Posted on 02/14/2008 1:56:26 PM PST by chessplayer
As Hong Kong shivers through its second-longest cold spell since 1885, scientists point to global warming to explain the abnormal cold weather phenomenon worldwide.
"We are seeing extremely unusual weather across the world," said polar researcher Rebecca Lee Lok-sze.
(Excerpt) Read more at thestandard.com.hk ...
It’s hard to argue with your post. My views are a little different, but what you say seems reasonable. I do think that you “put the rabbit in the hat” so to speak when you call the changes Draconian. A carbon tax or an across the board cap and trade would fit your description, but some of the renewable opportunities make sense, and would reduce pollution and our dependence on Gulf Oil. (I know we get 90% from other locations now—but that will not be the case in a decade). In making these decisions, I believe the possibility of Climate Change bears some consideration.
I saw two reports come out the same day. One said warmer oceans would actually reduce the number of hurricanes due to some sort of windsheer. The other said the opposite. I think its fair to say we don’t know for sure. What we do know is that almost every major property insurer has substantially and disproportionately increased rates in or abandoned coastal areas. If you believe hurricanes will be down, invest in one of the few companies still insuring those properties. You’ll make a fortune.
Well, since we came out of the Little Ice Age just before the Civil War one would expect that our temperatures would increase.
“We are seeing extremely unusual weather across the world,” said polar researcher Rebecca Lee Lok-sze.
ITS CALLED WINTER DUMBASS !
Maybe that’s it. Maybe its solar flaring. Maybe its some unknown rotational issue. Maybe its adding 40% of heat trapping CO2 into the atmosphere. I think its worth studying all possibilities with an open mind.
Have you looked at my tongue-in-cheek (I HOPE) global cooling thread?
The current (in)activity of the sun is enough to explain this cold snap.
Temps rose 1/2 of one degree between 1910 and 1935, dropped from 1935 to 1972 by 1/2 of one degree (declared a “0.0 point” by the AGW extremists) and then rose again by/2 of one degree between 1972 and 1998.
Since 1998, they’ve been stable - global warming has NOT occurred since Bush took office. Global temps HAVE BEEN higher than the artificial “0.0” point of 1972, but they have NOT increased since 1998.
Lord! They must think people are STUPID!
You just got his 63mph fastball...
We all know we don’t know half what we think we know - at least, that’s what I know.
Yes, we are to all just SHUT OUR MOUTHS and accept what the scientists, who have NO political or moral agenda, have to say.
They are the educated class, you see. We are just ignorant rubes. < /liberal>
Ore else you could replace “think people are” with “be” ... works either way. –.^
For a better explanation look here: http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1969680/posts
Here is an article which debunks your 98% argument. Maybe its right, maybe its wrong. But I like the fact that it does not throw out some superficial made up statistic. The idea that an issue this complicated can be so simply resolved is sophomoric and egotistical. Nobody really knows water vapor’s precise effect—thus the author’s itntellectual honesty. Your desire for a precise measurement demonstrates that you can’t grasp the concept that we just don’t know yet. That’s really kind of sad. I don’t think you would be a good scientist.
http://web.archive.org/web/20070624015308/http://www.realclimate.org/index.php?p=142
Like monsoon rains being blamed on a draught. Or, for that matter, the internet being credited to a brainless wonder like Al Gore. What would we do without him? I guess we would ignorantly go about thinking we were cold and wet, when, in actuality, we were warm and dry.
“It is far better to foresee even without certainty than not to foresee at all.”
Poincare
You're right there. The only thing we know for certain is that we don't know for certain. On "nominal" runs the GCMs often come out 300% different or more. As we say at work (I design/write/run computer simulations - of a different sort) that much variation is a pretty good indication you don't know what you're doing.
To be useful, your model has to be, has to be repeatable, and its actions have to be defensible - eg. why this instead of that? As I understand it, the GCMs don't have that. They cannot say for certain that if X happens, Y results. It is if X, then maybe Y. But when they monte-carlo it, the outputs are all over the map...
Another (serious) strike against the GCMs is that the models are extremely sensitive to input parameters. Slight variations in inputs produce wild swings in output. This is not necessarily a fault of the model(s) - it may be an artifact of the system they are trying to model. Either way, it means that trying to make meaningful predictions based on the model's output is worthless, hopeless, and probably counter-productive.
From a renowned global warming skeptic:
Now for the science. There are three questions and they need to be separated. The first is whether there is evidence of global warming over the last 100 years. The answer is ‘yes’. Measurements of global surface air temperatures since the 1880s reveal an increase of about 1.0 degree C.
http://www.onlineopinion.com.au/view.asp?article=1230
Good thing I wasn’t throwing hard.
Maybe maybe not? That's a pretty strong debunking. /s
Saying a statistic is made up doesn't make it so.
Your desire for a precise measurement demonstrates that you can’t grasp the concept that we just don’t know yet.
Which can be turned right back around at your assertion that the 98% water vapor figure is wrong. You want to say it is certain there is a problem but you admit "we just don't know yet" whether water vapor is 98%, 66% or 33% of all GHGs. By your reckoning there shouldn't be any certainty that any real measurements of global temperature. Or the actual composition of the atmosphere. Given that level of illogic I don't think you're in a position to know who could be a good scientist or a good burger flipper.
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.