By accessing this website, you acknowledge that Edmunds and its third party business partners may use cookies, pixels, and similar technologies to collect information about you and your interactions with the website as described in our
Privacy Statement, and you agree that your use of the website is subject to our
Visitor Agreement.
Comments
Will never, EVER believe that.
It happens from the President on down every day. You need to listen closely. Though I did not say NASA scientist lied. I said they leave out pertinent information. They do not mention the fact that most of the Antarctic is growing faster than the other part is losing ice. I find that to be deceptive scientific analysis. Or agenda driven analysis. Here they throw in an exception to cover their butts. And entice the Congress to keep financing their jobs.
The authors conclude that, if current ice sheet melting rates continue for the next four decades, their cumulative loss could raise sea level by 15 centimeters (5.9 inches) by 2050. When this is added to the predicted sea level contribution of 8 centimeters (3.1 inches) from glacial ice caps and 9 centimeters (3.5 inches) from ocean thermal expansion, total sea level rise could reach 32 centimeters (12.6 inches). While this provides one indication of the potential contribution ice sheets could make to sea level in the coming century, the authors caution that considerable uncertainties remain in estimating future ice loss acceleration.
"The retreat of the East Antarctic ice sheet at the end of the last glacial period has been attributed to both sea-level rise and warming of the ocean at the margin of the ice sheet, but it has been challenging to test these hypotheses. Given the lack of constraints on the timing of retreat, it has been difficult to evaluate whether the East Antarctic ice sheet contributed to meltwater pulse 1a, an abrupt sea-level rise of approximately 20 m that occurred about 14,700 years ago. Here we use terrestrial exposure ages and marine sedimentological analyses to show that ice retreat in Mac. Robertson Land, East Antarctica, initiated about 14,000 years ago, became widespread about 12,000 years ago, and was completed by about 7,000 years ago."
http://www.nature.com/ngeo/journal/v4/n3/full/ngeo1061.html
It sounds like there was quite a bit more sea-level rise than anything those NASA scientists are talking about. So because sea-level can change so much on its own, how would you know if a little sea-level rise wasn't strictly natural? I don't see the proof even if NASA is right that there is more ice melting in Antartica than being formed.
That's why it's still debatable.
No one denies that "natural" ice grows and shrinks occur.
We just need to keep trying to figure out if these are natural or enhanced.
That is fine with me. Just don't use my tax dollars for that non constitutional expenditure. You want to support that study or any other, send them some money.
Solar POWER BAY-BEE !!!!
I agree that is a fine pursuit for academics to do. And I'm fine with people like you wanting to pursue solar and wind . And I agree that pollution should be kept to a minimum, CO2 in my opinion was never a pollutant and should not be regarded as such. because as we just discussed the only reason it would be a pollutant is if it had a negative effect, which we're not sure it does.
Where we may differ is that until MMGW is proven or the climate is understood better, I do not want this academic matter brought to the U.N. or Congress or EPA. The issue should be studied, not declared like the IPCC has done, that global warming is happening becasue of mankind's emissions of CO2 and that we need to change everyone's lifestyles to prevent it.
Study - yes, legislation & carbon-credits and such - NO. And the people doing the studies need to make their methods and raw data available to all for review.
If you think the leaders of IPCC and other people making a living from GW-issues, are unbiased and pure, just like the leaders of NPR are ... isn't it interesting to hear what people really think. And what they're willing to say if they think they going to get a few million $'s.
Now with the Japanese nuclear reactors at level 4 emergency situation after the quakes and Tsunami, he is going to put the kabosh on his plan to spend $32 Billion on new nuclear power plants in the U.S. Enough saved there to buy the next 4-6 month's worth of Saudi oil imports. Maybe we can have a gas tax holiday instead.
Looks like the Obama plan is to have solar and wind only now. Pray for sunny, windy weather. I'm thinking that the amount of destruction that was unplanned now has to be rebuilt. The energy that will be consumed to do so will negate the next hundred years of hybrid and electric car fuel savings and emissions savings. All over and unplanned event. Yet some of us think we are saving a necessary amount of fuel each day with our hybrids, etc.
Somewhere, a fish is happy. Just not in the Gulf of Mexico.
Supposed to be another hidden video released this week that exposes PBS. Another fine non biased organization !!
2013 LX 570 2016 LS 460
I despise AlGore.
No one speaks for me. I do my own research.
Don't try to pin me as a Liberal. I'm a moderate Republican, have always been, but one with a BRAIN and not a SHEEP.
I do my own research.
We really don't do "our own" research. Our research is nothing more than looking at someone else's report on their research (2nd hand); or maybe even 3rd hand - which is some committee, agency or magazine reporting on the original field researcher's data. And therein lies the problem - a committee, agency, or magazine that is sponsored and supported by people who want THIS side-of-the-coin, or THAT side-of-the-coin, can select what data they want to present to make a case for their viewpoint. Just as NPR can "be bought" by donors, and they can report on issues, and then when you get your research from NPR, you're actually getting propoganda.
The same thing can happen if you got your info. on tobacco-smoke from organizations sponsored by the tobacco industry.
In the case of GW there is plenty of $ in the system that says "get on our bandwagon that we have man-made GW and you'll be getting in on the gravy train". I am suspicious of people/groups who have always wanted to halt development in general, then creating an issue like MMGW which then can be used to stop development. It's very similar to some Apocalypse group, studying scriptures or such and then creating their Apocalypse-Date. I believe we have 1 group saying their data says this May, and then if we miss that we have the Mayan one next year (data ends).
Anyway - you want to know what my research is that there is no GW, of any significance? My personal experience. Wherever I live and wherever I travel, it's basically the same as 40 years ago. The oceans and shorelines are in the same spots, and it snows in the Northeast from Oct. - thru early May. There have been no significant changes in 40+ years.
Moving back to a place where my in-laws grew up in back in the 1920's and 1930's, it's interesting to hear them talk about how the weather was different when they grew up.
Knowing my own memory, I take the stories with a bit of saline.
I love the scientific method
Unlike Gary, I'm not sold that NASA or NOAA are showing any bias. They were reporting GW phenomenon back before it was a "craze" and continued doing so through multiple Democratic/Republican administrations.
They did not change to "tow the party line" depending on whom was in power.
People like to believe "follow the money" above all other rules, and I don't agree with that. I still think people have integrity.
I wouldn't lie for my boss to keep MY job, so I know there are others like me.
2013 LX 570 2016 LS 460
Sure, there are the low-lifes in any industry.
But as a rule, I "in general" believe that most educated people are professionals and have integrity to their work until proven otherwise.
That is pretty much the way I feel, but I have gotten the distinct impression from you this lying and cheating, primarily for financial gain almost never happens...though we see evidence that it is happening on a daily basis.
larsb, there are many people out there who lie, cheat, and mislead on a regular basis, whether they are bums, politicians, weather scientists, or other professionals.
Case in point, just look at the misleading statements that Obama made over the weekend regarding oil production in the U.S. He'd have you believe that he is a champion of more oil production in the U.S. Do you believe that?
2013 LX 570 2016 LS 460
Science is science.
I know that in TOO MANY UNFORTUNATE WAYS, their paths have crossed in the GW arena.
That's sad.
http://www.youtube.com/canadianwheatboard#p/u/1/ZVRiFNmHVLk
If this GW keeps up Canada could lose much of their usable crop land to colder winters with more snow.
If you notice they are telling you little to no radiation has been released, and the situation while grave is under control. Meanwhile there's evidence to the contrary such as evacuees being tested with geiger-counters, and U.S. Navy helicopters and ships detecting radiation and repositioning.
And the Japanese have refused other countries assistance, and are the sole masters of knowing what's going on, and how to spin the story right now.
Science here is secondary to saving face and peoples' positions (within the government).
And so it goes for many large science issues and projects.
Then you remember that the U.N. Monitors who inspected Iraq for years had the correct read on WMD - in finding nothing via their personal experience; vs. the biased data of the U.S. scientists and government.
Science is not science when you start with the conclusion and then go collecting and cherrypicking data to support the theory. Science is not science when you start with your conclusion, and then build computer models that result in your conclusion, and then say "See the models support our conclusion".
Correct, you start from a hypothesis (a hypothesis doesn't equal a conclusion) and then test, and then have the results peer-reviewed by others in the scientific community. Then you look at the total body of peer-reviewed tests/results and try to make some conclusions.
For example, seeing one human-looking footprint along side with one dinosaur-looking footprint doesn't mean that humans lived during the same timeperiod as dinosaurs and the universe is 10,000 years old. The vast majority of the scientific community, supported by scientific research/studies, indicate that universe is much older and that dinosaurs lived millions of years ago. That one pair of footprints, while perhaps a mystery, doesn't negate all of the other scientific evidence and studies to the contrary.
So it makes more sense to me when looking for some valid information to do more than look in your back yard and/or on the first 10 google hits
That is all true provided no monetary or political influence is involved. In the case of AGW we have over 20 years of political pushing of the agenda. I think it was 1992 that Gore wrote Earth in the Balance. Blaming the internal combustion engine for nearly every ill on the planet. Prior to that in 1990 you had Hansen claiming Aerosols were going to cause Global Cooling. Also in 1990 the IPCC's first report claimed we were warming due to man's influence.
Looks to me like the two sides got together and decided to blame man just for global warming to not dilute the political influence. And keep the research dollars flowing. I don't think there is anymore factual conclusions today than in 1990. Just $BILLIONS wasted on research. Research that will do nothing to change the climate.
PS
Where would we be today if those Billions wasted were directed toward alternative energy sources?
First it was the climate-is-cooling, then when a little trend of warming came along it was global-warming; and now since the warming has basically stopped its climate-change. And in-between we have politicians trying to setup bureaucracies and multi-billion dollar trading industries. And those same bureaucracies like the IPCC are conveniently the "holders of the proof".
Sorry, but we "non-believers" here are not the ones who have so tainted the science with multi-billion $ biases, Al Gore bluster and fiction - just missing the UFO's zapping D.C., the shoddy 2007 IPCC-report, and the oh-so-innocent IPCC'ers trying to come up with a story as to how to edit data and keep to their propaganda.
There's no verifiable proof, and the science lacks any integrity. So given you can't rely on this science anymore than you could rely on the biased science of WMD-in-Iraq, I'd say personal observation of hundreds and thousands of individuals, and weather reports from areas of the world, say the Earth is as cold or colder than 40 years ago. The seas have not risen; the atlases are still the same. Show me some atlas maps from 40 years ago and today and show me how they are significantly different. The boardwalk in Atlantic City that I used to go on in 1965, is still in the same place, and the ocean is still in the same place. Since all the oceans are connected, I don't suspect that the Pacific Ocean increased 3 ft. during this period.
The fact is that it's not black and white one way or another. Anyone with views on the edge...either GW is so bad the earth will be boiled up tomorrow unless we all start driving electric cars, or mankind has done absolutely nothing significant to affect climate so go out and be happy and don't worry because there are no consequences for any actions of humans on the planet, are both wrong.
The truth lies somewhere in the middle; however being in the middle doesn't get you on as a Fox commentator or funding for a documentary, so you don't hear many voices in the middle.
To me, reducing pollution and being more energy efficient makes pretty good common sense. If GW is real and reducing pollution and being more energy efficient helps reduce GW, then fine. If GW is a made-up fantasy, then reducing pollution and being more energy efficient will still be positive for individuals and the planet.
And if the government wants to make laws and/or incentives to encourage people to be more energy efficient and pollute less that's also a good thing. The government has done good things when it comes to energy efficiency and clean air. Just look at pictures of LA or Houston from the 30 years ago as compared to today. The government mandated pollution controls on cars have made the air much cleaner. And likewise the government mandated laws on seatbelts, air bags, etc have all made cars safer. So before the government is blamed for everything, people might want to consider the ways the government has done positive things. Unless people think emission controls and seatbelt laws are also a big government conspiracy :P
I agree with virtually everything you stated here, and could not have done it better.
You summarized a good, common-sense viewpoint.
Kudos to you, sir. :shades:
I agree with most of your assessment. Where we part is with the continuing part the Federal and state laws play in our lives. Pollution laws passed over the last 35 years started out with a bang and have cost US an increasing amount of tax payer money with a decreasing amount of positive results. In fact I would say the results over the last 15+ years have shifted in the opposite direction. Controlling pollution is a balancing act between progress and regress of our economy. There is NO Such thing ZEV. Everything we do causes some pollution somewhere in the World. What our Federal agencies have managed to do is shift the pollution to other countries thinking that will make US look cleaner. If there is GW which I am skeptical. And if CO2 is the culprit which is also debated by scientists. Moving production elsewhere for those dirty products will gain nothing for the World and destroy our economy in the process. That is what we are seeing first hand. CFLs, Solar PVs, Battery Cells etc etc, all being pushed out of the USA by EPA regulations. Then bought back by US to use and dispose of supposedly in a safe manner. How many of the millions of people that will be forced to use CFL bulbs will read the multi page EPA document on the safe disposal of CFL bulbs? My guess is less than 1% of the population. That means when they burn out and still have hazardous mercury content they will end up in the landfills of the nation. And my experience with 56 CFL bulbs in my home is they do not last as long as incandescent. I have had at least 10 go bad over the last 2 years.
So on the continuing of the EPA and the diminishing returns on exponentially larger amounts of money spent, I say enough is enough. Cut their funding to the bare minimum needed to police existing emissions laws. By the way. Go out to San Bernardino and check out the brown air pollution that rests up against the mountains. Most is blown in from the sea ports of Los Angeles. Not from the cars and trucks.
I agree that reducing pollution and striving for energy efficiency are fine goals. But I'm not about to declare CO2 a pollutant. It wasn't a "pollutant" until just recently, and it was declared a "pollutant" based on the supposed fact that CO2 is causing MMGW. Since MMGW is in doubt, the status of CO2 as a pollutant is thus in doubt.
So I'm fine with the work we've done to eliminate pollution from vehicles, but I don't see where modern vehicles put out much pollution. As I hear it most autos put out cleaner air out their tailpipe then they take in.
I don't consider CO2 in the amounts we put out that change the atmosphere some ppm, to be a pollutant. I don't consider CO2 to be anymore a pollutant than if a we were changing the ppm of O2 or N2 in the atmosphere. CO2 is not a pollutant if you consider MMGW to be a theory, and inconclusive. Higher levels of CO2 is actually beneficial if you want to make the world Green.
And you can't just use the argument "well I rather not put out CO2 because that means we're changing the world." The fact is that however 7 billion people get their energy on this planet, we're going to have some effects, to get the positive effects for humanity.
But the science is pretty solid when it says that higher CO2 levels will increase heat globally.
Math proves that. I put a post on here a few weeks ago with a "skeptic" who challenged the IPCC about rising levels, but nonetheless proved that rising CO2 will definitely mean rising temps.
Some people don't think rising temps are a problem either, so there's that. :shades:
BTW...I agree with the negativity on CFL bulbs. They don't last as long as advertised. I think that the future is LED lights. CFLs will go the way of the 8-Track and cassettes
BTW...H2O is also a pollutant at certain temparatures. If used as a coolant in factorys, power plants, etc., when the water is put back into the lake, stream, or ocean at too high of a temparature, that can also cause localized damage to the environment. See, nothing is how it seems!
That is absolutely a false assumption. Ice core samples that cover 1000s of years back, show that CO2 levels rise following higher temps. Not the opposite. It also shows a large swing of CO2 when man was not a factor. And the most important factor is we have a lot more people to generate CO2. Either we kill off a couple billion or we live with it and cope with whatever changes come our way. Warming or cooling can cause us concern. It all kind of pales by comparison to what the Japanese are coping with from a destructive earthquake. Of course there are AGW nut cases that have blamed that on AGW.
Hours after a massive earthquake rattled Japan, environmental advocates connected the natural disaster to global warming. The president of the European Economic and Social Committee, Staffan Nilsson, issued a statement calling for solidarity in tackling the global warming problem.
And of course you have the Hollywood scientific types:
Actor Danny Glover believes that the Haitian earthquake was caused by climate change and global warming:
AGW cult made up of nut cases
Don't forget Al Gore & Booby Kennedy Jr blamed Katrina on George Bush for not signing Kyoto. So why should I believe anyone pushing the AGW agenda?
Sounds like a pro-GW statement to me, since you're indicating that rising CO2 levels will make or result in, "changes coming our way."
Not really. I contend that CO2 will rise with an increase in population. I believe that to be inevitable. I am not convinced that historical data substantiates the AGW claim that high levels of CO2 precedes higher global temperatures.
I also believe we are destroying too much woodland to grow crops for alternative sources of energy. Woodland is a great CO2 sink.
My thinking on ecology is probably different than yours and Larsb. I do not agree with going off half cocked on the latest and not always the greatest alternative energy fads. Probably the most destructive is Ethanol and other crops for fuel.
Does CO2 increase global temparatures...well that's the debate. I don't think government should restrict everything we do, but then I don't think people and especially businesses can do as they please just to make a profit. Again....the happy medium
It's proven. By Math, which does not lie.
Read the page
So, what is the actual increase? Interestingly enough, that is easy to estimate--and without resorting to complex computer models. In this section we will assume, for the sake of argument, that the CO2 and temperature readings from the IPCC are correct, and ask: if there is a causal relationship between temperature and CO2, what is the maximum size the effect could be?
Because a linear increase in temperature requires an exponential increase in carbon dioxide (thanks to the physics of radiation absorption described above), we know that the next two-fold increase in CO2 will produce exactly the same temperature increase as the previous two-fold increase. Although we haven't had a two-fold increase yet, it is easy to calculate from the observed values what to expect, assuming the correlation represented a cause and effect relationship.
Between 1900 and 2000, atmospheric CO2 increased from 295 to 365 ppm, while temperatures increased about 0.57 degrees C (using the value cited by Al Gore and others). It is simple to calculate the proportionality constant (call it 'k') between the observed increase in CO2 and the observed temperature increase:
Note added 2/12/2009: Is 'k' a constant?
Note that k takes into account all of the Earth's adaptation to the increased carbon dioxide: changes in reflectivity due to changing ice cover, changes in cloud cover, and so on. Some might still argue, however, that k is not a constant, but decreases with temperature. But what could cause k to decrease? All climatological factors have already been ruled out. In order for k to be a variable, the laws of absorption of radiation would have to be change with temperature in a fundamentally new way, and not by a small amount: k would have to decrease by 37% to raise ΔT by even one degree. No physical process in any complex system like the atmosphere changes this dramatically with temperature. Spectroscopists have been studying light absorption for over 340 years. One of them would certainly have noticed such a huge temperature sensitivity by now.
Also consider that the temperature increase is only 1-2 degrees C. This is much smaller than the seasonal variation, the variation between different locations on the Earth, or even the variation between day and night temperatures. The laws of physics don't change when you go from New York to New Jersey. Questioning whether k is a constant is grasping at straws. The question people should be asking is: is k equal to zero?
This shows that doubling CO2 over its current values should increase the earth's temperature by about 1.85 degrees C. Doubling it again would raise the temperature another 1.85 degrees C. Since these numbers are based on actual measurements, not models, they include the effects of amplification, if we make the reasonable assumption that the same amplification mechanisms that occurred previously will also occur in a world that is two degrees warmer.
If we want to include other greenhouse gases, such as methane, in the calculation, we need to use the "effective" CO2 concentrations instead. These effective CO2 numbers are less solid than the CO2-only numbers, but the best estimates are that effective CO2 increased from 305 to about 450 ppm during the 20th century[12]. Using these numbers, k becomes 0.6823 and the predicted ΔT becomes 1.02 degrees.
These estimates assume that the correlation between global temperature and carbon dioxide is causal in nature. This remains to be proved. Therefore, the 1.02 and 1.85 degree estimates should also be regarded as upper limits.
It's IMPORTANT TO NOTE THAT THIS PAGE IS DONE BY SOMEONE CHALLENGING THE IPCC. HE IS NOT A GLOBAL WARMING PROPONENT.
Don't quibble with me any further on this matter unless you have a counter page with math that disproves this math.
That is an unproven extrapolation of a single scientific fact in a laboratory, that does not necessarily apply on a global scale.
Yes science knows that if you create an environment in the lab and increase the CO2 in it, more of the heat can be trapped. Now simplistically some people are using this fact to extrapolate, to convince others that therefore this must be causing the Earth to warm.
Similarly I can show in a lab that a candle placed in a small container will cause the temperature to go up. Can I use that then to extrapolate that wherever I take this candle regardless of other environmental factors the temperature will go up?
No, to both. Because you need to understand all the other variables in the environment, and how much affect each has. A candle has a large effect if it's in a goldfish bowl, but very little (insignificant), if it is trying to heat Dallas stadium.
Nobody understands all the variables in the temperature of the Earth, and how much effect each has. Scientists do not have a good understanding of many things in the environment, some which may be trying to cool the Earth,a nd some which may be warming it. Scientists do not know the amounts of H20 vapor and methane - both potent GHG's - that are going into the air. Scientists really have no idea how many volcanic vents are on the seafloor for example. They really don't have a good idea of how the ocean chemistry and temperature can be affected by those vents. There are many, many unknowns in the climate model.
So what you have is a laboratory fact, 1 of several hundred variables that can affect the Earth's temperature, and that is what is being presented as the reason that the Earth is supposedly warming ( 1F in how many decades?).
What I hear scientists saying when you look at the state of the climate-model and the computing power we have currently to simulate the climate (computer experts say in about 30 years we should have computers powerful enough to run a decent model) ... well what I'm hearing is that "we know a candle increases temperatures; BUT we're not sure if the candle is in a goldfish bowl, or Dallas stadium with a few doors open". The candle may be heating Dallas stadium, but is insignificant because other much larger factors are cooling it, or the heating system is on in the Stadium.
We don't know whether CO2 is a candle in the stadium, with the heater on or off, or if the doors are open or close. What MMGW-proponents are saying is let's blowout the candle (which is a big benefit to us), because it could be a problem, but we don't know. And with that thought, Christopher Columbus would have sat in Spain.
Read this page and get edumacated.
Although carbon dioxide is capable of raising the Earth's overall temperature, the IPCC's predictions of catastrophic temperature increases produced by carbon dioxide have been challenged by many scientists. In particular, the importance of water vapor is frequently overlooked by environmental activists and by the media. The above discussion shows that the large temperature increases predicted by many computer models are unphysical and inconsistent with results obtained by basic measurements. Skepticism is warranted when considering computer-generated projections of global warming that cannot even predict existing observations.
I still refuse to trust any political analysis of data, such as the IPCC and NASA. It is ALL agenda based to extort money from US the tax payers.
1) who is T.J. Nelson?
2) why is his email - brneurosci.org? is that neuro-science, and why would that make him a climate expert?
Blanchette Rockefeller Neurosciences Institute (BRNI) is a unique, independent, non-profit institute dedicated to the study of memory and finding solutions to memory disorders.
http://www.brni.org/
I have no idea why he did the CO2 math page. He obviously knows enough to apply physical laws to the problem.
As a mathematician and physicist, Freeman Dyson is known for the unification of three versions of quantum electrodynamics, for his work on the Orion Project, which proposed space flight using nuclear pulse propulsion, and for developing the TRIGA, a small, inherently safe nuclear reactor used by hospitals and universities worldwide for the production of isotopes.
"I have studied their climate models and know what they can do," Prof. Dyson says. "The models solve the equations of fluid dynamics and do a very good job of describing the fluid motions of the atmosphere and the oceans. They do a very poor job of describing the clouds, the dust, the chemistry and the biology of fields, farms and forests. They do not begin to describe the real world that we live in."
Prof. Dyson explains that the many components of climate models are divorced from first principles and are "parameterized" -- incorporated by reference to their measured effects.
"They are full of fudge factors that are fitted to the existing climate, so the models more or less agree with the observed data. But there is no reason to believe that the same fudge factors would give the right behaviour in a world with different chemistry, for example in a world with increased CO2 in the atmosphere," he states.
Prof. Dyson learned about the pitfalls of modelling early in his career, in 1953, and from good authority: physicist Enrico Fermi, who had built the first nuclear reactor in 1942. The young Prof. Dyson and his team of graduate students and post-docs had proudly developed what seemed like a remarkably reliable model of subatomic behaviour that corresponded with Fermi's actual measurements. To Prof. Dyson's dismay, Fermi quickly dismissed his model.
"In desperation, I asked Fermi whether he was not impressed by the agreement between our calculated numbers and his measured numbers. He replied, 'How many arbitrary parameters did you use for your calculations?' I thought for a moment about our cut-off procedures and said, 'Four.' He said, 'I remember my friend Johnny von Neumann [the co-creator of game theory] used to say, with four parameters I can fit an elephant, and with five I can make him wiggle his trunk.' With that, the conversation was over."
Again - I'm not impressed with predictions and models based on our current scientific understanding, knowledge of the Earth and Sun, and our inadequate computing power to run a simulation of something as complex as the ocean, land, and atmospheric interactions in any sort of realistic scenario. I've read in a separate article that I can not find right now that if Moore's law holds, we should be able to run decent computer models in about 30 years.
Are you sure you know what a physical law is? There are very few physical laws - like the Law of Gravity, in science.
A "general agreement" is not a law - There is general agreement that the Earth is naturally warmed to some extent by atmospheric gases, principally water vapor, in what is often called a "greenhouse effect." Wasn't there "general agreement" of scientists for hundreds of years that the Earth was in the center of the universe & that the Earth was flat?
And an "estimate" is not a law - On this basis, it has been estimated that the current level of warming is on the order of 33 degrees C So now the estimate is based on the general agreement! LOL! Is that like balancing an egg-on-an-egg?
I don't see a law here either - Although estimates of the contribution from water vapor vary widely, most sources place it
This is rather troubling as a fact or proof - Accurately calculating the relative contribution of each of these components presents major difficulties.
That's just from the 1st 3 paragraphs!! Do we need to keep going on? How is this impressive as fact? proof? or law? !! I might as well be reading an article here - therorizing how UFOs hover and fly. :P
He also said "the problems are being grossly exaggerated" and that the money being spent on GW should be used on more pressing concerns.
My favorite quote of his is "it is better to be wrong than to be vague". That seems to fit a lot of us here.
His kid is no slouch either.
If this guy's page doesn't prove to you that excessive CO2 levels "CAN" increase global temps, then we might give up on you ever believing it.
We weren't discussing "CAN" = possible; we were discussing whether it's proof that they "HAD or WERE" increasing temperatures significantly, despite all the other variables that can affect the Earth's temperature. A monkey "CAN" type an interesting novel; but what we're asking for is proof of the novel, not that it "CAN". I don't want our government to pay the monkey, buying the book, before they have proof it exists.
And to be clear again - neither you or I have the data or climate models do we? Do you have the data and understand how it was collected and the errors? Or do you only have the report from people with a vested interest who are telling you what the data is, and that they're honest? There are very few people with access to the data, so there is no need to ask how do you get a conspiracy of thousands? You don't need a conspiracy of thousand, you only need a few people to manipulate the data-flow, and give it to thousands. Basically the same way a few people in the U.S. intelligence and Executive branch of the government convinced Colin Powell, the Congress and the American public that Iraq had WMD. A handful of people with the data, editted the data to tell the story they wanted, convinced the rest of the experts, and sold everyone a bunch of fairy-tales.
Just as you had people who were glad to have "data" on WMD created their own reality, you have people who embrace the "data" of the heads of the GW-bureaucracies, and create their own reality based on their editted data.
Simply put what has it taught you in general? Here's my partial list, as an example:
- mankind does not understand Nature well. Sure we know of the Ring-of-Fire and we knew of the location of that fault. But we didn't know the details. We however didn't know the actaul stresses, the amount of energy, or the time of when the fault fails. That's similar to our understanding of the climate. The climate depends not just on CO2 levels, but on temperature, cloud-cover, ice-cover, other GHG's like methane-releases, and they all interact. There are probably hundreds of variables that interact.
- despite having knowledge of the earthquake and tsunami problem, engineers and scientists did not model or simulate these events correctly! Or else they wouldn't have built the plant where they did. All the modelling and emergency planning were flawed. The models were based on bias of what they thought Nature would do. The models worked well, and the Japanese were happy that the models were correct, and they were prepared for what Nature would do. The climate models you hear about, were developed by people who already believed in the warming, and made a model to support what they believed! So great - the nuclear engineers and scientists & the climate scientists have made computer models telling them what they expected! Brilliant!