A major recent report of the subject of hurricanes and global warming is touted as a "consensus" between the "Global warming is causing more and stronger storms" and the "No, it doesn't" camps. Science is also not a democracy and is not subject to popular vote. People who engage in such are engaged in politics, not science.
Your arguments are very narrow minded and largely driven by ignorance. How do you think the climate scientist test their climate models? They run them on data from the past and check to see if the model can explain what has been already observed and the model is especially reliable if it explains something that no other model has adequately explained before, just as in astrophysics. The climate data from the past can be derived from ice cores, tree rings, rock beds etc.
It is clear to me that the climate change discussion has raised some uncomfortable choices for us and our way of living but don't shoot the messanger because you don't like the news
Isn't that curious!
As soon as grownups started talking, the screaming anklebiters slunk away. We offered up issues for discussion, and they could not hack it. You see, issues are difficult. They require thinking them thru, then standing up for them, exposing yourself for critique.
Oh my! Enduring a critique! Us, living in real life (that means out of of academia and most of buerocracy) having to produce something meaningful, live with and compete in it. No big deal, not even friendships are broken by it. But - among mentally grownups, that is - it leads to better, enriched life for all of us.
I happened not to agree with the professor at all, and differ with Danny too. No matter. They offered thoughtful comments. I am willing to agree with some, disagree with some, respectfully. And go on from there.
On the other hand, I offered up for discussion a truly primitive, obscene case of "forced development". No defenders, yet.
The prospectus describes a humongous midwestern wind farm and ultra high voltage transmission network.
Let's take it apart, and see, how it pans out:
1,. We know, how to build power generation / transmission network for over a century. And take the risk, and reap the benefits.
2,. So, how come, that the goverment (meanig you and me, unbeknownst to me, and most likely to you) underscribes the whole thing in case of failure.
2.1,. Let me forcibly put on the thinking cap: oh, all the smart guys in the planning do not think, it can stand on its feet, eh?
2.2,. The prospectus also informs me, that 97-98% is already owned by 3 Wall Street big ones. I do not blame them. All profits private, all risks public (meaning you and me). Who can refuse such a sweet offer?
2.3,. Who is looking out for you and me? That is, beyond meaningless rhetoric?
3,. Now, the clincher. The Danish have the windiest coastlines, with the best prospectus for success. A recent economic assessment shows, that it cannot survive without swedish atomic power plant backup. And it is many times more expensive power.
Why bother with it?
Because nothing is produced, when wind is not blowing. Does any of you believe, we repealed mother nature here?
4,. The scale? Equivalent to 60 (as in sixty) atomic power plant. Now, why do not we simply build the 60, and be done with?
It seems to me, that this brouhaha is leading toward an unfriendly divorce. So my offer for the wind / sun people is to pick the 2-3 of the sunniest and windiest states.
Move there, and without any hidden tax subsidies from the rest of us - MEANING ALL ON YOUR OWN - show the rest of us bumpkins enlightenment. I promise to be in the front line to applaud, and adopt.
Sorry to our editor for veering off subject (not really, not at all). And it may not even be off the subject bugging all of us.
Undergirding the climate change hysteria is a real concern for overpopulation. Demography is destiny and it's clear that the anti-population growth
programs that the West tried to establish at home and in the "developing world" failed to gain universal traction. The result is massively increased competition for scarce
resources on a compressed time scale. I'm confident in human ingenuity and its ability to produce new sources of energy but human ingenuity
cannot compete with human reproductive capacity! The premise of AGW is that humans can influence the climate on a global scale and
presumably the more humans the greater the influence. Also, if humans can influence the climate in what is regarded as a negative way i.e.
global warming, then presumably humans can also influence the climate in more positive ways. In other words, the implication of AGW
is that climate engineering is theoretically possible on a global scale. Of course, the fundamental issue is who decides on which climate
to engineer? Historically, natural climate change drove human migration and to a degree I think current immigration patterns reflect the fact
that the West in general and the US in particular is mostly isolated from whatever climate changes are occurring. Hence, the overpopulation in
the third world is spilling over into a West that achieved zero population growth in the 1960s. This reality is the primary driver for the tension
between the developed and the developing world exhibited most dramatically at Copenhagen and Doha.
Studies in OLR (outgoing longwave IR radiation) show increased CO2 levels over the last 30 years have had little or no effect. The CO2 greenhouse claim is not a demonstrable factor according to these studies. Please refer to
for more information.
There is a science here but it is clouded (sorry couldn't help it) by the pundits and self proclaimed experts that get in the way of real scientist in the field.
Point in fact is co2 experiments on a small scale prove the concept of warming with increased co2. this blanket effect is fact period. The squishness of the science is when you extrapolate this to a complex system like the earth and temp data correlated to Co2 concentrations and temperature inferred data from ice cores and again axtrapolating back and forward. This is the area that needs to be debated and shared with the average person and technologist alike.
This is the area of unknown.
Look at the temperature on Venus and the temperature on mercury. Venus has a blanket of SO2 that insulated the planet just as co2 does. That is why Venus is hoter than Mercury.
even though it gets orders of magnitude less energy.
can the scientists be overestimating the effect?
Can they be making up this whole thing
If they are more right than wrong, are we screwed and have over a hundred years of pain fixing the past mistakes, even if we start today.
Please pull your head out of the oxygen depleted heat trapping hole you have it stuck in.
Hank Walker and pfiekowsky,
While I am sure that most everyone on this board is relatively knowledgeable in "science," most of us would acknowledge that we can't accurately predict whether it will rain next week or not. So, in light of that consistency in variability, I chose to do some research on the topic of "climate change." I would respectfully recommend the following texts -written by people that probably know more than a group of EEs and Computer Science types (I fall into both of these camps).
Climate Confusion ‚?? Roy Spencer
Shattered Consensus ‚?? Patrick Michaels ‚?? tons of data on why and how the IPCC (UN‚??s climate body) fudged the numbers on their report on global warming.
Heaven and Earth - Ian Plimer
I dont have an ax to grind in this discussion, but the consistency between these authors is pretty high. I found it interesting to note that the climate was actually a lot warmer years ago, well before there was "man made" CO2 and at a time where the actual levels of CO2 were significaly higher than they are today. If these "climate scientists" are correct, that would make it very difficult for someone to stand behind the assertion that CO2 concentrations are directly responsible for "global warming."
Most of the assumptions related to global warming extremes are built on computer models. I dont know about you folks, but I have done a number of computer models during my career, and many times the circuits dont pay any attention to what my models are saying. There is clearly something wrong with the circuit......
Enjoy the reads!!! Regardless of what you "believe," these books will make you think, and isnt that what engineers do best?
Nothing in science is ever "Proved".
Newton's theorys of motion work very well until you reach conditions where relitivistic or quantum effects become important.
A theory is kept if it is useful in understanding something and can be use as a prediction tool.
By your definition of Science, astronomy is not a science because we cannot manipulate the stars and planets.
Complicated systems require models for explanation and these models are subject to continued refinement.
Any model will have adjustable parameters that can lead to poor conclusions if these are not bounded by measurements. This is why detailed data is required to build a useful model.
In systems such as the earths climate, we cannot manipulate the system to test responses but we can make predictions and then test the model against what actually occurs. This is a very slow process but there is no alternative.
In terms of policy, we need to act on the best available information (whether you call it science or not) and continue to improve that information.
Saying that we don't have enough "science" (experimentation manipulating the parameters) does not mean that we will not (or our children will not) suffer the consequences of our decisions.
Climate science goes back to Svante Arrhenius, hopefully someone familiar to everyone reading this article. He first published estimates of global warming based on CO2 in 1896. Climate science does what any other natural science does - attempts to understand nature. Climate scientists take observations and attempt to understand them with known science, and then formulate hypotheses to make predictions. For example, we know that the rapid increase in CO2 in the atmosphere is due to fossil fuel burning, due to the different isotope ratios of different CO2 sources. We know from ice core data and other science that CO2 concentrations and global temperatures are highly correlated. Etc.