Global Warming Viewed Practically

[jdobbin]

This thread is about computer models and global warming, not about anything else. The rest is a red herring you are using to try and change the subject.

Steve Milloy was the person cited as being credible on the subject of science. He isn't.

[theloniusfleabag]

Dear Wilber,

As someone pointed out, the Kyoto figures are not based on science but a result of getting a consensus between enough countries to make an agreement through horse trading. They may be overkill or they may not be enough.

I agree, I think Kyoto is terribly flawed. Emissions should be cut, pollution should be lessened, to zero if we can, but Kyoto isn't a good way to go about it.

[B. Max]

This thread is about computer models and global warming, not about anything else. The rest is a red herring you are using to try and change the subject.

Steve Milloy was the person cited as being credible on the subject of science. He isn't.

Much more credible than those who flog the phony computer models.

[jdobbin]

Much more credible than those who flog the phony computer models.

I suppose you can continue to believe the man that says evolution is false, that the Atkins diet is nutritious and that global warming is not happening. Just don't call it science.

[B. Max]

Dear geoffrey,

Please don't make the rest of us Christians or conservatives look so ridiculous, ok.

Don't you hate having wackos on your side? The 'left' has them too...

I generally don't paint everyone with the same bruch, and I also ignore B. Max and all the strange thing he posts, except perhaps for a chuckle. Creationism is a theory too, like evolution, but one of them is based on logic, fact, reason and evidence.

Perhaps you could supply something of substance in stead of rhetoric.

[Electric Monk]

I agree with Mr Coyne in the OP, and I don't really care whether we install cow-mounted catalytic converters, we need to get this done eventually. If we, as one of the most privileged western nations can't do our part, how can we go to the "800lb gorillas" of greenhouse gas emission and credibly ask them to cut down their emissions?

[Jerry J. Fortin]

Our climate is changing, no scientist disputes this. The cause is a matter of political debate because of conflicting scientific theories. The simple reality is that we need to adapt to the changing climate. I doubt that man can change the climate to suit our needs, at least not yet or at least not in time to avoid the consequences of the current trends.

While the debate rages on about the weather it will not accomplish anything. In my opinion the efforts of society should be focused on attempting to determine the outcome of the trends and to adapt ourselves to the changing reality. This would be a prudent use of science.

[B. Max]

Our climate is changing, no scientist disputes this. The cause is a matter of political debate because of conflicting scientific theories. The simple reality is that we need to adapt to the changing climate. I doubt that man can change the climate to suit our needs, at least not yet or at least not in time to avoid the consequences of the current trends.

While the debate rages on about the weather it will not accomplish anything. In my opinion the efforts of society should be focused on attempting to determine the outcome of the trends and to adapt ourselves to the changing reality. This would be a prudent use of science.

I know this doesn't prove or disprove anything one way or another but I've been keeping an eye on it for some time now. http://www.theweathernetwork.com/weather/1...ef=wxeyewx14day I would estimate that about 90% of the time their predictions run below average and in fact the current temp. is -8 which is below their own forecast, and about eight inches of snow on the ground. I don't think it's possible to know what trends are until after the fact. They can't accurately predict the temperature for a few days out, can't make their climate models match what is the known historical records. So why are so many ready to turn the world up side down on predictions that extend 50 or a hundred years out. As everybody knows the climate / temp. has continually changed through out history. It is ludicrous to think that the proper response to what we already know should be to deliberately destroy economies.

[Jerry J. Fortin]

Our climate is changing, no scientist disputes this. The cause is a matter of political debate because of conflicting scientific theories. The simple reality is that we need to adapt to the changing climate. I doubt that man can change the climate to suit our needs, at least not yet or at least not in time to avoid the consequences of the current trends.

While the debate rages on about the weather it will not accomplish anything. In my opinion the efforts of society should be focused on attempting to determine the outcome of the trends and to adapt ourselves to the changing reality. This would be a prudent use of science.

I know this doesn't prove or disprove anything one way or another but I've been keeping an eye on it for some time now. http://www.theweathernetwork.com/weather/1...ef=wxeyewx14day I would estimate that about 90% of the time their predictions run below average and in fact the current temp. is -8 which is below their own forecast, and about eight inches of snow on the ground. I don't think it's possible to know what trends are until after the fact. They can't accurately predict the temperature for a few days out, can't make their climate models match what is the known historical records. So why are so many ready to turn the world up side down on predictions that extend 50 or a hundred years out. As everybody knows the climate / temp. has continually changed through out history. It is ludicrous to think that the proper response to what we already know should be to deliberately destroy economies.

I don't suggest that we should destroy economies. I suggest that we apply our best intellects to determine what will happen. We can't turn the clock back and change what we have already done to the climate. What we need to do is study it, determine what if any impact humanity has had on it and act in a manner that is consistant with our own best interests. That is not the same as destroying our economies around the world at all. I am not advocating sustainable development I am suggesting that we need to determine if the climate is changing and how to go about adapting to any change that may or may not be occuring. We need to look to the long term survival of the species. We need this planet to live on, if we create problems for it by living on it then we need to find a way around those problems if we desire to remain living on it. Its not that complicated is it?

[B. Max]

I don't suggest that we should destroy economies.

I wasn't suggesting that you did. I was suggesting that there are those that do. I wonder what they would be suggesting if the temperature started heading down. No matter what I would rather have good economies. Personally I think the further away you get from the last ice age the warmer it is likely to be until the beginning of the next one.

[Jerry J. Fortin]

Warmer is better than colder! If it was getting colder we would have a lot worse problems. Having said that we will still have some problems to deal with. Like it or not we need to start considering the fact that we own 7 percent of the fresh water supply on the planet. Our American friends need that water badly and the praires could use irrigation badly, a match made in heaven I think. We could sell the Yanks the water and have them pay for building an irrigation system for us. Damned stuff just drains into the sea to be converted to rain anyway why not use it before we lose it?

[B. Max]

Warmer is better than colder! If it was getting colder we would have a lot worse problems. Having said that we will still have some problems to deal with. Like it or not we need to start considering the fact that we own 7 percent of the fresh water supply on the planet. Our American friends need that water badly and the praires could use irrigation badly, a match made in heaven I think. We could sell the Yanks the water and have them pay for building an irrigation system for us. Damned stuff just drains into the sea to be converted to rain anyway why not use it before we lose it?

We could, but it would likely be better for us to have a few pieces of gold invested in any such plans. We sell water in bottles right now to the states and there are people trying to stop that.

[jbg]

Friday, the weather was cold for this time of the year, bright sun in the morning, dense clouds by afternoon. Yesterday we had almost hurricane-force winds and it was warm and rainy. During the winds, a tree came down near our synagogue, so a Bat Mitzvah service was conducted in the dark (it was a miracle those worshipers didn't riot)

Today we have almost hurricane-force winds and it is cold and dry.

Surely, greenhouse gases must have caused all this mayhem. After all, there were never storms prior to the Industrial Revolution </sarcasm>.

[Drea]

Somebody, back a while made the mistake of calling "it" global warming. When in fact it's actually global climate change. Some places will be colder, some warmer.

I believe that the earth is going through a natural cycle -- albeit helped along somewhat by industrial pollution.

Reducing our emmissions, reducing the amount of garbage we produce, etc. is just being responsible citizens. It won't change the fact that the globe is warming, it won't reverse the earth's warming trend, but it might (big might) slow it down a bit, a tiny bit.

Within a 100 years some coastal cities will be underwater. People should move inland.

[B. Max]

Friday, the weather was cold for this time of the year, bright sun in the morning, dense clouds by afternoon. Yesterday we had almost hurricane-force winds and it was warm and rainy. During the winds, a tree came down near our synagogue, so a Bat Mitzvah service was conducted in the dark (it was a miracle those worshipers didn't riot)

Today we have almost hurricane-force winds and it is cold and dry.

Surely, greenhouse gases must have caused all this mayhem. After all, there were never storms prior to the Industrial Revolution </sarcasm>.

With any luck at all we'll be sending you a new round of global cooling that you can expect to arrive in a few days. Oh yeah, and with that we can also send you some natural gas so you can crank up the furnace.

[bradco]

Friday, the weather was cold for this time of the year, bright sun in the morning, dense clouds by afternoon. Yesterday we had almost hurricane-force winds and it was warm and rainy. During the winds, a tree came down near our synagogue, so a Bat Mitzvah service was conducted in the dark (it was a miracle those worshipers didn't riot)

Today we have almost hurricane-force winds and it is cold and dry.

Surely, greenhouse gases must have caused all this mayhem. After all, there were never storms prior to the Industrial Revolution </sarcasm>.

Canadian coast guard ships over the last week or two just recently made trips through and around the northwest passage that had never in history been conducted in october. The global climate is changing, that isnt up for debate. It is dishonest to talk about daily events not changing to try to distort the issue that the longer term trend (as opposed to daily events) is one of large scale warming. The vast majority of scientists believe that this warming is at least in part caused by humans.