In case anyone is wondering how I became convinced that my questioning of the accuracy of the climate models was wrong, I will try to explain.
When I jumped into the discussion, my belief was that the models were used to predict what the climate would do. But I have realized that isn't what the models are used for. Instead, what the models actually do is provide highly plausible “what if” projections of future climate that correspond to certain emissions scenarios.
This particular post was instrumental in persuading me that my critisisms of the models were not only unfounded, but were based on a false premise from the start.
That is a good link, and not one I'd seen before. Thank you for sharing it. I applaud the fact that you researched this also on your own, as opposed to just listening to the posts being shared by me and others in this thread.
From your link:
We will adapt to climate change. The question is whether it will be planned or not? How disruptive and how much loss of life will there be because we did not adequately plan for the climate changes that are already occurring?
I particularly like this study published in Proceedings of The Royal Society in June 2007 which speaks specifically against the root of the claims being used by the GGW Swindle (emphasis mine):
There are many interesting palaeoclimate studies that suggest that solar variability had an influence on pre-industrial climate. There are also some detection-attribution studies using global climate models that suggest there was a detectable influence of solar variability in the first half of the twentieth century and that the solar radiative forcing variations were amplified by some mechanism that is, as yet, unknown. However, these findings are not relevant to any debates about modern climate change. Our results show that the observed rapid rise in global mean temperatures seen after 1985 cannot be ascribed to solar variability, whichever of the mechanisms is invoked and no matter how much the solar variation is amplified.
Check your sources, kids. Not all of them are valid.
I just needed a place to store this additional bit of data against the swindle swindle, so am putting it here.
As I assume your air is running right now... you could (if you were so inclined) go outside and feel the air coming off the AC unit. It's hot yes? The cold air inside exactly cancels the hot air outside give or take the heat the two fans and the compressor are making. So this is not a factor and a quick wikipedia or google search of air conditioning would verify this.
~modest
i have been thinking a long time on how it would be best to answer this,
you're right the two would cancel each other out, but only if they are both used in the equation.
__________________ smarter than your average scientist
Unfortunately, if the models are truly not accurate, then it appears very much that their inaccuracy causes them to under-represent what is actually happening. More below.
Recent Climate Observations Compared to Projections
"We present recent observed climate trends for carbon dioxide concentration, global mean air temperature, and global sea level, and we compare these trends to previous model projections as summarized in the 2001 assessment report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC). The IPCC scenarios and projections start in the year 1990, which is also the base year of the Kyoto protocol, in which almost all industrialized nations accepted a binding commitment to reduce their greenhouse gas emissions. The data available for the period since 1990 raise concerns that the climate system, in particular sea level, may be responding more quickly to climate change than our current generation of models indicates. "
So let's assume the human factor is indeed contributing to or is the major cause of global warming, what is the remedy?
1. Cut down on emissions by burning less fossil fuels? What would this do to the world economy? How do we force India and China ( non-signers of the Kyoto Treaty ) to cut back? They will quickly surpass the US in carbon emissions.
2. Must America become a totally agrarian nation? Only farms, no factories?
Don't forget, the rest of the world wants it's day in the sun.
3. America goes totally green, uses wind, solar, nuclear while the rest of the world uses up the remaining fossil fuel.
We don't control the world and in the next 25 years we will probably lose whatever influence we now possess.
The best solution would be for the world to reduce it's population. There are now 6 billion people in the world, all using oxygen, producing CO2, human waste, plastics, water, et cetera.
World population
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
Map of countries by population—China and India, the only two countries to have a population greater than 1 billion, together possess more than a third of the world's population. (See List of countries by population.)
Population by continent as a percentage of world population (1750–2005)The world population is the total number of living humans on Earth at a given time. As of July 2008, the world's population is estimated to be just over 6.684 billion. In line with population projections, this figure continues to grow at rates that were unprecedented before the 20th century, although the rate of increase has almost halved since its peak of 2.2 percent per year, which was reached in 1963. The world's population, on its current growth trajectory, is expected to reach nearly 9 billion by the year 2042.[1][2]
What happpens as we approach 2050? This is the real underlying problem in global warming/ global destruction.
So let's assume the human factor is indeed contributing to or is the major cause of global warming, what is the remedy?
1. Cut down on emissions by burning less fossil fuels? What would this do to the world economy? How do we force India and China ( non-signers of the Kyoto Treaty ) to cut back? They will quickly surpass the US in carbon emissions.
It would do very little damage to the world economy. As a matter of fact, it may very well help it grow. A number of areas in Texas are undergoing a virtual renaisance due to the influx of taxes and lease payments due to wind generators.
I still don't get when 'more efficient' meant 'damage to economy'. Perhaps damage to the pocketbooks of energy companies that don't expand into renewables??
Quote:
Originally Posted by questor
2. Must America become a totally agrarian nation? Only farms, no factories?
No, no need to do that. As a matter of fact, it would be better if we didn't (enviornmentally that is).
Quote:
Originally Posted by questor
3. America goes totally green, uses wind, solar, nuclear while the rest of the world uses up the remaining fossil fuel.
It isn't the use of fossil fuels, it is the RATE of that use.
Even IF nobody else cut their fossil fuel use we would slow the increase of CO2 in the air, cut our pollution dramatically and as a society be much healthier. The slower the damage to the climate, the better we can adapt to it.
Quote:
Originally Posted by questor
The best solution would be for the world to reduce it's population. There are now 6 billion people in the world, all using oxygen, producing CO2, human waste, plastics, water, et cetera.
Agreed, this would be a great solution. How do you propose doing it?
As I see it, increasing our efficiency and moving to new sources of power is far easier than 'reducing our population'. If you have a suggestion as to how to do this, that is easier than being more efficient, I would be happy to hear it.
__________________ "Treat the earth well: it was not given to you by your parents; it was loaned to you by your children. We do not inherit the earth from our ancestors, we borrow it from our children.
(Ancient Indian Proverb)"
1874 engraving of Mount Hood and the Columbia River by R. Henshel Wood
Agreed, this would be a great solution. How do you propose doing it?
As I see it, increasing our efficiency and moving to new sources of power is far easier than 'reducing our population'. If you have a suggestion as to how to do this, that is easier than being more efficient, I would be happy to hear it.
How about promoting the responsible use of various birth control methods worldwide that includes the benefits of a personal philosophy of abstinence.
Unfortunately, promoting birth control is counter to many dogmatic religious ideologies, such as among Catholics and Evangelicals.
__________________ When what you believe is refuted by evidence, you are faced with a choice.
How about promoting the responsible use of various birth control methods worldwide that includes the benefits of a personal philosophy of abstinence.
Unfortunately, promoting birth control is counter to many dogmatic religious ideologies, such as among Catholics and Evangelicals.
Good points on both parts.
So Questor, do you believe we could easier change the dogma of the Catholic and other religions view on birth control, or work towards better efficiency?
Personally, I think greater efficiency will be easier, and will also come around much faster. I don't believe we could cut down our population as quickly as we could improve efficiency.
Your thoughts?
__________________ "Treat the earth well: it was not given to you by your parents; it was loaned to you by your children. We do not inherit the earth from our ancestors, we borrow it from our children.
(Ancient Indian Proverb)"
1874 engraving of Mount Hood and the Columbia River by R. Henshel Wood
