Posted on 09/10/2006 12:35:39 AM PDT by Einigkeit_Recht_Freiheit
"Reading comprehension my FRiend.' - how about a bit of historical comprehension?
The "minor" changes which have occurred resulted in Greenland going from a place where Vikings lived in a grazing based farm system to a frozen wasteland.
To assume that man can control climate reminds me of what Robert Ardrey called the "Illusion of Central Position". It is a reference to the infantile assumption that the world revolves around the infant.
Perhaps Ardrey was correct when he said that many of the Liberal delusions can be traced to arrested development and retention of the Illusion of Central Position into adulthood.
"Fifty million years ago there was no ice on the poles and crocodiles lived in Wyoming."
Fifty million years ago Wyoming would have been on the equator.
The liberal mindset at its finest.
"The fact that it is happening about 100 times faster than naturally and coincides with an exponential increase in CO2 in the atmosphere which just so happened to coincide with an exponential increase in human burning of fossil fuels is what leads me to believe that humans are affecting the change to some degree."
There's correlation, yes, but not necessarily causation.
For example, humans first started developing agriculture at the beginning of the Neolithic Revolution. At this time, humans started living in permanent settlements and finally gained control of their food supply, which led to a skyrocketing of the human population. Now, hominids have been using fire since Homo Habilis, but never in the numbers that our Neolithic ancestors did. The rate of usage of firewood jumped enormously at that time.
The time period in question also corresponded to a dramatic rise in Earth's temperatures and the receding of the glaciers. Could the increased prevalence of fire use by Man have dumped enough CO2 into the atmosphere to perhaps trigger the end of the last Ice Age?
Uh. No.
Because Earth's climate exhibits a bi-stable state, like the author describes (i.e. either very hot or very cold, never in between), then the transition from one state to the other HAS to be fast. It would be fast with or without our intervention, regardless of whether we try to help it along or try to hold it back.
We would do much, much better to allocate our hard-won intelligence to trying to figure out how to live in the soon-to-be warmer planet, rather than bickering about why it's happening or, even worse, exerting Herculean but ultimately futile efforts to stop it.
Humans thinking that they can adjust the gasses in the atmosphere by ANY MEANS is arrogant.. Just ONE volcano will change it again..
We don't know for certain. Right now, based on evidence we've accumulated, we believe that we're in a rare temperate plateau between normally hot and cold extremes, and that we're accelerating in a slide towards the hot state.
This is all based on large amounts of inference. It could be completely wrong, but right now it matches the accumulated evidence to the best of our ability to compare and analyze.
Of course, just because you know your world model may be faulty, doesn't mean you should live your life catering to the possible faultiness. In other words, just because you can hedge your bets on your belief doesn't mean you should hedge your actions. I recognize that there's an outside chance that I may be hallucinating the chair in front of my computer desk right now, but I'm still going to sit on it without even pausing. :)
Are you saying you don't understand a changing environment and evolutionary changes thereof?
Why would wood smoke be cleaner?
The city of Spokane, located in a broad valley and troubled occasionally by temperature inversions, often on such occasions bans heating with wood stoves, of which there are many in that city, or imposes regulations requiring what is called "clean" burning, which, as I understand the matter, is detectable by the visual density/color of the smoke emitted. This is done for air quality considerations (i.e., human health, livability), not because of the Global Warming Syndrome.
(I don't live in Spokane, but nearby in Idaho and every day get news from Spokane TV)
The result, in the case of large glaciers, can depend on whether the ice has accumulated on land or on(in) water.
F.Y.I.
Khabibullo Abdusamatov is chief of the Space Exploration Department of the Central Astronomical Observatory of the Russian Academy of Sciences, the supervisor of the Astrometria project of the Russian part of the International Space Station, Doctor of Physical Sciences.
Ping
05.10.2006 |
|
Solar Cycle 25 peaking around 2022 could be one of the weakest in centuries. May 10, 2006: The Sun's Great Conveyor Belt has slowed to a record-low crawl, according to research by NASA solar physicist David Hathaway. "It's off the bottom of the charts," he says. "This has important repercussions for future solar activity." The Great Conveyor Belt is a massive circulating current of fire (hot plasma) within the Sun. It has two branches, north and south, each taking about 40 years to perform one complete circuit. Researchers believe the turning of the belt controls the sunspot cycle, and that's why the slowdown is important. Right: The sun's "Great Conveyor Belt" in profile. "Normally, the conveyor belt moves about 1 meter per secondwalking pace," says Hathaway. "That's how it has been since the late 19th century." In recent years, however, the belt has decelerated to 0.75 m/s in the north and 0.35 m/s in the south. "We've never seen speeds so low." According to theory and observation, the speed of the belt foretells the intensity of sunspot activity ~20 years in the future. A slow belt means lower solar activity; a fast belt means stronger activity. The reasons for this are explained in the Science@NASA story Solar Storm Warning. "The slowdown we see now means that Solar Cycle 25, peaking around the year 2022, could be one of the weakest in centuries," says Hathaway. This is interesting news for astronauts. Solar Cycle 25 is when the Vision for Space Exploration should be in full flower, with men and women back on the Moon preparing to go to Mars. A weak solar cycle means they won't have to worry so much about solar flares and radiation storms. Above: In red, David Hathaway's predictions for the next two solar cycles and, in pink, Mausumi Dikpati's prediction for cycle 24. On the other hand, they will have to worry more about cosmic rays. Cosmic rays are high-energy particles from deep space; they penetrate metal, plastic, flesh and bone. Astronauts exposed to cosmic rays develop an increased risk of cancer, cataracts and other maladies. Ironically, solar explosions, which produce their own deadly radiation, sweep away the even deadlier cosmic rays. As flares subside, cosmic rays intensifyyin, yang. Hathaway's prediction should not be confused with another recent forecast: A team led by physicist Mausumi Dikpata of NCAR has predicted that Cycle 24, peaking in 2011 or 2012, will be intense. Hathaway agrees: "Cycle 24 will be strong. Cycle 25 will be weak. Both of these predictions are based on the observed behavior of the conveyor belt." How do you observe a belt that plunges 200,000 km below the surface of the sun? "We do it using sunspots," Hathaway explains. Sunspots are magnetic knots that bubble up from the base of the conveyor belt, eventually popping through the surface of the sun. Astronomers have long known that sunspots have a tendency to driftfrom mid solar latitudes toward the sun's equator. According to current thinking, this drift is caused by the motion of the conveyor belt. "By measuring the drift of sunspot groups," says Hathaway, "we indirectly measure the speed of the belt." Right: Hathaway monitors the speed of the Conveyor Belt by plotting the drift of sunspot groups from high to low solar latitude. This plot is called "the Butterfly Diagram." The tilt of the wings reveal the speed of the Conveyor Belt. [More] Using historical sunspot records, Hathaway has succeeded in clocking the conveyor belt as far back as 1890. The numbers are compelling: For more than a century, "the speed of the belt has been a good predictor of future solar activity." If the trend holds, Solar Cycle 25 in 2022 could be, like the belt itself, "off the bottom of the charts." |
Thanks for the "ping".
From the article, I gather that "The Economist" needs a new "science editor".
The following excerpts are especially goofy:
"...Then, 10,000 years ago, the wild fluctuations stopped, and the climate settled down to [a] balmy, stable state..."
[Tell that to the Greenland's Viking settlers!]
"...Climate change is complicated and uncertain...climate is a system of almost infinite complexity. Predicting how much hotter a particular level of carbon dioxide will make the world is impossible....the precise effect of greenhouse gases on temperature is unclear...The system could right itself or spin out of human control [HUMAN control? LOL!!]...This uncertainty is central to the difficulty of tackling the problem. Since the costs of climate change are unknown, the benefits of trying to do anything to prevent it are, by definition, unclear..."
NEVERTHELESS:
"The uncertainty surrounding climate change argues for action, not inaction."
[Yes, indeedy, let's do SOMETHING so we can all "feel" self-righteous!]
"...The Kyoto protocol...was not a complete failure...[because]...Kyoto... created a...market in carbon...which allows emissions to be cut...But it will not have much impact on emissions, and therefore on the speed of climate change..." [ and the difference between "not much impact" and "failure" is?? LOL!]
"Carbon sequestration, which offers the possibility of capturing carbon produced by dirty power stations and storing it underground [but NOT in the continuing low-cost re-forestation of places like Vermont], is a prime candidate."
IMHO, if there were more "truth" to the global warming story, there would be no need for such breathless "hyping" of the issue by profit-seeking entities like "The Economist".
Indeed, I pointed out some of those problems as well.
Ultimately, it seems like regardless of the certainty or lack thereof of human involvement we are going to get action on it.
Better to have a Republican do it to minimize the impact rather than a leftist who will maximize the power-grab.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.