Posted on 12/28/2007 11:23:45 PM PST by rightinthemiddle
The government schools are doing a great job convincing millions of Americans that the "3/5 person nonsense" was an anti-black provision in the Constitution. I have heard it described as something that was put in just on account of the framers just had so much "hate" for blacks that they couldn't resist throwing in something just to insult them.
It had NOTHING to do with "representing blacks."
It was an ANTI-SLAVE STATE provision. The slave states wanted to count slaves as "persons" in order to increase their (the slave states') representation in Congress. Anti-slavery forces wanted to not count slaves at all, in order to decrease the slave states' representation in Congress. The "3/5 person" provision was a compromise.
It was NOT, repeat, NOT an anti-black provision. It was an ANTI-SLAVERY provision.
Did that teacher get his/her diploma from Parker Brothers?
My major conclusion was that warming is mostly natural, partly man-made. The directly man-made component is small since the added warming from man-made greenhouse gases is small and the rest of the warming from those added gases comes from water vapor feedback. That feedback was and is poorly modeled (the weather that controls the feedback is small scale and the models are too coarse to model that weather).
I have to consider the warming due to water vapor feedback caused by the increased radiative forcing of greenhouse gases as man-made, too.
A second conclusion is that part of the recent rise in CO2 is natural occurring as warming occurs.
If it was natural fluxes alone, then the Earth system would be a net sink. So as anthropogenically-forced warming is taking place, there may be both increases in the natural source flux and decreases in the natural sink flux. And that's another positive feedback in the warming direction. Very recent article (with meteorological aspects): Shifting heat layers above Arctic to blame for ice crisis (actually summarizes two papers; the second is about a reduction in the vegetative CO2 sink)
A third conclusion is that there are no global positive feedbacks to take us into "run-away" warming.
"Runaway" means Venus. That won't happen.
In contradiction to my second conclusion, the warmists point to isotope ratios.
Well, gee, I wonder who might have done that. That's not the only evidential data, though.
Keeling Curve Legacy (post 34)
But their isotope ratio analysis is not quantitative and only proves that some of the added CO2 is from fossil fuel. In contradiction to my third conclusion, the alarmists cherry-pick positive feedbacks such as melting glaciers and ice caps.
But the changes in earth's albedo (light reflected from ice versus other surfaces) is very minimally changed by ice changes. The biggest albedo factor by far is cloud cover which again is poorly modeled.
Not just albedo. Dark ocean waters absorb solar heat, while ice reflects it.
Other freepers (e.g. cogitator) have made opposing conclusions but have the same lack of quantitative analysis to justify any alarmist conclusions. Read his profile, it is good, but notice how the quantitative analysis fades into a couple of loose estimates of natural CO2 rise or nothing at all in section #5. His section #7 may seem to contradict my claim that weather models are necessary for climate prediction. While weather prediction is not needed, weather models are because the convection and precipitation that control water vapor (and cloud) feedbacks requires accurate modeling of small scale features. The statistics matter like he says, but the statistics must be calculated using accurate models. The only alternative is to use current statistics which is incorrect since a warmer, wetter world will create different weather statistics.
I do think we agree here. Better modeling of weather processes would/will improve climate models.
What is found is at no time in the last 10,000 years are the ^13C/^12C ratios in the atmosphere as low as they are today. Furthermore, the ^13C/^12C ratios begin to decline dramatically just as the CO[2] starts to increase -- around 1850 AD. This is exactly what we expect if the increased CO[2] is in fact due to fossil fuel burning.
It's a nonquantitative analysis like I said. Even if the isotope ratio started to decline "dramatically" in 1850, man-made fossil fuel CO2 didn't increase "dramatically" until about 1950. Other proxy studies show the isotope ratios starting their decline even earlier in the 1700's. So not only is that isotope ratio a nonquantitative statement that only suggests *some* of the new CO2 is from fossil fuels, it also suggests that the isotope ratio decline itself is partly natural. One possible explanation is the release of older trapped CO2 from various resevoirs.
That is albedo (unless I am misunderstanding something). Also the changes due to ocean ice coverage are miniscule compared to the changes in cloud cover and types.
As I keep repeating, I do not consider myself qualified to evaluate the subject, and suspect none of us here are so qualified.
Brown shoe anaysis ... if each x year span is warmer than the previous x year span, something is happening. If the deserts are expanding, the coasts shrinking or whatever, take appropriate action. If harvests are getting smaller due to droughts, ditto.
I find that unqualified positions taken by those who oppose evolution display such entrenched ignorance that I am extremely wary of doing the same myself in regard to climate. Knowing one’s limits is a good thing.
First, look at all changes, not just the ones the alarmists tell you to. Deserts are expanding and some are shrinking. Some harvests will be less and some growing seasons longer. Second look at full natural variability, for example proxies which show the similar warming and cooling as the 20th century. Tree rings for example. They typically show lots of 1930's warming and then 1980's and 90's. Tree rings can be cherry picked so be careful (e.g. trees from particular areas). The final step is to look realistically at the actions. What will socializing energy accomplish? (A: not much at great expense). What will government investment in alternative energy do? A: mostly distort the market. If it were truly necessary to lower CO2 or to cool the planet, what other steps could be taken? A: many, models show lots of possibilities, otherwise they wouldn't be able to predict warming.
I agree with almost all your points.
The one place I can see government investment is in R&D for alternative energy sources. I am very much in favor of energy independence and consider that to be a part of defense. I also recall, as mentioned previously, heavy, almost scattershot investment in science afer Sputnik. My impression is that that paid off.
“Can the socialist slide be stopped and if yes then how? What in your mind is the biggest problem that we, as a nation, face today?”
Just so you know, I’m not ignoring this post. You got me thinking and I’ve not formulated an answer yet.
I missed pinging you to post 110.
I didn’t hear it from a teacher. I’ve heard it spouted by young people still in school. And on TV, spouted by a few politicians—like Al Sharpton and Jesse Jackson, IIRC.
I finally have an answer to your question about the most significant problems facing th US.
I think there are two: our method of selecting presidential candidates and our current immigration policies.
I’m old enough to remember when our candidates weren’t out and out scary, on both sides. The caucus system seems to disproportionately reward the nutcases and their fans.
Some needed immigration reform occurred in the 60s, but it went too far in allowing unassimilatable lumps. And yes, border control is critical as well as the ability to become economically self sufficient.
A distant third would be getting the insurance industry out of the health care business. It adds an unnecessary surcharge and adds no quality.
Sorry this took so long, but I wanted to separate out the things which irritate me a lot from the ones I think have long term significance and won’t necessariy correct themselves.
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.