imposter, its because the cure is worse than the disease, and the disease has yet to be determined to be a disease, so even the so-called hard core believers in global warming really don't believe total disaster is just around the corner, even though they say so. Their actions betray them. This is what we naysayers have been saying all along. Another leftist cause that when you finally get to the bottom line, it does not amount to a hill of beans.
okie wrote:imposter, its because the cure is worse than the disease, and the disease has yet to be determined to be a disease, so even the so-called hard core believers in global warming really don't believe total disaster is just around the corner, even though they say so. Their actions betray them. This is what we naysayers have been saying all along. Another leftist cause that when you finally get to the bottom line, it does not amount to a hill of beans.
Jezuz H. Kerist, Okie...
...wake the hell up.
The dinosaurs ruled this planet for 150,000,000 years.
We humans have a recorded history of 6000 years.
Everything we deal with is "just around the corner."
1000 years from now is "just around the corner."
We have got major problems...and they have got to be handled now!
Thomas wrote:georgeob1 wrote:old europe and Thomas are correct.
Thanks for admitting it.
Thanks indeed. I like discussions where people stick to the facts...
From AutoBlog Green:
Significantly lower car fuel use in Germany by 2025
Posted Jun 28th 2006 7:53PM by Bruno Vanzieleghem
Filed under: Diesel
The German Mineraloelwirtschaftverband (MWV for short) predicts a drop by nearly a quarter in gasoline and diesel demand in the next 20 years. The consumption of gasoline usage for road traffic alone is predicted to fall by 42 percent by 2024, while diesel usage would decline by only 12 percent from the 2005 level. The prediction is based on the steadily increasing energy efficiency in new cars, car owners driving less and less due to increasing fuel prices, and the fact that many gasoline-driven cars are being replaced by diesel cars. In addition to the reduction in consumption, the German government is promoting the use of pure biodiesel and biodiesel blends. The reduction in consumption and the alternative fuel use will reduce the carbon dioxide emissions from road traffic by 30 percent in the next 20 years.
Frank Apisa wrote:
Jezuz H. Kerist, Okie...
...wake the hell up.
The dinosaurs ruled this planet for 150,000,000 years.
We humans have a recorded history of 6000 years.
Everything we deal with is "just around the corner."
1000 years from now is "just around the corner."
We have got major problems...and they have got to be handled now!
Indians or native Americans have been here on this continent for at least 12,000 years and probably longer, probably much longer, perhaps not recorded in a book, but amply demonstrated by artifacts, carbon dating, etc. One of the things of interest is they were apparently killing mastodons or mammoths for food, and evidence of other things like prehistoric horses, ground sloths, saber toothed tigers, etc, were around at the same time, which all became extinct, perhaps because of an ice age. Well, guess what, humans apparently survived because they were still here when Columbus arrived.
And if you wish to investigate human fossils from Africa, I think humans have been here much longer than 6,000 years, and so the human race has survived much more than a swing of a miniscule 1 degree Centigrade.
So calm down, Frank, I don't think the situation is all that serious. Don't panic. Its not good for your health.
Why will no one respond to Sumac's article from Samuelson? It is completely accurate.
Part of it is replicated below:
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. Consider the Kyoto Protocol. It allowed countries that joined to castigate those that didn't. But it hasn't reduced carbon dioxide emissions (up about 25 percent since 1990), and many signatories didn't adopt tough enough policies to hit their 2008-2012 targets. By some estimates, Europe may overshoot by 15 percent and Japan by 25 percent.
Ambitious U.S. politicians also practice this self-serving hypocrisy. Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger has a global warming program. Gore counts 221 cities that have "ratified" Kyoto. Some pledge to curb their greenhouse emissions. None of these programs will reduce global warming. They're public relations exercises and -- if they impose costs -- are undesirable. (Note: on national security grounds, I favor taxing oil, but the global warming effect would be trivial.) The practical conclusion is that if global warming is a potential calamity, the only salvation is new technology. I once received an e-mail from an engineer. Thorium, he said. I had never heard of thorium. It is, he argued, a nuclear fuel that is more plentiful and safer than uranium without waste disposal problems. It's an exit from the global warming trap. After reading many articles, I gave up trying to decide whether he is correct. But his larger point is correct: Only an aggressive research and development program might find ways of breaking our dependence on fossil fuels or dealing with it. Perhaps some system could purge the atmosphere of surplus greenhouse gases?
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.
end of quote
old europe wrote:Thomas wrote:georgeob1 wrote:old europe and Thomas are correct.
Thanks for admitting it.
Thanks indeed. I like discussions where people stick to the facts...
We still have to drive farther than you do.
It seems very clear to me that most of the posters have not only overlooked sumac's post from Samuelson but they have ASSUMED that there are NO problems involved in the data presented by the IPCC.
Surely, the many bright posters can show with evidence that the problems presented below are not really problems that lead to the mitigation of the so called "threat"!
******************************************************
Problem No. 1--"AS ESTIMATED BY CURRENT MODELS"
see Kerr, Richard A. 1997a "Climate Change" Greenhouse forecasting still cloudy" Science 276:1.040-2
quote:
"Most modelers agree that climate models will not be capable of linking global warming to human actions for at least ten years"
(AT LEAST 10 YEARS--THAT WOULD BE 2007-Kerr wrote in 1997)
Problem No 2--
"Data seem to indicate that there has been regular recurrences of episodes like the Little Ice Age and the Medieval Warm Period in a roughly 1500 year climatic cycle over the last 140,000 years WHICH WOULD INDICATE THAT THE 1000 YEAR PERIOD I S T O O S H O R T
TO REVEAL THE RELEVANT CLIMATIC PATTERN"
See Broecker, Wallace S. "Was the Medieval Warm Period Global"?
Science 291(5,508):1497-9
Problem No. 3- Natural Forcings MAY have contributed to the observed warmings in the first half of the twentieth century BUT DO NOT explain the warming in the second half of the second century---
But the question that must be answered and must be answered by the COMPUTER MODELS is---Not whether the climate is affected by CO2 but HOW MUCH. If the effect on the climate of an increased amount of co2 in the atmosphere is slight, global warming may not be particularly important.
THE IPCC'S MODELS USING S U R F A C E TEMPERATURES FROM ONLY PARTS OF THE EARTH SAYS THAT THE TEMPERATURE HAS INCREASED BY 0.4 TO 0.8 FROM 1856- TO 2000 AND WE DO NOT KNOW HOW MUCH OF THAT IS DUE TO NATURAL FORCING.
BUT THE SURFACE TEMPERATURE MEASUREMENTS USED BY THE IPCC ARE FLAWED. The IPCC acknowledged the problem of tropospheric temperature in MODELS and those in OBSERVATIONS--SEE ipcc 2001a:12:executive summary---
Actually, the observed Troposhperic temperature, as measured by the NOAA satellites WHICH ARE MUCH MORE ACCURATE AND COVER ALL OF THE AREAS OF THE EARTH( which are not covered by the Ipcc's surface measurements, as they admit) show essentially NO UPWARD TREND IN TEMPERATURE.
The last problem-No. 4 ---refers to the section which reads, "Uncertainties in Forcings"
Too many problems- but the major problem is the possible inaccuracy of the information fed into the COMPUTER MODELS and, more importantly, the gap between the satellite measurements and the surface measurements.
*********************************************************
The data on the surface measurements made by the IPCC and the satellite measurements they did not make is vital.
Perhaps, I do not understand this phenomenon. Can anyone rebut this point with regard to inaccurate measurement of Global Warming based on surface measurements as opposed to satellite measurements?
okie wrote:Frank Apisa wrote:
Jezuz H. Kerist, Okie...
...wake the hell up.
The dinosaurs ruled this planet for 150,000,000 years.
We humans have a recorded history of 6000 years.
Everything we deal with is "just around the corner."
1000 years from now is "just around the corner."
We have got major problems...and they have got to be handled now!
Indians or native Americans have been here on this continent for at least 12,000 years and probably longer, probably much longer, perhaps not recorded in a book, but amply demonstrated by artifacts, carbon dating, etc. One of the things of interest is they were apparently killing mastodons or mammoths for food, and evidence of other things like prehistoric horses, ground sloths, saber toothed tigers, etc, were around at the same time, which all became extinct, perhaps because of an ice age. Well, guess what, humans apparently survived because they were still here when Columbus arrived.
And if you wish to investigate human fossils from Africa, I think humans have been here much longer than 6,000 years, and so the human race has survived much more than a swing of a miniscule 1 degree Centigrade.
So calm down, Frank, I don't think the situation is all that serious. Don't panic. Its not good for your health.
So you can add a few thousand years to my scenario...and you think that changes the significance of what was said.
What a pity that intelligence is wasted the way you people waste it.
BernardR wrote:Why will no one respond to Sumac's article from Samuelson? It is completely accurate.
Part of it is replicated below:
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. ........
Bernard, many global warmers won't respond because they know the article is true and it tackles reality rather than the idealistic aims of the global warmers agenda. Actually looking at what Kyoto does and what policies actually accomplish would require the admission that they accomplish so little in the way of reducing or even slowing the increase in greenhouse gases, that it essentially destroys their side of the argument in the debate over what can realistically be done.
Does anyone here on this forum have enough intellectual honesty to admit what would be required to fix the problem, if in fact the problem was real, and the problem was in fact near the "tipping point" as Al Gore asserts, and that all life on earth is in mortal danger of extinction, blah, blah, blah? We would all have to go back to the caves, roll back the industrial revolution, quit burning fossil fuels now, and perhaps the human populations would need reduction. In order to accomplish that, some mighty dictator would have to issue a proclamation and then be prepared to enforce it around the world with deadly force. Heaven help us all.
So here we arrive at the same conclusion again, the Sky is Falling crowd are a bunch of nuts, plain and simple.
Okie- I find it rather amusing that the left wing, who are mainly seeking to denigrate the Bush Administration, keep mouthing the same old shibboleths but cannot and do not, at least on these threads, present scientific evidence.
Again, I look for proof for the following:
l. The use of proxy data for temperature before thermometers(There is a great deal of evidence to show that the proxy datum are not representative of global climate changes
2. The certainty that can be attached to any computer modeling done by the IPCC or anyone which accurately predicts the future warming(Computer simulations of future weather scenarios must be varied depending on assumptions fed into the computer modeling and will give a variety of answers some of which may be quite benign.)
3. The temperature has gone up in the last thirty years, according to the IPCC measurements.( The measures taken by the IPCC have been imperfect measures. They measure SURFACE temperatures which DO NOT cover all of the surface of the earth and DO NOT MATCH THE TEMPERATURES RECORDED BY SATELLITE MEASURES)
Now, Okie, these are but three of the most important points which I CANNOT FIND ABSOLUTE PROOF OF FROM ANY SOURCE. I invite anyone to show proof. Thus far, no one has done so. I can only conclude that they can bluster and complain but they cannot offer incontrovertible proof.
I would be glad to see the proof, and then if there is proof that the Temperature of the planet would rise by one degree C between now and 2050, my question would be an easy one.
What do we do?
Do you employ Draconian measures to shut down the Economies of the Western World( Remember, China and India must be left alone)? or do we work to develop new technologies which may help us temper the 1 C rise from now to 2050.
The rabid left wing, Okie, will not, I repeat, will not concede that respected Scientists were predicting another Ice Age as RECENTLY as 1975.
There are so many holes and inconsistencies in the Global Warming thesis, it is unbelievable that it proceeds at all.
BUT, Okie, I can make one prediction. If the next President is a Democrat--let us say--Hillary Rodham Clinton--You will then see an amazing drop off of articles about Global Warming in places like the New York Times--proving, of course, that the BULK of the "concern" is rooted in politics and not science.
Well, Bernard, I'm certainly not a part of the "rabid left-wing". But I'm convinced that there is reasonable cause to believe that there has been an unprecedent 1 degree rise in the global mean temperature in the last hundred years. There is also a clear inference that the Industrial Revolution played some significant role in modifying the climate. There may be other explanations, but it certainly seems that our technology has had one of those unintended results that haunt decision-makers.
The genie is out of the bottle, and the trend(s) will not easily be altered. There is a reasonable chance that weather patterns have been altered, and that those alterations will continue to depart from what has been considered normal for the past 300 years. Some places will become hotter and drier, while other places may experience greater than normal snow and rain.
Those nations and regions that are already close to the subsistence line might easily experience flood and/or drought on a wide scale and over protracted periods of time. Distribution networks may become unable to get needed assistance to areas where the cost in lives and property might be overwhelming. Governments may fall, and civil disorder could become more common in the world than it is today.
Maybe not. No one can say for sure what effects we might face in the decades and centuries to come. We may eventually see the coming crisis as something beneficial. In any case there is NOTHING that can be done to avert climate changes that have been accumulating for at least a hundred years. We have been fooling with Mother Nature, and she has a way of correcting errors and imbalances. This does not mean that we shouldn't do anything.
Alternative energy sources need to be pursued. Construction of atomic power plants needs to be underway soon. Solar power technology needs to become more efficient and cheaper to market. One of my personal favorites is to collect solar energy in a stationary satellite, and transmit the energy to a distribution point on earth by a narrow beam microwave. I'm told its technically feasible even today. Maybe not.
It is unreasonable to believe that humans will willingly and easily give up automobiles, omnipresent communications, and all the wonders that depend upon vast amounts of electrical energy. So, until another energy source comes on line, we will continue the trends that have brought us to this point. Even with a reduction of greenhouse gasses and whatever else we've done to diddle Ma Nature, the current climate trends will go on for a long, long time. You can't just go back and start over when innocent mistakes accumulate hidden by the general perception that progress and good is being done.
You are, of course, correct, Asherman but I am afraid that I must add some vital facts to your roughly correct exposition which may cause another look at the so called facts.
\
You speak of an "Unprecedented l degreeC rise in the global mean temperature in the last hundred years"
You say there may be other causes.
Let us take these two points one at a time.
First of all, the one degree rise is not at all unprecedented.
According to the IPCC, utlizing the MANN temperature measurements( which, since temperature was not measured with thermometers in the early days) relies on tree ring proxies in the early days( 1000-present) does show that the 1990's was the warmest decade in the Northern Hemisphere.
There is no disagreement that the centuries before 1900 were much colder but this Phenomenon is known as the "Little Ice Age" stretching from 1400-1900 BUT ( remember we are talking about a 1 C rise in temperature) there is no disagreement that the early part of the second millenium known in History as the Medieval Warm Period had temperatures 2-3C degrees warmer.
The obvious question to be asked is -_Why was the temperature 2-3C degrees higher during the Medieval Warm Period? What caused that rise in temperature. It obviously could not have been anthropogenic. There were no SUV's at that time.
There may, indeed, have been other causes. One is simple. Climate does change and has changed throughout recorded History. Indeed, an issue of News and World Report in 1975 had scientists predicting another Ice Age. Some, such as Dr. Baliunas and Dr. Soon have suggested that at least PART of our global warming during the Medieval Warm Period and in the present day MAY be due to increasing solar activity.
I am replicating the suggestions made by Dre. Bjorn Lomborg, Statistician --University of Aarhaus, Demark, from his fine book--The Skeptical Environmentalist. His recommendations are quite specific and do view the problem on the whole.
PP. 322
quote
"Do we want to handle global warming in the most efficient way or do we want to use global warming as a STEPPING STONE TO OTHER POLITICAL PROJECTS.....We should not spend vast amounts of money to cut a tiny slice of the global temperature increase when this constitutes a poor use of resources and when we could probably use these funds more effectively in the developing world...to give a feel for the size of the problem, The Kyoto protocol will likely cost at least 150 Billion a year, and possible much more...UNICEF estimates that just 70-80 Billion a year could give all Third World inhabitants access to the basics like health, education, water and sanitation....We must begin to realize that the cost of cutting back CO2 emissions becomes very costly and easily counterproductive, we should focus more of our effort at finding ways of easing the emission of greenhouse gases over the long run. PARTLY, THIS MEANS THAT WE NEED TO INVEST MUCH MORE IN RESEARCH AND DEVELOPMENT OF SOLAR POWER, FUSION, AND OTHER LIKELY POWER SOURCES OF THE FUTURE."
END OF QUOTE
The entire thrust of Dr. Lomborg's fine book is to state that there are many problems with the findings that there is an UNPRECENDENTED temperature rise OWING TO CO2 EMISSIONS, and that, if we assume that the CO2 emissions MAY be part of the problem of global warming, the best steps to take are careful ones which will not involve panic but careful consideration of the efficacy of present methods( Kyoto), the cost efficiency involved, and the research and development that can be undertaken as a world wide response in the next half century.
I pray, Asherman, that I have made myself clear but I can and will elaborate and defend the material above.
bernard wrote
Quote:I would be glad to see the proof, and then if there is proof that the Temperature of the planet would rise by one degree C between now and 2050, my question would be an easy one.
So you are asking for proof that a future event will happen? I dont know why I waste my time
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/sci/tech/5152590.stm
you of course know better than these people...
mornin Blathers, I like slimey amphibians, but not the ones I've come across on a2k
would appreciate any comment from you here
http://www.able2know.com/forums/viewtopic.php?t=78429&highlight=
It started with frogs and other critters in Central and South America, or at least that is where it was first noted. This week it was announced by some group that birds are becoming extinct at a far more rapid pace than previously thought.
While I am pleased that the column I posted has generated discussion which diverges from the norm found here, I don't believe that it supports one position or another. Rather, it suggests, in start terms, some of the complexities and realities BEHIND various views. The columnist's views were not contrarian to either position, but a different way of saying a host of things.
Quote:Wildfire Increase Linked to Climate
Higher temperatures over 34 years -- rather than land-use changes -- have led to more blazes, researchers say. They're sure it's not a fluke.
link
In the Fraser River valley where I grew up (one of Canada's three most productive agricultural regions) planting time for most crops is now some three weeks previous to what it was 30 years ago. This change, according to the farmer with whom I spoke recently, is not a consequence arising from changes in farming methods nor in seed stock, but rather from change in climate. Anecdotal, of course.
Earlier spring, earlier melt down of snow and ice, longer periods of relatively drier summer months. Plenty of time now for things to really get to be the state of fuel.
It's not so anecdotal any more. Studies have shown earlier ice outs on northern lakes. Migratory birds are now returning several weeks earlier than they used to. The list is getting longer to show that it is having an effect. Whether it will ultimately be catastrophic is hard to say.
