Posted on 02/03/2007 8:59:08 AM PST by FairOpinion
About 20,000 years ago — long before the first SUV — global sea levels were 400 feet lower than they are now. Sea levels were rising long before the Industrial Revolution and will likely continue to rise, just not at the cataclysmic rates predicted by computer models.
All these prophecies of doom are based on computer models that are based on agreed-upon assumptions and fed a relatively small portion of the immense number of variables that affect weather or climate. Not all these variables are known or fully understood, which helps explain why these models can't even predict the past.
When the Clinton administration, which never submitted Kyoto to the Senate for ratification, produced a voluminous climate report, it selected two climate models.
One, from the Canadian Climate Center, forecast dramatic temperature increases. The other, a British model, predicted dramatic increases in precipitation.
Climatologist Patrick Michaels examined these two models and discovered they could not reproduce recorded temperature trends regardless of the period selected. The Canadian model overestimated actual U.S. warming in the 20th century by 300%.
When you can't grasp the past, how can you predict the future?
Earth has repeatedly warmed and cooled over eons. It's been warmer than now and colder than now. There have been numerous ice ages followed by subsequent warming periods.
(Excerpt) Read more at investors.com ...
There have always been cycles of warming and cooling. The farthest I am willing to go is to say that it looks as if we're in a warming cycle.
The activity of the Sun has had a lot to do with previous warming cycles, and the Sun is very active now.
The polar ice caps are melting on Mars. Pluto is even seeing signs of warming.
And warming extends teh growing season and has other beneficial effects.
I suppose that that's what the environmentalist wacko crowd dislikes.
"I thought the Senate shot Kyoto down in flames..."
Good point. So I checked to see if IBD made a mistake and they are correct, Clinton didn't submit the actual Kyoto treaty for vote to the Senate. the confusion seems to arise from a non binding resolution vote.
http://www.nationalcenter.org/KyotoSenate.html
Byrd-Hagel Resolution
105th Senate
Sponsored by Senator Robert Byrd (D-WV) and Senator Chuck Hagel (R-NE)
Expressing the sense of the Senate regarding the conditions for the United States becoming a signatory to any international agreement on greenhouse gas emissions under the United Nations... (Passed by the Senate 95-0)
"I thought the Senate shot Kyoto down in flames..."
Good point. So I checked to see if IBD made a mistake and they are correct, Clinton didn't submit the actual Kyoto treaty for vote to the Senate. the confusion seems to arise from a non binding resolution vote.
http://www.nationalcenter.org/KyotoSenate.html
Byrd-Hagel Resolution
105th Senate
Sponsored by Senator Robert Byrd (D-WV) and Senator Chuck Hagel (R-NE)
Expressing the sense of the Senate regarding the conditions for the United States becoming a signatory to any international agreement on greenhouse gas emissions under the United Nations... (Passed by the Senate 95-0)
A republican Senate. What do you think Pelosi would do now?
Chicago was under 2000 - 3000 feet of ice as well as a good chunk of Europe...
I'd like to see some computer models based on the predicted effects of so-called "global warming."
I will predict that even in the most apocalyptic scenario, with oceans rising remarkably, more land will be made available for food growing than will be lost.
If the increased precipitation predicted turned into a long term trend, the desert areas of Earth might once again turn green and be fertile.
The desert areas of Earth are the equivalent of another continent, and then there's my favorite subject, a real additional continent called Antarctica. Without ice, it would be a new Greenland. A huge new Greenland.
Yes... very good perspective.
As Michael Crichton (sp?) has noted, the "eco-terrorists" began their doom and gloom around the time the Soviet Union fell. We needed a new boogyman and the "global warming" crowd filled the vaccuum.
As the op-ed notes: what a waste of resources it would be to address this non-problem when there are some real problems that could be addressed (and millions saved) with a fraction of the proposed $. Shaking my head.
Lets take a container of frozen orange juice, open the container and put it in a pitcher add the required amount of water (don't let anyone see you do this) when the OJ is melted attempt to pour it back in the original container, Wallah you may now make a theory that as it melts it increase in volume
Who can afford a container of orange juice? The oranges froze due to, er, not enough warming.
ping
To quote one of my mentors, the late Dr. Leonard Read, founder of the Foundation for Economic Education (in the town where I went to high school), "I have learned never to complain about the weather. It is my way of beind thankful that God, and not the government, controls it."
"We frankly don't see the apocalyptic nature of warmer winters, longer growing seasons or abundant vegetation and crops from increased precipitation and higher CO2 levels"
Shows what you know! Don't you see that that would be a scenario for more people in charge of their own lives. The mint cherries can't have that.
"About 20,000 years ago — long before the first SUV — global sea levels were 400 feet lower than they are now"
Boy, Algore's older than I thought!!!
I read in the "Smithosian" many years ago, that these models required as many as 1000 assumptions (each with its own potential for bias and error) to be entered. The author's conclusion was that the number of assumptions with there associated error rate, completely overwhelmed the program producing totally unreliable results.
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.