Remus

What if they were speaking Klingon?

I was just wondering where the physics and math figure into this idea? Put an ice cube into a glass of water, mark the edge of the glass where the water ends. Let the ice cube melt and see what happens. I would guess you would see little to no change as ice displaces more volume than water. Sit down and figure out the math to those numbers. Figure out the area of the worlds oceans in meters. Multiply that by 60 and you should have the total volume of water that would take. In all reality, these are very simple figures but they put to light how silly some of these predictions are. You could melt all the ice in water at 0 C and the level of the water will not change raise the temperature to 4 C and the level will fall. raise the temperature beyond this and the level will rise. The predicted rise in sea level would be cause by increased ocean temperatures and inland ice like on Greenland.

If there is no experimental verification then we are hardly talking about science. Such is the state of computer climate models. I am very suspicious of any model which claims to predict climates in the future when it has yet to explain climate change of the past.

Faith? I will argue using probability and something called the "Tragedy of the Commons".Go to Google and paste "Tragedy of the Commons" (with the quotation marks) in Google's search box. Then, click on different results until you find a link that makes sense to you. What does probability have to do with this? Our planet is a Commons. The tragedy will occur, it's just a question of time. ---- Much better question: What should we do about this? So is CO2 definitely a bad as opposed to a good? Also your comments have nothing to do with the climate models that predict the what tragedy will occur if any.

The arctic was much different 1000 years ago.

Why are so many people willing to put so much faith in these computer climate models. There has yet to be any solid experimental verification of these models predicting past climates. I can not imagine how many parameters would be needed to model such a complicated system such as global climate. All of these parameters if they are included at all bring many sources of error into the model in that many are not yet fully understood alone or how exactly they couple with each other. Also the equations that govern these models must be non-linear or some approximation is made. I my self do not put much faith local weather fortcast of any day beyond next and they have real time data. Mind you it may be easier to find average temperatures. Still before I begin to believe any data coming out of these models I would like to see a good explaination of past climate change when the impact of humans was only slightly greater than the impact of elk or bison, like the mini ice age of around 1600 or the climate optimum of the middle ages. Along with that I would like to see the these climate models agree with these past events and others. Another reason why I do not put much faith in climate models is the fact that it is a hot topic in the media and it is highly political. I guess it is a good thing when applying for grants but I wonder if there is pressure to get certain results. Also I think to many people get their science from newspapers and in general non scientific publications and television programs this leads to a semi informed public who have to then make political decisions based on sensationalized stories writen by journalists who more often then not know nothing of the science they write about. I would like to ask the readers of this post to write a reply if the wish indicating the reasons why they do or do not have faith in the current climate models?

Yeah why is that. Why don't you tell us, and explain why? Hopefully in the millions of articles you read the authors included the mechanisms which cause allergies.

What is meant by biggest polluter? After reading a recent issue of the economist, I would rather breathe the air in the U.S. than the air in China.

Tommy Douglas was a minister.

As Oil prices increase with the every increasing demand from developing countries, incentives to conserve enery and to produce technologies to more efficiently use fossil fuels, and to replaces fossil fuels will be to great to ignore.

There are always new political parties being created in Alberta the latest is the Alberta Alliance. and the separation party of Alberta.

Small countries tend to be the richest.

Small countries tend to be the richest.

Why is it that those on the left always claim to be tolerant of others, but when somebody disagrees or offers another opinion contrary to their own well I geuss it is death to the infidels.

I do not believe that there is anyone preventing you from attracting investors for setting up a solar energy plant, or investing in solar panels for your own home.