There are a few things that man has done that could be contributing
factors. In third world countries, rain forests are being cleared to
open land up for cattle farming and cow farts contain a lot of green
house gases. Pesticides that are very effective against termites have
been banned which keep termites from eating "man made" wooden structures
and the termites fart a lot of greenhouse gasses. Of course,
7 billion human beings are farting out a lot of greenhouse gasses. So it
can be assumed that most farts are the fault of mankind and are one
of the biggest contributors to global warming. ^_^
But to suggest the government doesn't skew their funding and they
don't have vested interests is also a scam, since politicians are
involved. There is nothing inherently pure about government money,
"Statistics are like bikinis. What they reveal is suggestive,
but what they conceal is vital."
I'm in the camp that there's nothing outside of of normal variability
observed and I'm far from convinced the models have the ability to
"prove" anything else.
The proponents are guilty of the same argument they complain of--that
they're using very short-term data to claim evidence of longterm change.
By historical data, we're still coming out of the last ice age so it's
not at all unlikely in my view that a period of warming could be
expected and since all the initial hoopla began the last number of years
have pretty much negated that trend, anyways.
That results have conclusively been shown to have been selectively
chosen to produce desirable results in studies and that the proponents
are also largely in favor of more governmental controls in general is
also the political and bias inside the movement aside from the "pure"
I've previously likened it much as what I observed 20 and 30 yr ago
while consulting for the "fusion in 20 years" camp at the Princeton
Plasma Physics Lab and Rochester Lab for Laser Energetics where despite
the obvious difficulties it was a nearly religious belief in the program
that had evolved simply by being so closely involved that any result
that didn't fit or criticism was essentially overwhelmed by the momentum
of the effort. As we now know, we're _still_ 20+ yr away and likely,
imo, will be another 30 from now.
I expect in another 20 or 30 we'll discover this has all gone the way of
the "nuclear winter" of the late 50s and 60s.
On Tuesday, April 8, 2014 12:27:29 PM UTC-4, dpb wrote:
An even better comparison is the big hoopla in the 70's about the
*cooling* trend. You had the "experts" in climate science warning that
we could be entering a mini ice age. Time Magazine ran a cover story in
1977, "How to Survive the Coming Ice Age". Now the climate change camp
will immediately claim that today we know so much more, better models, etc.
But the same thing could have been said in 1977 compared to 1940, etc.
That said, my position from about 2000 on was that we should
take simple cost effective steps to reduce carbon emissions, where
practical and possible. A simple example would be better insulation
for houses, higher efficiency furnaces, etc. Given that that we have
apparently had some of the hottest years here over the past decade,
I would normally say we should probably ratchet up trying to reduce
CO2 more aggressively. But the thing for me that indicates we can
still wait is that global warming has stopped for the last decade.
We're still near the peak, hence still having some years that are among
the hottest on record, but if you look at a 100 year chart, it's
flattening out for the last 10 years and appears like it could roll
over and go back down.
Also, carbon emissions have steadily increased
during that period, yet temperature has flattened out. If the temp
curve breaks out on the upside from the 10 year consolidation, then
I'd ratchet up the CO2 reduction program.
The problem with any aggressive response is that it's going to be
costly. For example, we have plenty of cheap nat gas and replacing
it with something else is going to be more costly. This is particularly
bad since US industries, jobs, etc are at a disadvantage to places like
China. If you put us at a further disadvantage, while China burns
cheap coal and does what they want, the consequences to that are
more predictable IMO, than global warming. So, I'd give it a few more
years. I guess you can call me a global warming agnostic.
Be prepaired for a massive El Nino over the next 18-24 months if
that bubble of very warm water in the south Pacific rises to the
surface - which it most likely will. Hang onto your hats - and
anything else that could blow away or blow down.
Meanwhile, a generation or two will have made their livings doing their
work and some useful data will have been collected and some general
advances in understanding global climatology will undoubtedly be of some
longterm benefit. But, for the most part, it'll just turn out to have
been an academic exercise of no real import.
Actually, just noticed I reversed the Max High columns; the rest is correct.
> SW KS deltas Mid AL deltas
> Max High 82 F 78 F
> Min High 8 F 70 F 43 F 39 F
> Max Low 46 F 56 F
> Min Low -5 F 51 F 29 F 27 F
> Max Day swing 58 F (24-82F) 38 F (39F-77F)
On 4/8/2014 7:07 PM, email@example.com wrote:
That there likely really isn't any outside of general variation? If you
look over a longer period of time (like 10s of K years instead less than
a lifetime) it's pretty clear we've been in a remarkably and unusually
quiescent stage for quite a while...maybe it's time for a change; maybe
On 4/8/2014 9:56 PM, firstname.lastname@example.org wrote:
In the US, our elected reps have been changing the
laws, tax structure, the way people purchase medical
care, and have enacted arbitrary and burdensome
laws and penalties like photo enforced traffic lights,
taxes and fees which are too numerous to mention.
Due to all that change, the US economy is tragic.
Probably about .05" to .08" a few days ago in south central
Nebraska. We are abnormally dry according to the U.S. Drought Monitor.
Western Nebraska is in a stage of drought. The monitor is here if
you're interested. http://tinyurl.com/ltov5dh
I heard stories a few days ago about our government trucking salmon
to their spawning grounds.
I see the drought tongue sticking into Central Alabamastan and I think
conditions have improved since a few years ago when reservoirs got low
and there were some crop failures. I haven't heard anything in the news
lately about any drought conditions in my area. ^_^
I don't know squat about climate science, but I get the impression that
Antarctic ice core samples contain actual air from periods hundreds of
thousands of years ago up to relatively recently - and that these
samples tell what the CO2 concentrations were at those times. Kind of
like growth rings on a tree tell a story of the tree's life.
What the normal variation is, I have no clue.... but I would think that
somebody qualified to interpret the data would know. But I do keep
hearing that recent numbers are way, way out of line with anything seen
HomeOwnersHub.com is a website for homeowners and building and maintenance pros. It is not affiliated with any of the manufacturers or service providers discussed here.
All logos and trade names are the property of their respective owners.