In article ,
Larry Jaques wrote:

On Wed, 07 May 2008 00:38:17 -0400, with neither quill nor qualm,
Joseph Gwinn quickly quoth:

In article ,
"Ed Huntress" wrote:

[massive snip]

The science is saying there is man-made global warming and that it will
have
consequences, ranging from mild to wild. They're the ones worth paying
attention to, IMO.

I stopped following the GW debate some time ago, for a number of
reasons, aside from the fact that it has become hopelessly polarized,
and it would be a full-time job to follow the debate.

First, climate prediction is a *very* hard problem, and the current
models cannot predict the present without lots of hand "adjustments".
For the record, the mean temperature of the Earth is 14.5 degrees
centigrade, or 288 degrees Kelvin (the absolute temperature scale), so a
1.0 degree (C or K) change in temperature is one part in 288, or about
0.34%. By the Stefan Boltzmann Radiation Law, energy transfer by
radiation varies as the fourth power of the absolute temperature of the
bodies making the transfer.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stefan-Boltzmann_law It would take only a
~0.34/4= 0.085%, call it 0.1% change in solar output to achieve this.
It is claimed that solar output is more constant that 0.1%, but again we
are talking about very small changes. And then there is cloud feedback
and radiation seeding of cloud cover. And so on.

It takes a very good model indeed to reliably predict such small changes.

I'm happy that we are spending some billions per year on the research,
but don't expect a definitive answer for some decades.


I do believe that the globe is warming. What I don't yet buy is that
it's proven that humans are the main cause, and also that the warming is
going to be a problem versus merely a change. The Earth has been pretty
warm in the past, and proving that it is again warming neither proves
nor disproves any proposed cause.


Second, even if humans are the main cause, the technology to make a
meaningful reduction in global CO2 emissions simply does not exist.
(Except for nuclear energy, which isn't much help in most forms of
transportation, and has its own political baggage.) None of the
alternative energy sources will come to anything, as none can be scaled
up to the magnitude required to literally power civilization. Recent
experience with the rise in food prices, at least partly due to
diversion of about 25% of the corn crop into ethanol, is one example. A
good analytical tool is to estimate how much land is required for a
proposed energy source to provide the national requirement.

Cutting energy use in half, as has been suggested as the minimum
required to have any real effect, would require a sharp reduction in
national income, unless it was stretched out over many many decades,
slow enough that technology could adapt. Again, what's needed is at
least one major invention, something on the scale of the internal
combustion engine, something that cannot simply be whistled up at will.

Nor are the Chinese and Indians going to give up on becoming developed,
industrial nations. Currently, they are powered largely by coal.


Bottom line is that we will hear a lot about GW, but exactly nothing
effective will be done, for lack of any real solution. But a lot of
money will be wasted.

You got it in one, Joe. Kudos.

Thanks.

I didn't put Holman Jenkins up to it, I swear:

"Warming to McCain", HOLMAN W. JENKINS, JR.
Wall Street Journal, May 14, 2008; Page A19.

http://online.wsj.com/public/article_print/SB121072757568390373.html

Joe Gwinn