You-Read-It-Here-First Forum Index You-Read-It-Here-First
A collection of textual novelties
 
 FAQFAQ   SearchSearch   MemberlistMemberlist   UsergroupsUsergroups   RegisterRegister 
 ProfileProfile   Log in to check your private messagesLog in to check your private messages   Log inLog in 
If you want to read the articles here, go ahead, just click on a forum and find a thread that interests you...no need to register! If you want to post something... either new or in response to someone here, then click the Register link above. It's free... and it's fun to write your ideas here. You can even create a "blog" by starting a personal thread in the Daily Life Every Thread A Diary section...

Hottest Year Was During Great Depression, 1934

 
Post new topic   Reply to topic    You-Read-It-Here-First Forum Index -> Climate Change
View previous topic :: View next topic  
Author Message
jabailo



Joined: 20 Mar 2006
Posts: 1273
Location: Kent (East Hill), WA

PostPosted: Sat Aug 11, 2007 10:56 pm    Post subject: Hottest Year Was During Great Depression, 1934 Reply with quote

Quote:

Oops. It turns out that 1998 wasn't the warmest year on record after all. That honor goes to 1934. A computer programming error that was only recently discovered and corrected had caused NASA to misreport historic U.S. temperatures...

http://soundpolitics.com/archives/009056.html



1934 was in the midst of the Great Depression...a minima of Human Generated CO2!
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Send e-mail
Visit the Instant Postcard Collection @ http://instant-postcard-collection.com
Looking for postcards of that favorite place? Family origins? Or that perfect vacation, except for the photos?
Researching your dissertation? Serious collector? Just looking for something neat?
You've found the right place to add to your existing collection, or to start a new one.
brian-hansen
Site Admin


Joined: 17 Mar 2006
Posts: 712
Location: Oregon

PostPosted: Sat Nov 17, 2007 2:53 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

So John, which is it?

There is no warming?

There is warming, but it is unrelated to human activity.

There is warming related to human activity, but the human-caused component is small compared to other geological factors.

Human activity is a significant contributor to global warming, but the costs of reversing the effects are too onerous.

We could reverse or minimize global warming, which is caused in large part by human activities, but the effects are more beneficial than negative, so we shouldn't try.


Although you've brought good links to the debate, my sense is that your research results are based more on what you hope to find (the end result: there's no need to change or limit our activities), than on, say, the scientific method.

In asking the question above, I've made a kind of lazy attempt to make the alternatives mutually exclusive and covering. I'm sure we could come up with a few more alternatives, and tighten the language a bit, but I hope you'll respond in the spirit of the exercise. Generally, one and only one of the above can be true.

But you've offered arguments against each, based on contradictory premises: we'll like it, and it doesn't exist. It isn't caused by human activity, and there is no proof that there is any warming at all. I found the same kind of reasoning in the CEI site you mentioned some time ago.

Alert people are justified in questioning the motives of those who make these kinds of combinations of arguments, I think, and discounting their contributions. I want better for you.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Visit poster's website
jabailo



Joined: 20 Mar 2006
Posts: 1273
Location: Kent (East Hill), WA

PostPosted: Sun Dec 09, 2007 10:12 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Quote:
Although you've brought good links to the debate, my sense is that your research results are based more on what you hope to find (the end result: there's no need to change or limit our activities), than on, say, the scientific method.


Huh? I find things that support my view...and you say that I selectively find things? I would counter in saying that my review of the IPCC research finds it lacking and unscientific in the extreme. What's more, they disguise this by further removing the "summary" from the data with each issue. Just recently they issued a synopsis of a summary! How can you fight 10,000 bureacrats with science? That facts...just the facts.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Send e-mail
brian-hansen
Site Admin


Joined: 17 Mar 2006
Posts: 712
Location: Oregon

PostPosted: Fri Dec 14, 2007 7:59 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

jabailo wrote:
Quote:
Although you've brought good links to the debate, my sense is that your research results are based more on what you hope to find (the end result: there's no need to change or limit our activities), than on, say, the scientific method.


Huh? I find things that support my view...and you say that I selectively find things? I would counter in saying that my review of the IPCC research finds it lacking and unscientific in the extreme. What's more, they disguise this by further removing the "summary" from the data with each issue. Just recently they issued a synopsis of a summary! How can you fight 10,000 bureacrats with science? That facts...just the facts.


I'd be very interested in learning, in summary, the key findings of the IPCC,
and your evaluations of them. I certainly accept the possibility that the
findings are unsupported, just like I accept any other possibility.

Unfortunately, I have a difficult time proceeding without first having
an answer to my question. It strains my ability to formulate
a response, not knowing what your actual claim is.

It doesn't seem like a difficult question to me. Which one of the
mutually exclusive and covering possibilities is actually the case?

-Brian
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Visit poster's website
Visit the Instant Postcard Collection @ http://instant-postcard-collection.com
Looking for postcards of that favorite place? Family origins? Or that perfect vacation, except for the photos?
Researching your dissertation? Serious collector? Just looking for something neat?
You've found the right place to add to your existing collection, or to start a new one.
jabailo



Joined: 20 Mar 2006
Posts: 1273
Location: Kent (East Hill), WA

PostPosted: Sat Dec 15, 2007 11:16 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

Quote:
I'd be very interested in learning, in summary, the key findings of the IPCC, and your evaluations of them.


I don't want to argue the IPCC report. It's a summary. I turn the challenge around.

Find me a scientific paper, in a mainstream academic journal that:

a) Demonstrates global warming as a unique phenomena of the late 20th and early 21st Century

b) Clearly shows the determinants of the heating, and the percentage to which they contribute, absolutely, to increased global temperature.

c) Makes the absolute link of anthropogenic activities to increase in heat.

d) Definitely proves any end result of increased global temperature as an effect on the health and well being of mankind.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Send e-mail
brian-hansen
Site Admin


Joined: 17 Mar 2006
Posts: 712
Location: Oregon

PostPosted: Sun Dec 16, 2007 12:40 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

geez, John. You're the guy that's doing research. You want me to drop my highly profitable postcard business and become a climate researcher?

I make no claims. You seem to be making lots of them, but
when I ask you to choose which claim you are making, you say
that you want me to do the work.

Pshaw.

How hard is that question, really? Did I choose that difficult a question?

-Brian
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Visit poster's website
jabailo



Joined: 20 Mar 2006
Posts: 1273
Location: Kent (East Hill), WA

PostPosted: Sun Dec 16, 2007 7:27 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

Once again you and the IPCC punt when it comes to delivering the scientific underpinnings of anthropogenic global warming.

No doubt you hope that your postcard business will benefit from "Green Credits" and "Carbon Offsets" as people trade TV watching and iPod listening for the relatively pollution free act of looking at paper images. God knows it makes the world less violent.

But hey, that's your rice bowl and you're welcome to it.

Just don't try to tell me that what you are saying has any justification in science...

By the way, I notice a disturbing trend in your posts -- rather than presenting an opinion or even a reasonable rebuttal, they seem to be personal attacks on me. Maybe we should change the name of this site to "John-Said-It-Here-First".
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Send e-mail
Visit the Instant Postcard Collection @ http://instant-postcard-collection.com
Looking for postcards of that favorite place? Family origins? Or that perfect vacation, except for the photos?
Researching your dissertation? Serious collector? Just looking for something neat?
You've found the right place to add to your existing collection, or to start a new one.
brian-hansen
Site Admin


Joined: 17 Mar 2006
Posts: 712
Location: Oregon

PostPosted: Sun Dec 16, 2007 2:31 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

John-

I fear this dialogue is devolving into absurdity.

jabailo wrote:
Once again you and the IPCC punt when it comes to delivering the scientific underpinnings of anthropogenic global warming.


I perfectly understand why you expect it from the IPCC, but I don't
understand why you expect me to deliver scientific underpinnings.
I'm not a climate scientist. I've done only the most cursory reading
on the subject. I don't present myself as any kind of expert. Any
information I've brought to the discussion has been based on newspaper
or magazine articles addressed to the general public.

I'm perfectly willing to consider your position that the IPCC is
glossing over gaps in their reasoning, or even more nefarious
motives of bureaucrats, etc. Your challenge to present evidence
of the points you mention is as concise a statement on the topic
as I've seen. I admire your taking a position on the debate, and
I value the information and articles you've brought to this forum.
In short, I'm your target audience. I'm the kind of guy that you
should be convincing. I'm open-minded, relatively literate in science
and the scientific method, and I don't have "a horse in the race".
I don't stand to benefit either way the debate ends.

jabailo wrote:

No doubt you hope that your postcard business will benefit from "Green Credits" and "Carbon Offsets" as people trade TV watching and iPod listening for the relatively pollution free act of looking at paper images. God knows it makes the world less violent.


Of course, this is absurd, but, in this context, it is relatively
reasonable, given that my bit about the "highly profitable"
business was a little joke to begin with.

Contrary, though, to your claim, there is quite a bit of doubt as
to whether I hope that I will benefit from credits and offsets if
people buy postcards. This result seems unlikely in the extreme.
Furthermore, my business contributes to energy consumption,
as it involves quite a bit of shipping.

I must say, though, that I think you might be onto something
about the violence in the world. I've never seen any violence
associated with postcards.

jabailo wrote:

But hey, that's your rice bowl and you're welcome to it.


I hope I've established that it is not my rice bowl, but thanks
for the offer.

jabailo wrote:

Just don't try to tell me that what you are saying has any justification in science...


I guess it depends what it is you think I am saying. In earlier posts
many many months ago, I've cited some of the negative effects
of global warming, in the context where you were citing some
positive effects. It seems to me that my mentioning of negative
effects must have at least as much scientific validity as your
mention of the positive ones, especially since you now seem to
be saying that global warming does not exist.

In the current topic, I don't believe I've made any particular claims,
so the question of their scientific justification has to fall under the
category of the absurd.

On the contrary, what I've been saying in this topic has been the
essence of science. I've been asking you what claim it
is that you are making. It really is opaque. I've laid out what
appear to be mutually exclusive and covering possibilities and
asked you which one represents your views. Once I learn this,
numerous possibilities will become clearer. Not having a clear
idea of your position makes it very difficult to respond to your
postings, either positively or negatively.

jabailo wrote:

By the way, I notice a disturbing trend in your posts -- rather than presenting an opinion or even a reasonable rebuttal, they seem to be personal attacks on me. Maybe we should change the name of this site to "John-Said-It-Here-First".


On the topic of global warming, you are the local expert. My opinions
on the topic are not especially useful, based as they are on third
hand information. I bring my skepticism and my ability to reason
to your postings on the subject, about which you are obviously
passionate.

As difficult as it may be for you to believe this, one of my goals
in engaging with you on this subject is to help you improve your
credibility.

A precise analogy is difficult to construct on the fly, but consider
this scenario. If the EPA said that Geo Metros got better gas mileage
then a Hummer, and I made a series of rebuttals: The EPA
only presents summaries of the results, they have self-interest
in making the claims, Geo Metros are no longer on the market,
the test was invalid, there really was no test, it costs too much to
get that better gas mileage, lower gas mileage is actually better,
etc. Then you might have several reactions. Your first reaction might
be to consider the EPA's claims more skeptically. Your second might
be to consider what agenda I might have, since I would seem
to be making arguments based on conflicting premises based on
my dislike of the results of the study, rather than on some
particular detail about it. In my view, you would be justified in
discounting my credibility on the subject, and in wondering whether
I had a personal financial interest in Hummers, or an idiosyncratic
hatred of Geo Metros.

In these postings, I am most definitely challenging you, but the only
thing that even looks remotely like a personal attack to me, is
in saying that your style of argumentation is reducing your credibility.
Even that does not seem like a personal attack to me.

While I've made plenty of original postings on YRIHF, the truth
is that you've taken the initiative to make lots of original, and
sometimes controversial postings, so you might well be justified
in thinking that this site is John-said-it-here-first. I am well pleased
that you've made YRIHF a home for posting your original and
often valuable contributions. My hope is that you will continue
to share in this way, and that others will join in, in the spirit of
posting original ideas, and refining them through dialogue.
Until then, I guess we've got the John-and-Brian-show.com.
Which is still quite marvelous in my view.

So, with all that as prologue, do I still have to guess why you
haven't answered my original question, or should I just buy a
Hummer to save on my gasoline bill?

-Brian
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Visit poster's website
jabailo



Joined: 20 Mar 2006
Posts: 1273
Location: Kent (East Hill), WA

PostPosted: Sun Dec 16, 2007 10:35 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Free online book at Google Library (not complete, but lots of good info):

Global Warming: Myth Or Reality
http://books.google.com/books?id=w9QVlNzn_asC&printsec=frontcover&dq=the+holocene+co2+rise#PPP1,M1

Quote:
The term 'consensus'...a term often employed by the IPCC, implies only that the 'good' keepers of the true faith are in the majority, meaning that mere weight of numbers (not necessarily synonymous with better quality) may control and dismiss discordant voices from publications and papers. The debate is either swept under the carpet, or soon loses the required rationality, since the idea of disinterested and objective science, sticto senus, has long since been absent. Opponents are even labelled 'charlatans', without any scientific discussion!" (p. 5)
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Send e-mail
jabailo



Joined: 20 Mar 2006
Posts: 1273
Location: Kent (East Hill), WA

PostPosted: Mon Dec 17, 2007 9:54 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

A letter from some prominent "concerned" scientists who feel the IPCC is heading us in the wrong direction:

http://www.nationalpost.com/news/story.html?id=164002

Quote:
It is not possible to stop climate change, a natural phenomenon that has affected humanity through the ages. Geological, archaeological, oral and written histories all attest to the dramatic challenges posed to past societies from unanticipated changes in temperature, precipitation, winds and other climatic variables. We therefore need to equip nations to become resilient to the full range of these natural phenomena by promoting economic growth and wealth generation.

The United Nations Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) has issued increasingly alarming conclusions about the climatic influences of human-produced carbon dioxide (CO2), a non-polluting gas that is essential to plant photosynthesis. While we understand the evidence that has led them to view CO2 emissions as harmful, the IPCC's conclusions are quite inadequate as justification for implementing policies that will markedly diminish future prosperity. In particular, it is not established that it is possible to significantly alter global climate through cuts in human greenhouse gas emissions. On top of which, because attempts to cut emissions will slow development, the current UN approach of CO2 reduction is likely to increase human suffering from future climate change rather than to decrease it.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Send e-mail
Visit the Instant Postcard Collection @ http://instant-postcard-collection.com
Looking for postcards of that favorite place? Family origins? Or that perfect vacation, except for the photos?
Researching your dissertation? Serious collector? Just looking for something neat?
You've found the right place to add to your existing collection, or to start a new one.
jabailo



Joined: 20 Mar 2006
Posts: 1273
Location: Kent (East Hill), WA

PostPosted: Tue Dec 18, 2007 12:16 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

Noted Sea Level Expert Accuses IPCC of Falsifying Data

http://www.dailytech.com/Noted+Sea+Level+Expert+Accuses+IPCC+of+Falsifying+Data/article9978.htm

Quote:
A noted expert in sea level change has accused UN's IPCC panel of falsifying and destroying data (PDF) to support the panel's official conclusion of a rising sea level trend. The accusations include surreptitious substitution of datasets, selective use of data, presenting computer model simulations as physical data, and even the destruction of physical markers which fail to demonstrate sea level rise.

The expert, Dr. Nils-Axel Mörner, also raps the IPCC for their selection of 22 authors of their most recent report on sea level rise (SLR), none of which were sea level specialists. According to Mörner, the authors were chosen to "arrive at a predetermined conclusion" of global warming-induced disaster.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Send e-mail
jabailo



Joined: 20 Mar 2006
Posts: 1273
Location: Kent (East Hill), WA

PostPosted: Sat Dec 22, 2007 11:09 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

The Calvary just charged:

U.S. Senate Report: Over 400 Prominent Scientists Disputed Man-Made Global Warming Claims in 2007
http://epw.senate.gov/public/index.cfm?FuseAction=Minority.Blogs&ContentRecord_id=f80a6386-802a-23ad-40c8-3c63dc2d02cb

Quote:
Even some in the establishment media now appear to be taking notice of the growing number of skeptical scientists. In October, the Washington Post Staff Writer Juliet Eilperin conceded the obvious, writing that climate skeptics "appear to be expanding rather than shrinking." Many scientists from around the world have dubbed 2007 as the year man-made global warming fears “bite the dust.” (LINK) In addition, many scientists who are also progressive environmentalists believe climate fear promotion has "co-opted" the green movement.


This blockbuster Senate report lists the scientists by name, country of residence, and academic/institutional affiliation. It also features their own words, biographies, and weblinks to their peer reviewed studies and original source materials as gathered from public statements, various news outlets, and websites in 2007. This new “consensus busters” report is poised to redefine the debate.


Climate Consensus ‘Busted’?
http://dotearth.blogs.nytimes.com/2007/12/20/climate-consensus-busted/

Quote:
The office of Senator James Inhofe, the Oklahoma Republican and ranking member of the Environment and Public Works Committee, released a report online today listing hundreds of scientists and links to peer-reviewed studies that it says challenge whether humans are dangerously influencing climate.

“This new ‘consensus busters’ report is poised to redefine the debate,” the news release said.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Send e-mail
jabailo



Joined: 20 Mar 2006
Posts: 1273
Location: Kent (East Hill), WA

PostPosted: Sun Dec 23, 2007 12:29 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

One of my running arguments has been that there is no scientific consensus about anthropogenic global warming. This is because people confuse "consensus" with "a large number of people thinking the same way". The way to know if there is consensus to see if any dissent is being expressed. In a consensus, the opposition basically agrees to "shut up" for the time being, by trading the right to dissent in exchange for being part of the consensus and for letting the majority go ahead and do what it proposes. The opposition would still reserve the right to claim "I told you so" if the majority opinion fails and then claim the right to push it's own proposals through.

Because of the dissent among some scientists, I claim there is no consensus. I further present this definition from Wikipedia:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Consensus

Quote:
Consensus usually involves collaboration, rather than compromise. Instead of one opinion being adopted by a plurality, stakeholders are brought together (often with facilitation) until a convergent decision is developed. If this is done in a purely mechanical way it can result in simple trading—we'll sacrifice this if you'll sacrifice that. Genuine consensus typically requires more focus on developing the relationships among stakeholders, so that they work together to achieve agreements based on willing consent.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Send e-mail
Visit the Instant Postcard Collection @ http://instant-postcard-collection.com
Looking for postcards of that favorite place? Family origins? Or that perfect vacation, except for the photos?
Researching your dissertation? Serious collector? Just looking for something neat?
You've found the right place to add to your existing collection, or to start a new one.
jabailo



Joined: 20 Mar 2006
Posts: 1273
Location: Kent (East Hill), WA

PostPosted: Sun Dec 23, 2007 10:47 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

Has global warming stopped?
http://www.newstatesman.com/200712190004


'The fact is that the global temperature of 2007 is statistically the same as 2006 and every year since 2001'

Global warming stopped? Surely not. What heresy is this? Haven’t we been told that the science of global warming is settled beyond doubt and that all that’s left to the so-called sceptics is the odd errant glacier that refuses to melt?
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Send e-mail
jabailo



Joined: 20 Mar 2006
Posts: 1273
Location: Kent (East Hill), WA

PostPosted: Thu Dec 27, 2007 7:47 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Top 10 Climate Myth-Busters for 2007

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,318686,00.html

Quote:
For reference purposes, the estimated total increase in average global temperature for the 20th century was about 0.50 degrees Celsius.

That’s what researchers have reported this year. And let’s not forget the spanking a British high judge gave Al Gore’s movie for all its scientific inaccuracies and the thrashing non-alarmist climate scientists gave to alarmist climate scientists in a debate sponsored by the New York debating society Intelligence Squared.

Al Gore and the alarmist mob claim the debate about the science of global warming is “over.” Given the developments of 2007, it’s easy to see why they would want it that way.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Send e-mail
jabailo



Joined: 20 Mar 2006
Posts: 1273
Location: Kent (East Hill), WA

PostPosted: Thu Jan 03, 2008 9:20 pm    Post subject: Top Russian scientist: global cooling coming Reply with quote

http://www.americanthinker.com/blog/2008/01/top_russian_scientistglobal_co.html

Quote:
Ironically, the current spell of global warming, such as it is, can be expected to end just as the Kyoto treaty ends in 2012, but having nothing to do with reduced emissions from fossil fuels. For the remainder of this century, it will be global cooling we'll have to worry about, according to highly credentialed Russian scientist, Dr. Oleg Sorokhtin.



http://grist.org/news/2008/01/03/2008/

Quote:
Thanks to a strong La Niña, this upcoming year is likely to have lower average global temperatures than have occurred since 2000, according to U.K. forecasters.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Send e-mail
Visit the Instant Postcard Collection @ http://instant-postcard-collection.com
Looking for postcards of that favorite place? Family origins? Or that perfect vacation, except for the photos?
Researching your dissertation? Serious collector? Just looking for something neat?
You've found the right place to add to your existing collection, or to start a new one.
jabailo



Joined: 20 Mar 2006
Posts: 1273
Location: Kent (East Hill), WA

PostPosted: Sun Jan 06, 2008 10:39 am    Post subject: New York Times: In 2008, a 100 Percent Chance of Alarm Reply with quote

http://www.nytimes.com/2008/01/01/science/01tier.html?_r=1&ref=science&oref=slogin

Quote:

Roger A. Pielke Jr., a professor of environmental studies at the University of Colorado, recently noted the very different reception received last year by two conflicting papers on the link between hurricanes and global warming. He counted 79 news articles about a paper in the Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society, and only 3 news articles about one in a far more prestigious journal, Nature.

Guess which paper jibed with the theory — and image of Katrina — presented by Al Gore’s “Inconvenient Truth”?

It was, of course, the paper in the more obscure journal, which suggested that global warming is creating more hurricanes. The paper in Nature concluded that global warming has a minimal effect on hurricanes. It was published in December — by coincidence, the same week that Mr. Gore received his Nobel Peace Prize.

In his acceptance speech, Mr. Gore didn’t dwell on the complexities of the hurricane debate. Nor, in his roundup of the 2007 weather, did he mention how calm the hurricane season had been. Instead, he alluded somewhat mysteriously to “stronger storms in the Atlantic and Pacific,” and focused on other kinds of disasters, like “massive droughts” and “massive flooding.”
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Send e-mail
jabailo



Joined: 20 Mar 2006
Posts: 1273
Location: Kent (East Hill), WA

PostPosted: Sun Jan 06, 2008 10:53 am    Post subject: John Comes Clean About Global Warming -- News At Eleven! Reply with quote

After much acrimony and mudslinging (on both sides -- I will spare whatever readers who are not Brian or John the gorey details that almost ruined a 20 year friendship), I may finally feel ready to answer your questions.


#1 There is no warming?

The warming or cooling cannot be disputed. We can simply measure the highs and lows and say what it is. There has definitely been a warming trend since about 1820.

However, the scope and scale of warming is subject to debate. Just this week it was announced that 2007 is not the hottest year on record. It was actually cooler than 2000. However, I will not nitpick -- there is still a warming trend...but (and many are saying this) it's looking more and more like a very gradual, slow warming trend.

#2 There is warming, but it is unrelated to human activity.

That is my very real belief. The fact that CO2 increases lag behind temperature increases seems the most obviously proof of that. I believe the warming is causes by natural reasons (Svensmarks cosmic ray theory being one very good explanation). CO2 increases are probably the result of the permafrost melting and other vegetative reasons. Human population increase and industrial activity are a result of having more solar heat and light. I also believe the great decreases in diseases such as smallpoxes and plagues are a result of warming.

#3. There is warming related to human activity, but the human-caused component is small compared to other geological factors.

No. There is no warming related to human activity. And the factors are probably extra planetary rather than geological.

#4 Human activity is a significant contributor to global warming, but the costs of reversing the effects are too onerous.

Trying to reverse something that we are not the primary cause of is insanely costly because we can never do it. We are automatically setting ourselves up for the task of Sisyphus.

The good news is that the 21st century is already making significant breakthroughs in materials science and nanotechnology that will make things like electric cars and solar cells and maybe even nuclear fusion viable technologies. These will go a long way towards keeping our air and water and land clean. I advocate that we not do anything that may impede the progress in these technologies.

My anecdotal comment was we should not keep the nanotech scientist from getting to work everyday by rationing his gasoline and prevents him from delivering the 50 percent efficient solar cell that makes gasoline obsolete.

#5 We could reverse or minimize global warming, which is caused in large part by human activities, but the effects are more beneficial than negative, so we shouldn't try.

Based on what has happened so far, we should be worshiping global warming -- not trying to prevent it. I have predicted that the effects of more warming on the landscape will include such benefits as an increase in arable land. A milder climate for more people. A decrease in deaths due to cold and disease. The restoration of historic desert areas such as the Sahara and the American southwest. A decrease in water pollution (because the solution, after all, to pollution is dilution...and the melting will increase the fresh water supply). More land means more food and cheaper housing in more places. Human prosperity is dependent on global warming.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Send e-mail
brian-hansen
Site Admin


Joined: 17 Mar 2006
Posts: 712
Location: Oregon

PostPosted: Mon Jan 07, 2008 1:30 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

John-

Your posting is very much a relief to me, and the clearest position
you've posted on this topic in this forum.

I may have an opportunity to improve my style of argumentation on this
topic, having checked out a 12-lecture "book on tape" on the subject
from the library. I may now be able to advance my expertise on the
subject from, I estimate, a high school senior, to the college freshman level.

You may have some opinion on the lecturer, so I tell you it is Richard
Wolfson, and the course is entitled "Earth's Changing Climate". It is
copyright 2007.

-Brian
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Visit poster's website
Visit the Instant Postcard Collection @ http://instant-postcard-collection.com
Looking for postcards of that favorite place? Family origins? Or that perfect vacation, except for the photos?
Researching your dissertation? Serious collector? Just looking for something neat?
You've found the right place to add to your existing collection, or to start a new one.
jabailo



Joined: 20 Mar 2006
Posts: 1273
Location: Kent (East Hill), WA

PostPosted: Mon Jan 07, 2008 11:03 am    Post subject: African climate change : Blooming Sahara or hunger and war ? Reply with quote

http://www.temoust.org/spip.php?article4073

Quote:
But not all predictions, models and theories are exclusively negative. The following is not a theory based on climate models, it is a well-documented fact : Until 5,000 years ago, during the so-called Holocene Climate Optimum, world climate was significantly hotter than now - comparable to global warming forecasts - and Africa was living through what scientists call the "African Humid Period".

During this warm and humid period, what is now the Sahara Desert was indeed green, covered with grasslands and savannah vegetation. The rock paintings at Tassili - in the middle of the Sahara in south-eastern Algeria - first caused astonishment when found as they depicted savannah animals such as elephants and zebus. Late, the bones of water-dependent beasts as crocodiles and hippos were found in the Sahara, together with sediments showing that great lakes and rivers existed here until 6,000 years ago.

Modern scientists have dug deeper and taken sediment cores off the Mauritanian coast, showing a very sudden change in wind-borne sediments, indicating a dramatic climate shift took place within the scope of only decades. Suddenly, the Sahara had reached a threshold that could not support vegetation and the desert took its firm grip of this vas Annual precipitation change over Africa 8,500 years ago (mid-Holocene) compared to present

During the early and mid Holocene - corresponding with the first millennia after the latest ice age - the global climate was about 2-5 degrees warmer than today. In some regions this meant a drier climate, but for most of Africa, it meant more rain and more stable rainfalls. In the northern half of Africa, this meant that the African monsoon went much further north and especially the Central Sahara had a moister climate. But also south of the Sahara, rainfall was more abundant, meaning that the forested region went further north.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Send e-mail
brian-hansen
Site Admin


Joined: 17 Mar 2006
Posts: 712
Location: Oregon

PostPosted: Mon Jan 07, 2008 1:44 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Meta-comment:

Your last post included a title referring to the Sahara, but that
title did not show up in the listings as a separate topic.

My feeling, and you may disagree, is that the arguments are more
interesting and cogent when they are listed as their own topics.
I think it also increases the weight of the argument. My recommendation
is that you list these various facts/bits of evidence in separate topics.

Alternately, it might be helpful if they were grouped together on the
basis of which sub-argument against the AGW hypothesis they
related to (there is no GW, is GW but... etc.). This could be done
at either the forum or topic level.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Visit poster's website
jabailo



Joined: 20 Mar 2006
Posts: 1273
Location: Kent (East Hill), WA

PostPosted: Tue Jan 08, 2008 6:34 pm    Post subject: Premature Consensus? Reply with quote

Prof. Oppenheimer of Princeton has this to say (first check out his CV):

http://www.princeton.edu/~step/people/mo-cv-12%2001%2007. ...

But the coolest part is what he has to say about "premature consensus"

He sounds like he's warning us about the IPCC more than CO2!!

Risks of Premature Climate Change Consensus

http://www.watsoninstitute.org/news_detail.cfm?id=685

Quote:
While acknowledging that since its establishment in 1988, "the IPCC has made progress over four assessment cycles in its treatment of uncertainties," the authors detail four new prescriptions for avoiding the pitfalls of premature consensus on climate change:

Firstly, they uphold that "increased transparency, including a thorough narrative report on the range of views expressed by panel members, emphasizing areas of disagreement that arose during the assessment, would provide a more robust evaluation of risk."

Second, the article recommends that the IPCC should "guard against overconfidence" by modifying its procedure for expert review. Ideally, "external reviewers should ferret out differences between chapters or author sub-groups, and a special team of authors could be instructed to examine the treatment of unlikely but plausible processes."

Third, the authors propose that the IPCC "formalize a process of continuous review of its structure and procedures."

Finally, a factor that the authors cite as perhaps of paramount concern is that "national governments now need to confront a more fundamental question of how often they need comprehensive assessments of climate change." To this end, the authors recommend that "special risks entailed in particular aspects of the climate system, like ice sheets or the carbon cycle, might be better approached by increasing the number of concise, highly focused special reports."


Here's the reference to the original article. It's not freely available, but I intend to visit the Kent Central Public Library and read it.

http://www.sciencemag.org/cgi/content/summary/317/5844/1505?ijkey=Pol.wk
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Send e-mail
Visit the Instant Postcard Collection @ http://instant-postcard-collection.com
Looking for postcards of that favorite place? Family origins? Or that perfect vacation, except for the photos?
Researching your dissertation? Serious collector? Just looking for something neat?
You've found the right place to add to your existing collection, or to start a new one.
nikohh



Joined: 14 Aug 2010
Posts: 1

PostPosted: Sat Aug 14, 2010 1:26 pm    Post subject: Re: Hottest Year Was During Great Depression, 1934 Reply with quote

jabailo wrote:
Quote:

Oops. It turns out that 1998 wasn't the warmest year on record after all. That honor goes to 1934. A computer programming error that was only recently discovered and corrected had caused NASA to misreport historic U.S. temperatures...

http://soundpolitics.com/archives/009056.html



1934 was in the midst of the Great Depression...a minima of Human Generated CO2!

united states average temperatures and global average temperatures are different. maybe if it was called "american warming" that would be a good point
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
brian-hansen
Site Admin


Joined: 17 Mar 2006
Posts: 712
Location: Oregon

PostPosted: Fri Apr 22, 2011 8:32 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

From page one of Google search ("Hottest Year Was") as of 4/22/2011:

http://www.usatoday.com/tech/science/environment/2011-01-12-2010-warmest-year-climate-change_N.htm

http://www.aolnews.com/2010/12/16/its-cold-now-but-2010-was-warmest-on-record-globally/

http://www.dailytech.com/NASA+Reports+2010+to+be+the+Warmest+Year+on+Record/article20660.htm
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Visit poster's website
jabailo



Joined: 20 Mar 2006
Posts: 1273
Location: Kent (East Hill), WA

PostPosted: Mon May 16, 2011 7:11 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

http://biggovernment.com/jdunetz/2011/05/13/nasa-gets-caught-faking-climate-change-data-again/
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Send e-mail
Visit the Instant Postcard Collection @ http://instant-postcard-collection.com
Looking for postcards of that favorite place? Family origins? Or that perfect vacation, except for the photos?
Researching your dissertation? Serious collector? Just looking for something neat?
You've found the right place to add to your existing collection, or to start a new one.
brian-hansen
Site Admin


Joined: 17 Mar 2006
Posts: 712
Location: Oregon

PostPosted: Mon May 16, 2011 9:38 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

I note that the majority of posters there disagree with your position. You've said that there *is* warming, but it is not anthropogenic. I suspect your "friends" might find your position a bit more "nuanced" than is to their liking.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Visit poster's website
jabailo



Joined: 20 Mar 2006
Posts: 1273
Location: Kent (East Hill), WA

PostPosted: Tue May 17, 2011 8:11 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

One again I'm my own worst enemy!

My position tends to be:

1. It's getting hotter on average over the century.

2. Next year it will probably start getting a lot hotter.

2. Heating is caused by nature, not by man (Svensmark's cloud theories).

3. Heating is not all bad, even at the upper end ...in fact, it's mostly good.

4. The effects of heating will be more like an equilibrium, where the heat will disperse from the equator to the poles.

5. More heat means some good stuff for humans, like arable land, less need to heat our homes in the temperate zones, better performance for most machines, healthier climate (less heart disease, clogged arteries)...
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Send e-mail
Display posts from previous:   
Post new topic   Reply to topic    You-Read-It-Here-First Forum Index -> Climate Change All times are GMT - 8 Hours
Page 1 of 1

 
Jump to:  
You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum


Powered by phpBB © 2001, 2005 phpBB Group