Robert, here's the website I am getting these graphics from.
Posted on 12/14/2007 8:43:59 AM PST by Para-Ord.45
There is always a chance that consensus is wrong. There is a greater chance consensus is wrong, in situations like this, where the data is developing and speculation and models are relied upon. So what? That doesn’t mean that all consensus is wrong, or that the views of the majority of scientists do not have value. It just means it makes sense to leave room for all POVs—which was my original point. Thanks for restating that point with several gripping examples. Notwithstanding the hyberbole of the remainder of your post—I agree. We should not lose sight of the balance needed to respond to the potential problem. I do not think the US should suffer a penalty or is in anyway remotely blameworthy. I do think that, if CO2 reductions are made (and I agree with the current consensus that they should be), the countries with the highest per capita emissions should make the most cuts.
Do you know what per capita means? I’ve attached a link to help you out.
http://www.carbonplanet.com/country_emissions
I stated here that I don’t support Kyoto and there is not yet a Bali Accord. I don’t care for Al Gore. I never said we shouldn’t have cars or dishwashers etc. I do not favor any plan which is likely to substanially harm our economy. If you find yourself having to assign me all these positions which I do not support to make your point, you may want to reconsider your point.
Some human beings deny the existence of complicated problems because they don’t want to deal with them. I am not going to deny the potential of a very serious problem here.
Curios why you posted my comment at post #46 to Pelham?
“I mean if a man’s family was getting sick, and he thought there was a 40% chance that air quality in the home was the issue—would it make sense to wait until he could definitely show by scientific method that air quality was the issue before taking action?”
Melstew,
What you say makes perfect sense IF the action that you propose undertaking has little adverse consequences itself and has some reasonably sound method for determing whether it is successfull or not. Unfortunately in this case:
1) We don’t know whether the phenominom being described (human cause global warming) is actualy occuring or not.
2) If it is occuring, we don’t know whether the proposed solution (reducing human production of GHG) will be effective in addressing it.
3) The proposed solution has a MASSIVE cost associated with it, both in terms of dollars and human lives.
4) We don’t know whether the proposed solution will actualy EXACERBATE the problem rather then address it (i.e. The same GHG’s that trap some of Earth’s energy from being reflected out into space ALSO function to insulate the Earth from recieving some of that Solar Energy in the first place)
5) The frevor with which the proposed solution is being pushed generaly elimates discussion of other potential solutions which may be more effective at addressing the problem but will never get considered.... nor even postulated because they do not agree with the accepted dogma (i.e. Are we better off concentrating on building carbon sinks rather then trying to reduce emmisions?)
6) There is no effective way, in the short term, to measure whether the proposed solution is actualy working.... and there will be a built in beaurocracy fighting to elimate any evidence that shows it is not.... since such evidence will harm thier narrow self-interests.
7) Even if the problem does exist and the proposed solution is actualy the most effective means of addressing it. We have not even seriously examined whether the negative consequences caused by the proposed solution will actualy be less then the negative consequences caused by the problem in the first place.
Lets use the analogy of Global Warming as a suspect sore on some-ones foot.
- If the sore is gangrene then amputation may indeed be neccesary.
- If the sore is poison ivy then cutting off the foot is obviously worse then ignoring the problem.
- If the sore is a mild infection then it needs to be treated, but anti-biotics will be effective and far less costly then amputation.
- If the sore is a symptom of AIDS then not only will amputation not cure the problem but it may actualy endanger the patients life due to the stress on thier system from the procedure.
Great post. Much of what you say would be good for the “the time for debate is over, its time for action” crowd. Although I agree that some action is justified, I think the debate is just warming up (no pun intended). That has been my point from the beginning. We have an early consensus, and I will not dismiss them out of hand merely because too few pieces of the puzzle are visible. But, there is much we don’t know, and much that the consensus could be wrong about. You do miss the mark where you talk about the “action you propose undertaking”. I didn’t propose anything. If I had, it would be more use of nuclear, wind, hydrogen, geothermal, and hydro. Those sources (each with its own set of limitations) partially address the potential problem, constitute investments into the future, and provide a national security windfall. Voluntary, conservation and awareness are also something I would propose. Most of all, keeping an open mind as we try to figure out what the hell, if anything, is going on.
I can easily enough agree to disagree with you on whether you or the National Academy of Science is right on climate change. But your comment implying that abrupt (in a scientific sense) climate change may be good or neutral is bizarre. Based upon my own anecdotal life experiences, and review of history, it seems to me that a 4 degree rise in temperature won’t just inconvenience a few rich folks living on the coast. Who cares if famine hits Africa and starvation hits China, and some highbrow New Yorkers have to move inland—you’ll be safe and secure in North Dakota, right? I just don’t see things that way, or dismiss that sort of potential human misery in the **** happens category.
http://www.noaanews.noaa.gov/stories2007/images/usa-temps-1895-2006b.jpg
People who use this chart to say global warming stopped in 1998—don’t impress me as being overly smart. Obviously El Nino and other factors have a year to year impact—but the little red squiggly line seems to be going up.
See post 82 for cite. It 8x not 10x. Good thing you made me check.
I don’t think anyone knows precisely how co2 and El Nino interact. I read on a NOAA website some time ago that it was being studied. El Nino obviously has a shorter term effect on fluctuations (and is the basis for the prediction that 2010 will re-set the records).
Robert, here's the website I am getting these graphics from.
But their press release for 2007 - which is NOT over yet and does NOT include December - one of the colder months of the year - is weighted towards the hotter months, deliberately used linear averages for the comparison. And linear average of a repeating periodic change is, by definition, skewed.
Nonetheless, I note that - even if you use the politically correct “red line” for temperatures, AND if you assume Hansen and the NWS are actually correcting the surface temperatures correctly for heat island effects - which they have NOT done in the past - the current red line line has been exceeded 4 times in the recent past, and 10 times across the century. Doesn’t make much of a case for “hottest ever” temps, if the middle of the century is hotter than the end of the century is.
Over the century, temp increase is 1 degree.
For ten trillion dollars (wasted on the UN bureaucracy and dictators, rather than people and energy and water and food and fuel and fodder) and millions of dead, you want to cripple the world’s future for 1 degree in one hundred years, when you can’t even tell me why GHG theories don’t work, and don’t match the observed temperatures?
So far, there has been a 1/2 of one degree change in 27 years, and no change for the past ten years. Your chart confirms that, even though it is based on nominal and corrected surface temps.
Why can you claim 4 degrees? Based on what? Over what time frame are claiming this “rich people don’t care” (NY City vice the world’s poor vice the Dakotas) impact - are you imagining somehow the the ice caps will melt IF the temps increase by 4 degrees?
(The ice caps CAN’T melt at +4 degrees - the average temps are BELOW -14 degrees. Even to get to melting requires many CENTURIES of constantly (or accelerating!) increasing temps. We CAN’T be burning coal after 200 years - the supply will be gone.
So, what will cause any assumed increase for those 200 years after the coal is used up, AFTER the CO2 levels DON’T increase any more? Al Gore is simply, bluntly lying. Ice cap melting scenarios are wrong. Scare tactics that are dead wrong. And, in any case, increased temps are actually projected to INCREASE snow deposition, an inconvenient fact ignored by the AGW extremists.
Ice cap temps now are lower for most of both Antarctica and Greenland - why can anybody assume the ice will melt if temps are (1) below freezing, and (2) getting colder?
Second. Screaming arguments about "hurting the poor" are wrong - because the BENEFITS to the poor come from increased, more efficient use of ALL energy sources. restrictions kill poor people, economic freedom and expansion let the thrive.
But the AGW moralists don't want the poor to thrive - their ACTIONS reveal that they want the poor to die. Bluntly put perhaps, but their ACTIONS will pay dictators and Euro-socialists, and will KILL the poor.
I am also aware of how the evils of Chinese and Russian socialism are ignored by the environmental, human rights, and European socialists when they seek to destroy the US economy.
Good timing Robert! I was getting this link anyway.
California is not more populated than North Dakota because people there are more effective at bearing progeny, it is because so many have moved there seeking a stable and relatively warm climate.
This is evident to North Dakotans as many would-be 'transplants', and even natives flee for warmer regions.
So now I am supposed to feel sorry for people based on their decisions? I am supposed to buy "carbon credit" so I can live in my home so they, who vastly outnumber us and produce far more mess, can continue to live as they choose?
Nonsense.
Humanity will overcome the problem or not. If there was a 4 degree drop in temperature (Check your data, the NASA calculations were flawed and have been revised), I seriously doubt folks in California would really care if people up here froze to death--and two people I knew met such an end.
When the UN's involved, it's a lie or it's graft. Or both...
When the UN's involved, it's a lie or it's graft. Or both...
That could be interpreted to mean that all of the regulations, CAFE standards, and the like are useless; and actually have made it worse instead of better. Do we need to go back to the technology of the 1960's to be "greener"? It seems counter-intuitive.
Depends on who the perpetratee is. For example the following only works once on each person it is tried upon :-)
"Believe me, I'll still respect you in the morning."
Cheers!
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.