Posted on 07/06/2006 8:04:55 AM PDT by cogitator
Freely excerpting:
"The real truth is that we don't know enough to relieve global warming, and -- barring major technological breakthroughs -- we can't do much about it. This was obvious nine years ago; it's still obvious." ... "Having postulated a crash energy diet, the IEA [International Energy Agency] simulates five scenarios with differing rates of technological change. In each, greenhouse emissions in 2050 are higher than today. The increases vary from 6 percent to 27 percent." ... "No government will adopt the draconian restrictions on economic growth and personal freedom (limits on electricity usage, driving and travel) that might curb global warming. Still, politicians want to show they're "doing something." The result is grandstanding." ... "The trouble with the global warming debate is that it has become a moral crusade when it's really an engineering problem. The inconvenient truth is that if we don't solve the engineering problem, we're helpless."
(Excerpt) Read more at washingtonpost.com ...
We also have made great strides in eliminating those sulfate aerosols that Codge referred to that might slow down the warming; did we trade cleaner waterways for higher sea levels?
The second of your two links makes WVa look like a paradise; and if we accept that the earth rotates slower when more mass is located at the equator, the current trend would lead one to think that we are slowly but steadily speeding up as the mass moves toward the poles thereby creating the depressed Artic sea levels discussed here earlier.
That's brings up another question I have. From what I gather, they use things like tree rings and coral growth as proxy data for ancient temperature measurement. But for more modern times, (1600 AD +) they use actual temperature measurements. Why not continue using tree rings for modern data and see how well it coincides with actual measurements?
I'm no forester, but I know there are a lot of factors involved in tree growth beside temperature.
500 years ago, humans promarily relied on wood for light, heat, cooking and early industrial processes like iron making. Wood is many times more carbon intensive than hydrocarbons.
I'm struggling to understand the basis for the conclusions regarding man's involvement in the current global warming.
The REAL truth is more like this:
We live in a hypercomplex environmental system with multiplied millions of interrelationships ranging from the obvious to the undiscovered. Our ability to model such a system simply does not exist. Despite the models that we have, there are vastly more interrelationships that may bear upon the issue that are not included in our models.
Taking climate in terms of a system of equations; we have precious few well-known equations and millions of variables. The system simply CANNOT be solved at this hour of human history, and it is so complex that our descendants will look back upon our infantile efforts in much the same way that we look back upon man's early attempts at flight. Our present models, even with the level of complexity that we have achieved, are so far from reality that one might find them laughable, if they weren't being used in an attempt to drive policies that would be detrimental to all of us.
"Global warming", taken in terms of man's early efforts at flight, is a group of hand-wringing true-believers shouting at the rest of us, "I jumped off the roof with an umbrella, fell and broke my leg. Therefore, it is patently IMPOSSIBLE that man will EVER gain the ability to fly and we need to outlaw future attempts or there'll be far worse than just broken legs. You'd better believe me or you will rue this day."
To compare the complex relationships between the manifold factors influencing climate with our present models is just a few orders of magnitude more absurd than comparing an F-18A Hornet with the aforementioned umbrella. How much more absurd -- how far beyond credible, then -- to take output from these models and construct a global crisis. And how unbelievably irresponsible and, frankly, stupid to insist upon sweeping public policy changes based on that output.
We know too little to make too much of it.
The Earth's rotation has been slowing ever since it formed, and a day is several hours longer now, than it was 4 billion years ago.
This is caused by tidal linkage of the Earth and the moon. The Earth turns in about 24 hours, and it takes the moon almost a month to go around in the same direction. The moon raises tides on the Earth, which place a drag on the Earth's rotation. The gravitational linkage also pulls the moon into a higher and higher orbit.
Were it not for the moderating effect of the oceans we would be seeing much greater effect on land.
The problem would be if the disturbing scientific data only results in a moral crusade and doesn't produce political change resulting in better engineering! I'd prefer to keep the moral crusade out of it and just get to the better engineering.
Let's talk about deforestation. Pick nearly any location in North America or Western Europe (I know it's true in Pennsylvania) and look at landscape photos or paintings from 100+ years ago and you see very few trees. They had been cut down for fuel and lumber and farm land over the centuries. Look today, at the same spots, and you see the forests are back -- big time. Even in places were there were historically few trees such as the Great Plains there are now considerable plots of man-made forest.
In North America and Europe, there are more acres of forest now than there were 100 years ago. Wouldn't that imply that we should be seeing less drought, flooding and cooler temps than a century ago?
1. World CO2 levels were not higher during the last Ice Age. The natural peak is about 280 ppm during interglacials, and that's about the value for this interglacial until human activities enhanced the concentration.
2. While solar variability is important, there isn't any evidence it's a factor right now:
The Role of the Sun in 20th Century Climate Change
3. As noted in an earlier post, coal burning was interposed on a slight climate cooling trend, and the sulfate aerosols may have contributed to the cooling. With cleaner air (less sulfate) and more CO2, the warming appears to be the expected to response to more C02. Ocean heat storage forces a climate lag time in response to C02 radiative forcing.
I have a solution. Ask the Islamofascists to committ mass suicide. That would take about a billion humans out of the picture and allieviate this horrid problem!
The current climate science understanding is that the glacial-interglacial cycles are induced by Milankovitch cycle solar forcing, and amplified by atmospheric CO2 concentration. Initial warming or cooling due to the Milankovitch factors will affect the oceanic CO2 content, and the release or absorption of CO2 (depending on whether warming or cooling is taking place) then drives/amplifies the direction of the Milankovitch forcing. As CO2 goes up or down, water vapor follows, creating the full temperature range cyclicity.
(2) The current rise in temperatures began about 17,000 years ago, long before human development altered the CO2 levels on earth.
Global temperature rose from 17,000 to 10,000 years ago, which marks the termination of the last glacial period. Then it has been very stable. Atmospheric CO2 stabilized at about 280 ppm following the termination.
(3) If the temperature has "stalled" at a high level, it appeared to do so before the CO2 levels rose.
This was what happened about 10,000 years ago. CO2 concentrations have been the same since, until about 250 years ago.
"Increasing CO2 in the atmosphere alters Earth's radiative balance such that a global temperature increase would be the likeliest outcome."
Which could alter the ph level of the ocean, Which could affect sea life.
Which could affect the amount of cloud cover. Which could affect the temperature. Which could affect how fast plants grow. Which could affect how much CO2 they take in and how much Oxygen they give off. Which could......
"No one seems to understand why the earth is bulging so much at the equator either."
Magnetism and gravity are sons of the same father.
There are other forces, ones we don't have measures for nor understand, that are involved.
Weakening of the magnetic field causes correlates to a weakening of the gravitic field, exhibited at it's highest in the area of the highest centrifugal force, which is the equator.
Our change in distance from the sun causes a change in the pull exerted upon the surface of the Earth, and the change in axis in respect to the sun changes the strength and composition of the gravitational field.
Oh, just wait. It's gonna get even weirder. This is nothing.
cogitator wrote:
I am in full agreement.
"-- The scientific data is disturbing and we should use it to force political change --"
Absolutely.
cogitator
Cogi, don't you see a bit of conflict in your two statements above?
Which is it? -- Do you back a 'moral crusade' to 'force political change'?
Or not?
I don't see a problem.
Problem? Me neither. -- I simply asked you an easily answered question.
The disturbing nature of the scientific data should be an element in the argument that reducing our dependence on foreign oil is good for national security, the economy, and the environment. That's not a moral crusade. The problem would be if the disturbing scientific data only results in a moral crusade and doesn't produce political change resulting in better engineering! I'd prefer to keep the moral crusade out of it and just get to the better engineering.
Fine, -- I'll just put you down as a moral crusader unopposed to forcing political changes..
This is to be expected when arguing with idiots.
The Book of Proverbs: Chapter 26:4 advises to "Answer not a fool according to his folly, lest thou also be like unto him".
or
The Book of Proverbs: Chapter 14:7 suggest that one "Go from the presence of a foolish man, when thou perceivest not in him the lips of knowledge".
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.