71
   

Global Warming...New Report...and it ain't happy news

 
 
hamburger
 
  1  
Reply Tue 22 Jan, 2008 10:30 am
ican wrote :

Quote:
So far, the available data does not show humans to be more than trivial causers of climate change.


at the risk of being considered facetious :
"it's the straw that breaks the camel's back " .

it's like stressing a bridge or anything else , the breaking point should not be ignored . since we don't seem to know exactly where the breaking point is , i suggest that erring on the side of safety might be in order .

i compare it to winter-driving . i drive with snowtires and like to keep a good distance from other cars when on the road . others don't see any need for snowtires or even adjusting for winter driving conditions - the results are well known . on sunday about 100 cars got caught in blowing snow north of toronto and and wound up in a mass collision .
i know that accidents will happen . even the most careful driver may get into a situation that spells trouble , but i was taught in driving school to anticipate that other drivers may not be as careful as i am and to KEEP PROPER DISTANCE .
that's how i suggest we should approach the question of what harm global warming may do : keep a proper distance and anticipate that there may be problems and and try to avoid them .
an ounce of prevention is worth a pound of cure !
hbg
0 Replies
 
okie
 
  1  
Reply Tue 22 Jan, 2008 10:49 am
Can somebody explain to me the "temperature anomaly" business?

In other words, whats the difference between what these two graphs are measuring? In simple terms.

http://www.junkscience.com/MSU_Temps/NCDCabs.html
http://www.junkscience.com/MSU_Temps/MSUvsNCDC.html

It seems to involve interpolating temperatures over vast areas where no measurements are available, but it strikes me as highly conjectural, with many assumptions cranked into the calculations, perhaps both sets of data incorporate this, I'm not sure. Perhaps someone has a good simple explanation? Or is it simply expressing the numbers as a divergence from average? I think they are misusing the term, anomaly, and I just want to know if I am missing something here.
0 Replies
 
Ramafuchs
 
  1  
Reply Tue 22 Jan, 2008 04:12 pm
I am warmed with American English.
I mean the people who refuse to see the reality and project their views.
0 Replies
 
ican711nm
 
  1  
Reply Tue 22 Jan, 2008 05:36 pm
username wrote:
ican, have you ever actually read any of the IPCC's assessment reports? The most recent one was the fourth. Have you read it? Contrary to your statement, the research has shown more and more surely that humans are the primary cause of climate change today. Not solar variability, not orbital variability, not some mysterious cosmic ray effects. Do us both a favor. Actually read the most authoritative information about what you're discussing.

Yes! I've read the IPCC reports. All of them are filled with qualifying words like: perhaps, possibly, maybe, might be, could be, seems to be, appears to be, thought to be, and this suggests. None of them provide unqualifiedl evidence that humans are anything more than trivial contributors to climate change. For example, while they admit a warming ocean causes an increase in the rate CO2 is evaporated from the ocean into the atmosphere, and a cooling ocean decreases that rate, they do not provide unqualified evidence that human emissions of CO2 are a significant source by comparison.
0 Replies
 
ican711nm
 
  1  
Reply Tue 22 Jan, 2008 06:03 pm
hamburger wrote:
ican wrote :

Quote:
So far, the available data does not show humans to be more than trivial causers of climate change.


at the risk of being considered facetious :
"it's the straw that breaks the camel's back " .

it's like stressing a bridge or anything else , the breaking point should not be ignored . since we don't seem to know exactly where the breaking point is , i suggest that erring on the side of safety might be in order .

...

an ounce of prevention is worth a pound of cure !
hbg

One absolute solution for preventing any human caused climate change whatsoever is for us all humans to commit suicide.

In other words be careful that the solution you pick will not create far worse problems than the problem you think you might possibly, perhaps solve. I would rather solve the problem of keeping each of us within a livable temperature range regardless of our local climates, than solve the problems produced by limiting our access to affordable food, clothing, shelter, transportation, recreation, and defense.
0 Replies
 
Diest TKO
 
  1  
Reply Tue 22 Jan, 2008 06:10 pm
ican711nm wrote:
username wrote:
ican, have you ever actually read any of the IPCC's assessment reports? The most recent one was the fourth. Have you read it? Contrary to your statement, the research has shown more and more surely that humans are the primary cause of climate change today. Not solar variability, not orbital variability, not some mysterious cosmic ray effects. Do us both a favor. Actually read the most authoritative information about what you're discussing.

Yes! I've read the IPCC reports. All of them are filled with qualifying words like: perhaps, possibly, maybe, might be, could be, seems to be, appears to be, thought to be, and this suggests. None of them provide unqualifiedl evidence that humans are anything more than trivial contributors to climate change. For example, while they admit a warming ocean causes an increase in the rate CO2 is evaporated from the ocean into the atmosphere, and a cooling ocean decreases that rate, they do not provide unqualified evidence that human emissions of CO2 are a significant source by comparison.


It is odd that you fault others for having the restraint to use honest language where as you bipass honest language and use absolutes.

T
K
O
0 Replies
 
okie
 
  1  
Reply Tue 22 Jan, 2008 06:14 pm
Diest TKO wrote:

It is odd that you fault others for having the restraint to use honest language where as you bipass honest language and use absolutes.

T
K
O

If the honest language in the reports say, "could be," "might be," "suggests" and so forth as ican has rightly pointed out, then how come it becomes an absolute in your mind, Diest?
0 Replies
 
ican711nm
 
  1  
Reply Tue 22 Jan, 2008 06:15 pm
Ramafuchs wrote:
I am warmed with American English.
I mean the people who refuse to see the reality and project their views.

I think it time for you Ramafuchs, to examine your own inability to see reality camouflaged by your own pretentious judgments of the limitations of others.

Using a writing stlyle modeled after one of your writing styles:

I think it time for you
Ramafuchs,
to examine your own inability
to see reality
camouflaged by your own
pretentious judgments of
the limitations of others.
0 Replies
 
hamburger
 
  1  
Reply Tue 22 Jan, 2008 06:39 pm
ican wrote :

Quote:
One absolute solution for preventing any human caused climate change whatsoever is for us all humans to commit suicide.

i wouldn't recommend suicide . manure piles actually create a great deal of heat .
hbg


In other words be careful that the solution you pick will not create far worse problems than the problem you think you might possibly, perhaps solve. I would rather solve the problem of keeping each of us within a livable temperature range regardless of our local climates, than solve the problems produced by limiting our access to affordable food, clothing, shelter, transportation, recreation, and defense.

i certainlly endorse your statement . let's make things better , not worse .
there are already many ways in which lowered consumption of energy has had positive effects on the population .
pollution reduction certainly results in better health .
i'm sure you remember how the north-american automobile industry kept fighting tooth and nail against ANY fuel standards . so foreign companies produced more fuel efficient cars . low and behold , consumers bought them and the north-american automobile industry started to play catch-up . if the n.a. industry would have been in the forefront they could have conquered the worldmarket .
imo n.a. industries could easily be world leaders in many industries that are able "to get more bang for the buck " .
it just seems to me that some have become sidetracked for some time now , but i have difficulty understanding why .
have some corporations perhaps become "calcified" ?
hbg


0 Replies
 
Foxfyre
 
  1  
Reply Wed 23 Jan, 2008 10:11 am
hamburger wrote:
ican wrote :

Quote:
One absolute solution for preventing any human caused climate change whatsoever is for us all humans to commit suicide.

i wouldn't recommend suicide . manure piles actually create a great deal of heat .
hbg


In other words be careful that the solution you pick will not create far worse problems than the problem you think you might possibly, perhaps solve. I would rather solve the problem of keeping each of us within a livable temperature range regardless of our local climates, than solve the problems produced by limiting our access to affordable food, clothing, shelter, transportation, recreation, and defense.

i certainlly endorse your statement . let's make things better , not worse .
there are already many ways in which lowered consumption of energy has had positive effects on the population .
pollution reduction certainly results in better health .
i'm sure you remember how the north-american automobile industry kept fighting tooth and nail against ANY fuel standards . so foreign companies produced more fuel efficient cars . low and behold , consumers bought them and the north-american automobile industry started to play catch-up . if the n.a. industry would have been in the forefront they could have conquered the worldmarket .
imo n.a. industries could easily be world leaders in many industries that are able "to get more bang for the buck " .
it just seems to me that some have become sidetracked for some time now , but i have difficulty understanding why .
have some corporations perhaps become "calcified" ?
hbg




The US Auto industry did build smaller and more fuel efficient cars at the urgings of President Carter and Congress, among others, and nobody wanted them. It was precisely at that time that the downward spiral of the US auto industry began and it has never fully recovered. Foreign auto makers with fewer pressures on wages and benefits and not strapped by unreasonable union demands could build better cars less expensively than the US could build them at the time. The US auto makers are beginning to produce cars that Americans want again and I hope they will regain their former reputation for quality, people-friendly cars and small trucks. I think things are actually looking up.

In an earlier post, your comment on human generated CO2 being the proverbial straw that broke the camel's back doesn't quite compute. Given the enormous amounts of naturally produced CO2 and the comparatively miniscule amount produced by human activities, if the camel is that much overloaded already, I think we should be looking for an additional camel instead of trying to avoid adding on the straw.

In an effort to do no harm, let's stop what seems to be silly nonsense about stopping CO2 emissions that it is apparent, at least to me, isn't going to happen. Delaying the inevitable, whatever the inevitable might be, by a few weeks or months or years is probably not the best use of our time and talent. Let's instead focus on improving the quality of life for everybody within the framework of changing climate or whatever we need to do. Yes it makes sense to research and develop alternate sources of energy. Yes it makes sense to conserve energy in a tight market with infinte resources. Yes it makes sense to not pollute our air, water, and soil, to manage renewable resources responsibly, and to preserve the natural beauty of our environment. It doesn't make sense to try to alter the normal fluctuations occuring in a global environment.

History tells us that prosperous people are in a far better position to and are far more likely to do all these things than are poor people. Seems to me the focus should be on helping people to become more prosperous and thus put them on our side in the interest of preserving the best that our planet has to offer us.
0 Replies
 
Diest TKO
 
  1  
Reply Wed 23 Jan, 2008 01:39 pm
okie wrote:
Diest TKO wrote:

It is odd that you fault others for having the restraint to use honest language where as you bipass honest language and use absolutes.

T
K
O

If the honest language in the reports say, "could be," "might be," "suggests" and so forth as ican has rightly pointed out, then how come it becomes an absolute in your mind, Diest?

What absolutes are you refering to? I support a dynamic climate model. I am very convinced that anthropomorphic factors have had a profound effect on the global climate, but that is a statement pretty far divorced from I believe the only thing effecting the climate of the earth is humans. So tell me what absolutes are you referring to?

You seem to think that the IPCC should use language with absolutes, but it doesn't need to. It simply needs to provide the data, interpret that data, and support it. You don't seem to like the interpretation or support, worse it seems the skeptic crowd, likes to cherry pick the data.

Meanwhile, the skeptics can't decide on a strategy on arguing against AGW/climate change.

Do you conceed the worlds climat is changing, and try to prove that it is for non-anthropomorphic reasons, or do you try and prove nothing is changing?

I've seen attempts at both here on A2K.

T
K
O
0 Replies
 
Steve 41oo
 
  1  
Reply Wed 23 Jan, 2008 02:15 pm
Diest TKO wrote:
.. anthropomorphic ...
sorry to pick you up but you mean anthropogenic
0 Replies
 
hamburger
 
  1  
Reply Wed 23 Jan, 2008 03:25 pm
foxfire wrote :

Quote:
The US Auto industry did build smaller and more fuel efficient cars at the urgings of President Carter and Congress, among others, and nobody wanted them.

have you ever wondered why the north-american compact cars did so poorly in the market ?
the foreign cars (mostly japanese at that time) sold very well and were certainly not cheap . so i don't see that price was a reason .
perhaps you recall the FORD PINTO - i seem to recall that it was called "a casket on wheels" in canada .
i have the suspicion that it was the poor quality of north-american compact cars that steered customers to the foreign cars .
hbg



It was precisely at that time that the downward spiral of the US auto industry began and it has never fully recovered. Foreign auto makers with fewer pressures on wages and benefits and not strapped by unreasonable union demands could build better cars less expensively than the US could build them at the time.

north-american buyers were looking for quality cars , NOT less expensive cars .
you seem to suggest that it was the unions that prevented the BIG THREE from building quality compact cars .

another "success" story was cadillac's 1981 CIMMARON .
According to Car and Driver, current Cadillac product director John Howell has a picture of the Cimarron on his wall captioned, "Lest we forget."
no wonder buyers turned away from these cars .

on the other hand , chrysler's K-CAR turned out to be quite a succes - even though chrysler did not survive .
hbg




The US auto makers are beginning to produce cars that Americans want again and I hope they will regain their former reputation for quality, people-friendly cars and small trucks. I think things are actually looking up.

unfortunately , toyota is now producing as many cars world-wide as general motors .

lest you think i am completely biased against north-american cars , i drive a 1999 olds-intrigue twin-cam built in kansas .
unfortunately (again) , GM no longer manufactures that car .
hbg


0 Replies
 
Diest TKO
 
  1  
Reply Wed 23 Jan, 2008 03:28 pm
Steve 41oo wrote:
Diest TKO wrote:
.. anthropomorphic ...
sorry to pick you up but you mean anthropogenic


You are correct. oops.

Embarrassed Embarrassed Embarrassed

T
K
O
0 Replies
 
username
 
  1  
Reply Wed 23 Jan, 2008 04:52 pm
Apparently the only thing icann has read of the IPCC's is the Summary for Policymakers, which is basically GW for Dummies. It's written for mathematical and scientific illiterates (e.g. politicians--and ican, I guess), to try to bring them up to some sort of speed on the basic research and concepts involved. Knowing that statistical significance is a concept beyond such people's ken, they adopted the "probably", "is certainly", etc. terminology, which if ican actually cared to look he would find explained in a footnote somewhere in the first couple pages. But apparently he doesn't read footnotes either. Any reputable scientist in the field does confidence intervals for his/her research. And the consensus view at very close to the two sigma level, or within a percentage point or two of it ((which is the usually accepted level) is mainly anthropogenic and will have serious effects.
0 Replies
 
username
 
  1  
Reply Wed 23 Jan, 2008 04:58 pm
And there's some food for thought, and rethinking, in today's news for the nuclear-power-is-our-salvation people. They need billions of gallons of water for cooling. And a year's drought in the Southeast is already dropping water levels in the lakes and rivers they draw their cooling water from, down to the point where something like a quarter of the reactors are likely to have to shut down until water levels rise again. Which can be years in porlonged droughts. Anbd climate models predict increasing droughts in temperate regions where most of the industrialized world (including us) is. Someone describes it as nukes' Achilles heel. Don't put your nest egg in nuclear power quite yet, guys.

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/22804065/
0 Replies
 
username
 
  1  
Reply Wed 23 Jan, 2008 05:04 pm
I left out a couple sentences in the post before my previous ones. The phrases they use correspond to the respective dgrees of significance in the original research. I think that this sort of trying to make it more comprehensible to a gneeral audience is kind of an unfortunate choice they made, in that it gives the denialists a false sense of the certainty that the scientists involved actually feel for their research. If you listen to people like Jim Hanson when he actually talks about the subject, the qualifiers aren't there. And believe me he knows the research better than ican.
0 Replies
 
Foxfyre
 
  1  
Reply Wed 23 Jan, 2008 05:18 pm
hamburger wrote:
foxfire wrote :

Quote:
The US Auto industry did build smaller and more fuel efficient cars at the urgings of President Carter and Congress, among others, and nobody wanted them.

have you ever wondered why the north-american compact cars did so poorly in the market ?
the foreign cars (mostly japanese at that time) sold very well and were certainly not cheap . so i don't see that price was a reason .
perhaps you recall the FORD PINTO - i seem to recall that it was called "a casket on wheels" in canada .
i have the suspicion that it was the poor quality of north-american compact cars that steered customers to the foreign cars .
hbg



It was precisely at that time that the downward spiral of the US auto industry began and it has never fully recovered. Foreign auto makers with fewer pressures on wages and benefits and not strapped by unreasonable union demands could build better cars less expensively than the US could build them at the time.

north-american buyers were looking for quality cars , NOT less expensive cars .
you seem to suggest that it was the unions that prevented the BIG THREE from building quality compact cars .

another "success" story was cadillac's 1981 CIMMARON .
According to Car and Driver, current Cadillac product director John Howell has a picture of the Cimarron on his wall captioned, "Lest we forget."
no wonder buyers turned away from these cars .

on the other hand , chrysler's K-CAR turned out to be quite a succes - even though chrysler did not survive .
hbg




The US auto makers are beginning to produce cars that Americans want again and I hope they will regain their former reputation for quality, people-friendly cars and small trucks. I think things are actually looking up.

unfortunately , toyota is now producing as many cars world-wide as general motors .

lest you think i am completely biased against north-american cars , i drive a 1999 olds-intrigue twin-cam built in kansas .
unfortunately (again) , GM no longer manufactures that car .
hbg




Perhaps you did not read my post carefully or perhaps I didn't make myself clear? Yes there were safety concerns on some, but not most of the US compact cars. But because of the regulatory and union pressures on US auto makers, we could not retool and make cars of comparable quality to the Japanese and German cars at a competitive price. So yes they cut some corners which caused some of the problems, but the main problem was that not enough Americans wanted the smaller cars leaving huge inventories sitting on the lots. (I was driving a Cadillac deVille acquired at a great price through a friend at the time because I was driving long miles, frequently carried several passengers, and wished to be both comfortable and safe.) Japan didn't have a huge market share then--only poor folks drove a Honda Civic or Beetle--and it was no time at all before the Japanese cars (and Volkswagon) began upsizing to meet American tastes.

Even now the midsized and full sized cars are the first to leave the car rental lots and its tough getting there in time to rent a mini van if you have a lot of folks to transport.

Things are never as simple as they seem, and my observations here are certainly an overly simplified version of all the factors involved. But the fact is the US auto makers were led down a primrose path by their government and took a heavy hit in the process. And yes they fight the higher CAFE standards now because they know full well that even if they meet them, the higher costs will erode an even larger market share.

And the question is, how necessary is it? If there are enough petroleum supplies for the foreseeable future and all this CO2 AGW hoopla turns out to be a big 'whoops' in the scientific community, you can see why they are not anxious to take that risk.

(P.S. heard on the news today that General Motors posted 3% growth in the last quarter and has pulled even with Toyota again....has high hopes of regaining the lead.)
0 Replies
 
ican711nm
 
  1  
Reply Wed 23 Jan, 2008 05:32 pm
Yes, the world's climate has been changing.

Yes, the world's climate is changing.

Yes, the world's climate will probably change in future.

Yes, the world's rate of climate change has been changing.

Yes, the world's rate of climate change is changing.

Yes, the world's rate of climate change will probably change in future.


For example, from 1878 to 1911 the average global temperature decreased 1.087F at the average rate of 0.329F per year.

From 1911 to 1998 it increased 2.029F at the average rate of 0.0233F per year.

From 1998 to 2007 it decreased 0.238F at the average rate of 0.0298F per year.

The two average temperature decreasing trends occurred at a greater rates than did the one increasing trend during the period 1878 thru 2007.


Did humans cause that? If so, how did humans cause that?
0 Replies
 
Diest TKO
 
  1  
Reply Wed 23 Jan, 2008 05:43 pm
ican - Until you undersatand the significance of what you post, don't post it. I have asked several times now why you seem to revolve around global average temp, I don't believe you have answered.

Care to give me the courtesy?

T
K
O
0 Replies
 
 

Related Topics

 
Copyright © 2024 MadLab, LLC :: Terms of Service :: Privacy Policy :: Page generated in 0.1 seconds on 10/05/2024 at 11:40:41