMT

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It uses the same linear regression that IPCC used on data to proclaim warming was occurring (note also that their "hockey stick" never occurred). So by using the same analysis technique they used to proclaim warming, we have a definite cooling trend. Any argument you make as for "short-term noise" would also have to apply to the apparant warming of the 90s.

 

 

That would be true... Had global warming started in the 1990's.

 

It did not. The world has been warming since the late 19th century. The graph has its ups and downs, but the overall trend cannot be denied.

 

 

It most certainly does, especially if no matter how much much we spend (or can no longer make as a result of restrictions) we cannot do anything to affect the outcome!

 

 

Of-course we can.

 

Forget the graphs for a moment. You don't need them to realize that emitting CO2 and other greenhouse gases to the atmosphere will cause a greenhouse effect. And you don't need computer simulations to understand that (say) doubling the amount of CO2 in the atmosphere will have a non-negligable effect on climate.

 

Not to mention the fact, that these greenhouse emissions have side effects which have nothing to do with the greenhouse effect. Most industrial proccesses which emit CO2, also emit toxic gases such as carbon monoxide. Deforestation, which is another contributer to the increased level of CO2, also has ecological implications far beyond the greenhouse crisis.

 

In other words, even if the greenhouse problem was a non-issue, we would still have to do more-or-less the same things in order to preserve the ecosystem.

 

 

 

This applies to bad AGW science because, if we are NOT the cause of the warming (and there is plenty of data that does show statistical correspondence with sunspot activity) then anything we DO to take action on a bad hypothesis can make things worse!

 

 

You just gave the best possible argument in favour of reducing our greenhouse emissions: Tinkering with complex dynamical systems is dangerous and unpredictable. And we have been tinkering quite a bit with the "knobs" of our planet's ecosystem in the past century or so. We've changed the composition of the atmosphere in 100 years, at a rate thousands of times faster then our planet had ever experienced before.

 

 

 

Actually, those climate scientists who actually consider the impact of the sun (as opposed to the AGW zealots who like to ignore the sun's impact) are suggesting (based on sunspot activity that matches early in the 20th century) that we may be on the verge of a massive cooling event. If that is the case then we will need all the hydrocarbons we can get our hands on (AND "alternate energy" technology) just to keep ourselves warm.

 

 

Oh... So suddenly it becomes OK to tinker with closed dynamic systems? :)

 

 

 

What you should do is continue to take data, and continue to improve models until you CAN reliably predict something...anything about the state of the climate.

 

 

Very true.

 

But in the meanwhile, we should act responsibly and stop fooling around with things we do not understand. If we have no idea how the climate "machine" works, we shouldn't be testing its limits. We should make every possible efford to minimize our impact on the ecosystem, until we have some idea as to what we are doing.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.


×
×
  • Create New...