Michael A. Terrell wrote:
Whatever happened to the war on stupidity? They seem to be gaining
in numbers, every day.
From what I see in high school I think the war is on inteligence by
the educators and unfortunately they are winning that one. :-(
...lew...

John Husvar wrote:

Tornado Alley is settled as because it is good farm country for the most
part. The chance of a specific farm being hit is miniscule, which might
not be very comforting if your farmstead is the lucky winner. I suppose
that's why those who live there have storm shelters.

Well at least they could build "under ground" houses.
...lew...

"Ed Huntress" wrote:


"Wes" wrote in message
...
"Ed Huntress" wrote:

Then why would you believe the warming skeptics, Wes? They're
hypothesizing
one set of outcomes, and the proponents are hypothesizing another. Neither
one has stopped the earth to set up a controlled experiment.

It seems to me that you've thrown your hat in with some "scientists" who
have no experimental data to support their conclusions.


Neither one can prove their point.

I don't think you've accurately identified the two sides. The scientists say
that there is global warming caused by human activity, and they have
overwhelming evidence to back it up. They hypothesize what result may come
from that, and there is a wide range of predictions.

The deniers say none of it is true. They have nothing substantial to back up
their claims, except selective bits and pieces of data from which they've
concocted some stories.

Or is it not the scientists versus the deniers that you're talking about?
Which two "sides" do you see?


Over time, it seems like we are warming based on receding glaciers.

Now, let us consider that man is causing an increase in the trend. The
environmental regulator types want to put all sorts of caps on CO2 emissions
and basically destroy the economy of the western world.

The emerging world, including China and India, are not going to honor caps
on CO2. You likely have better numbers but I have a feeling that relative
to GNP, the emerging world pollutes much more than the US, Canada, and EU.


The skeptics seem to be able to find
weather monitoring stations that are compromised.

Ho-ho. Yes, seek, and ye shall find. Almost anything. d8-)

Well, if you are collecting data and the data collection point has issues,
isn't it valid to point that out?

If a data collection point is in an area where there is an inversion zone
that locks a high density populations emissions in place how should we
weight their data points? I do believe in local global warming caused by
man.


Some degree of warming is
natural. I live where there used to be glaciers. A bit further north
than
the following link.

Long term, I bet the weather is warming.
http://igs.indiana.edu/geology/ancie...thaw/index.cfm

Well, then, with whom are you disagreeing? It appears now that it's not the
scientists.

BTW, that link has virtually nothing to do with any of this discussion. The
issue is not the Hypsithermal or its effects on evaporation of Lake
Michigan. g

Glaciers receding in near history isn't relevant to this? I think the last
20,000 years or so is relevant to any discussion of climate.


Now, is it us? Or is it something bigger than our affects on the
environment? How about some damn big rock hit us from space in the past
and
we are recovering from it? Volcanic action?

How about it? Do you have some reason to believe it? Likewise, do you have
some reason to disbelieve nearly all of the legitimate climatologists in the
world about the subject of climate? I sure don't. I don't know how you
possibly would.

Legitimate by what standard? I'd like to know for every researcher where
the funding source is coming from. Who controls the money.

It isn't just energy companies that fund research in global warming. Other
organizations with their interests fund research. To get money, one has to
propose a line of research to a funding body. How that is presented likely
has a big impact on funding. I'd love to read some funding proposals to see
what the sales pitch is. Call me a skeptic but from watching the legal
system, I can say with some certainty, you can buy any opinion you desire.



I've heard a few say no matter what we do, the temperature is going to
rise.

Yeah, many of the real climatologists say that, too. They say it's too late
to stop it completely. Some say it's too late to even change it very much.

Well should we spend money on sequestering or start building dikes? Seems
the environmental crowd wants sequestering, I say build dikes since we don't
rule the world as far as emissions.

I sat in my car dumbfounded one night, I was listening to NPR and they had a
global warming believer talking about how we might have to bite the bullet
and build nuclear plants.

I thought, cool, as long as you are thinking this way to get rid of coal,
I'll pretend to agree with you. So far it hasn't gone anywhere.



Let us say the ones that say no matter what we do the temperature is going
to rise are right. Should we now stop letting anyone build on ocean
making
waterfront property basically worthless?

First of all, you've hit one of my hot buttons, because my father and mother
lived on a barrier island before his death and it was a constant source of
friction between us. His house was insured in a pool that drove *my*
insurance rates up, and I was ****ed. g

Well we are simpatico on that one. It seems like some of our government
backed insurance programs are encouraging expensive to repair/replace
development in risky areas.

I live in a place where other than snow, not much of anything exciting
happens. I don't think I should be in a risk pool with people that are 5%
certain to lose their homes. Just a number I picked out of my head.

As for which ones are right about whether coming temperatures are going to
rise to the same degree no matter what we do, I don't know which ones are
right. To me, the question is overridden by the question about whether we
*can* change rates of greenhouse emmissions in the first place. That's an
economic question, and I suspect not, so it's not an issue I bother with.

Why do you care if we can if it isn't certain it would help?


There are other reasons not to allow homes to be built on risky oceanfront
property. I'd be for it if they were insured strictly in their own pool, and
if all emergency services that serve them apply only to them and are funded
strictly by their own taxes. I'm not in favor of supporting the Coast Guard
and state marine police to rescue fools who live on barrier islands in
hurricane territory. IMO, the property is worthless to begin with. It only
has value because there are fools among us who want to build on it.

Agree.



I mean, if it is coming, might as well set up no build zones so we won't
have to deal with flood insurance and such. Too bad your property is
suddenly worthless. I guess we can squeeze that one in by saying soon
your
property is going to be navigable waters. Sorta how wet lands (mud
puddles)
got squeezed in.

My property is 117 feet above sea level, even though it's only six miles
from Raritan Bay, so I only joke about having a dock in my backyard. I would
not build or buy on a flood plain. That's for people who have been
shortchanged in the common-sense department, IMO.

I'm ~400 feet above Lake Michigan. Nice place other than cold. There was a
small tornado a few miles away though last year that took out a few
buildings. Fairly rare near the 45th longitude.

Btw, I looked at a graph of the last 2 1/2 years of my local temperature
readings from my weather station. The highs, don't look higher but the lows
are getting lower. May not mean a lot but my local experience is that
winters have been getting worse for me.

Wes

"Wes" wrote in message
...

snip

Over time, it seems like we are warming based on receding glaciers.

Now, let us consider that man is causing an increase in the trend. The
environmental regulator types want to put all sorts of caps on CO2
emissions
and basically destroy the economy of the western world.

There are a lot of assumptions in there, Wes, but there's no point in
visiting them now.


The emerging world, including China and India, are not going to honor caps
on CO2. You likely have better numbers but I have a feeling that relative
to GNP, the emerging world pollutes much more than the US, Canada, and EU.

It won't be long before they pass us. A few years ago the prediction was
2020. More recently it's been 2012.



The skeptics seem to be able to find
weather monitoring stations that are compromised.

Ho-ho. Yes, seek, and ye shall find. Almost anything. d8-)

Well, if you are collecting data and the data collection point has issues,
isn't it valid to point that out?

It would be if they really identified consequential problems with the data.
From the debate I've seen, it doesn't appear they have. The skeptics are
just looking for something to hang their hats on, and they'll blow anything
up out of proportion if it serves their purpose.


If a data collection point is in an area where there is an inversion zone
that locks a high density populations emissions in place how should we
weight their data points? I do believe in local global warming caused by
man.

I don't think that belief is the issue -- or maybe it is. Belief seems to
trump the data with many people on this issue.



Some degree of warming is
natural. I live where there used to be glaciers. A bit further north
than
the following link.

Long term, I bet the weather is warming.
http://igs.indiana.edu/geology/ancie...thaw/index.cfm

Well, then, with whom are you disagreeing? It appears now that it's not
the
scientists.

BTW, that link has virtually nothing to do with any of this discussion.
The
issue is not the Hypsithermal or its effects on evaporation of Lake
Michigan. g

Glaciers receding in near history isn't relevant to this? I think the
last
20,000 years or so is relevant to any discussion of climate.

Good grief. The skeptics tend to claim cycles in the range of a few hundred
years. I haven't heard any of them reach back for a 20,000-year sequence of
events to "prove" events on a time scale of decades, which is what the
global warming argument is all about.



Now, is it us? Or is it something bigger than our affects on the
environment? How about some damn big rock hit us from space in the past
and
we are recovering from it? Volcanic action?

How about it? Do you have some reason to believe it? Likewise, do you have
some reason to disbelieve nearly all of the legitimate climatologists in
the
world about the subject of climate? I sure don't. I don't know how you
possibly would.

Legitimate by what standard? I'd like to know for every researcher where
the funding source is coming from. Who controls the money.

Well, then, you can discount most of the skeptics. As Larry and I were
discussing, the noisiest among them are financed by the oil industry and
right-wing business advocates, like the tobacco industry and Richard Scaife.


It isn't just energy companies that fund research in global warming.
Other
organizations with their interests fund research. To get money, one has
to
propose a line of research to a funding body. How that is presented
likely
has a big impact on funding. I'd love to read some funding proposals to
see
what the sales pitch is. Call me a skeptic but from watching the legal
system, I can say with some certainty, you can buy any opinion you desire.

You'd have more credibility on this if you actually *did* look into some of
them, rather than just guessing and accusing. It's hard work, I know. It's
what I've done for a living for much of my working life. But that's what you
have to do if you want to rise above the level of prejudice and grumbling.
That's most of what's going on here, IMO.




I've heard a few say no matter what we do, the temperature is going to
rise.

Yeah, many of the real climatologists say that, too. They say it's too
late
to stop it completely. Some say it's too late to even change it very much.

Well should we spend money on sequestering or start building dikes? Seems
the environmental crowd wants sequestering, I say build dikes since we
don't
rule the world as far as emissions.

I don't know what the solutions might be, Wes. That wasn't the subject, or I
wouldn't have said anything about it.


I sat in my car dumbfounded one night, I was listening to NPR and they had
a
global warming believer talking about how we might have to bite the bullet
and build nuclear plants.

I thought, cool, as long as you are thinking this way to get rid of coal,
I'll pretend to agree with you. So far it hasn't gone anywhere.

So, what do you think is going to happen? The "global warming believer" is
going to snap his fingers and suddenly we have nuclear plants?

He is unlikely to have anything to do with it. First, you have to change
public opinion. After decades of fear created about anything nuclear,
engendered by the Cold War, that won't be easy to reverse.




Let us say the ones that say no matter what we do the temperature is
going
to rise are right. Should we now stop letting anyone build on ocean
making
waterfront property basically worthless?

First of all, you've hit one of my hot buttons, because my father and
mother
lived on a barrier island before his death and it was a constant source of
friction between us. His house was insured in a pool that drove *my*
insurance rates up, and I was ****ed. g

Well we are simpatico on that one. It seems like some of our government
backed insurance programs are encouraging expensive to repair/replace
development in risky areas.

I live in a place where other than snow, not much of anything exciting
happens. I don't think I should be in a risk pool with people that are 5%
certain to lose their homes. Just a number I picked out of my head.

You may or may not be. I happened to know about my father's situation
because it's been a hot issue from time to time in NJ and along the
mid-Atlantic coast, and I knew at the time that he and I were in the same
pool, with Allstate. I don't know how it works now.


As for which ones are right about whether coming temperatures are going to
rise to the same degree no matter what we do, I don't know which ones are
right. To me, the question is overridden by the question about whether we
*can* change rates of greenhouse emmissions in the first place. That's an
economic question, and I suspect not, so it's not an issue I bother with.

Why do you care if we can if it isn't certain it would help?

As I said, it makes the question of which ones are right, moot, IMO. As for
why one should care, it's like the issue of risk in a financial investment:
How much interest (or effort) should you put into it, given the risks of
occurrence? If the chance an undesirable event will occur is low but the
consequences of the event are very high, then you have a risk you'd better
pay attention to. If you can't do anything about it, then the risk becomes a
moot point. You still have the risk. You'll just have to live with it.

--
Ed Huntress

In article ,
Larry Jaques wrote:

--
I am Dyslexic of Borg. Prepare to have your arse laminated.
--Troy P, usenet


No, no, no!

It's: "I am Dyslexia of The Borg. Insistence is rutile. Your ass will be
laminated."

Used that one for a .sig years ago for a while. I wonder how many other
folks have had the same thought.

On Sat, 10 May 2008 14:11:28 -0400, with neither quill nor qualm, John
Husvar quickly quoth:

In article ,
Larry Jaques wrote:

--
I am Dyslexic of Borg. Prepare to have your arse laminated.
--Troy P, usenet


No, no, no!

It's: "I am Dyslexia of The Borg. Insistence is rutile. Your ass will be
laminated."

Used that one for a .sig years ago for a while. I wonder how many other
folks have had the same thought.

Hey, I's jest quotin' whut I sees. IAC, Troy had a similar thought.

--
Difficulties are meant to rouse, not discourage.
The human spirit is to grow strong by conflict.
-- William Ellery Channing

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