Cooling will Mask the earth's warming ???

[Wags]

oops

[Wags]

Dakota wrote:
I have upped my wood burning to two cords this season. Stop me.

Thanks OK with me, I'm sure your stove is EPA certified and you're burning deadfall then replanting.

[michaelb]

I tend to avoid believing in anything that seems like a belief system (ok, except UFOs, Bigfoot, and the Loch Ness Monster), so I have to admit that I generally don't "believe" in global warming. I don't spend much time trying to follow or understand the science either, and generally support most of the environmentally based recommendations that flow from a belief in anthropomorphic GW. However, and off the top of my head:

Global temps peaked in 1998. They have plateaued since then (some people think they have gone down since then, but the trend may not be clear either way, except we can clearly say they not gone up).

There was snow in South Africa this summer, and 2008 will be cooler with some places setting records for coldness. Arctic warming is possibly explained by other factors primarily, like pacific oscillations.

Solar activity is at an all time low. Global temps clearly correlate with solar activity, and historically that may be the leading cause of global fluctuation in temperature. The current solar low would predict a period of cooling over the next decade or so, which could be offset by GW more or less.

Al Gore's movie was released after 2000, but most of his data in the movie stopped as of 1998. I haven't seen the movie in years, but he generally started his data for his trend lines in 1850. 1850 was the end of a period of profound global cooling as a result of solar activity, so all models would have predicted significant warming after that period as a result of solar activity.

I have yet to see a credible explanation of what has happened to CO2 emissions and how that has impacted temps. My memory is that current science can only explain about a 1/3 of C02, and that the environment, primarily the seas but also trees and plants, have been acting as a carbon sink absorbing everything else (my understanding is that there is fear this will stop or change in the near future). I don't know of credible models predicting or explaining how this carbon sink works or what its limits may be.

CO2 is also a fairly minor greenhouse gas. The increase in CO2 and its impact on global temperatures is still within the margin of error of our ability to measure global temperatures. Water vapor constitutes something like 98% of greenhouse gas in the atmosphere (water is ignored by GW proponents, since it is believed to be in an endless feedback loop).

I am not saying that human activity hasn't caused GW. It probably has, and it probably will cause more. But the issue and the science has been at this point hopeless politicized, such that we can't have meaningful debate about the major unresolved issues at play. I don't see this changing anytime soon, so it will likely take years more of inconclusive data before we get back to trying to understand what is really going on.

[mattkime]

>>I don't spend much time trying to follow or understand the science either...such that we can't have meaningful debate.

Then how do you justify your own opinion aside from a funny feeling in your gut?

As far as meaningful debate is concerned, the truth is out there. If you expect to become informed through TV news then of course there isn't meaningful debate.

the only claim the anti-global warming crowd has against science and academia boils down to name calling.

[michaelb]

mattkime wrote:
>>I don't spend much time trying to follow or understand the science either...such that we can't have meaningful debate.

Then how do you justify your own opinion aside from a funny feeling in your gut?

As far as meaningful debate is concerned, the truth is out there. If you expect to become informed through TV news then of course there isn't meaningful debate.

the only claim the anti-global warming crowd has against science and academia boils down to name calling.

I base my lack of an opinion on the science and articles that I have read over the years. Whatever else we can say about the science, there clearly is not a consensus, there clearly is not a unified theory, and there clearly are major, significant unanswered questions. The scientific debate on this subject has been contaminated by politics. At some point, that will turn around and we get back to the science again.

[Mac1337]

mattkime wrote:
>>I don't spend much time trying to follow or understand the science either...such that we can't have meaningful debate.

Then how do you justify your own opinion aside from a funny feeling in your gut?

As far as meaningful debate is concerned, the truth is out there. If you expect to become informed through TV news then of course there isn't meaningful debate.

the only claim the anti-global warming crowd has against science and academia boils down to name calling.

My question is how is YOUR lifestyle different from me? We both drive, heat our house, fly and use electricity. Until you show me that you live in a 1000 sq ft. apartment, use 200KWH of electricity every month, use 1 tank of gas a month, don't fly around in jets etc. etc, you are simply another academician that is lecturing the rest of the people how to live. Just today Obama hedged on agreeing to the latest UN climate talk demands on the grounds of recession. Beginning to like the man more everyday.

[mattkime]

>>Whatever else we can say about the science, there clearly is not a consensus

No, there is a very wide consensus. The lack of consensus comes largely from unscience and industry.

>>My question is how is YOUR lifestyle different from me? We both drive,

Nope, I bike. Just looked at my electricity bill and I use 100-125KWH/month and its 100% wind power. but i don't bring this up because there's no point except to show that i'm living it. i know not everyone can.

---

My argument is simple - there ARE clean ways of producing power. No, they're not perfect but thats an absurd standard to begin with.

[Mac1337]

mattkime wrote:
>>Whatever else we can say about the science, there clearly is not a consensus

No, there is a very wide consensus. The lack of consensus comes largely from unscience and industry.

>>My question is how is YOUR lifestyle different from me? We both drive,

Nope, I bike. Just looked at my electricity bill and I use 100-125KWH/month and its 100% wind power. but i don't bring this up because there's no point except to show that i'm living it. i know not everyone can.

---

My argument is simple - there ARE clean ways of producing power. No, they're not perfect but thats an absurd standard to begin with.

So your world view is basically a massive deindustrialization of the country. Your "model" lifestyle as described did exist in the middle ages.There was a reason the world industrialized. It was a hard life. I am sorry, we ain't going back.

ps

Wind power or not what kind of place do you live in that gets by with 100 KWh a month?

[mattkime]

>>So your world view is basically a massive deindustrialization of the country.

why is this thread about accusing me of saying things i didn't say? i'm only arguing for the feasibility of green power.

anyway, on to trading insults....

>>So your world view is basically a massive deindustrialization of the country.

Uh, no? Unless by "deindustrialization" you mean "become less car dependent"

>>It was a hard life. I am sorry, we ain't going back.

I'm in great shape and i really enjoy my commute. It would be awful if everyone did it, wouldn't it?

>>what kind of place

an apt in brooklyn. no, its probably not big enough for you. but i did grow up in wisconsin so i know what the rest of the country is like.

[michaelb]

mattkime wrote:
>>Whatever else we can say about the science, there clearly is not a consensus
No, there is a very wide consensus. The lack of consensus comes largely from unscience and industry.

I will try again, although I am sure this is hopeless. Maybe you don't understand what consensus means: consensus means everyone agrees. So your statement itself is nonsensical. There clearly are scientists that are skeptical or questioning; given the political environment and the intense pressure over this issue, many skeptics are likely remaining silent. Here is an example of an article predicting an ice age. Note that this person is a scientist and a former NASA astronaut. He misstates some of the facts and this is an opinion piece, not an academic article, and maybe he is a wingnut in the end, but the general points he makes, that we can't adequately explain the role of sun activity remains true:

http://www.theaustralian.news.com.au/sto...%2C00.html

If you were to say that the evidence "predicts" GW based on a rise in CO2 caused by humans, or that "most" scientists believe that, and that is a valid basis to make change in social and economic policy, that may very well be true. But to claim that there is a "consensus" or that there is no valid basis for scientific debate is 1) politically motivated, and 2) false.