Re: Conclusive physical evidence for AWG?

On Fri, 6 Feb 2009 17:34:16 -0800 (PST), makolber@xxxxxxxxx wrote:

On Feb 6, 8:18 pm, Tim Wescott <t...@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
On Fri, 06 Feb 2009 17:01:36 -0800, makolber wrote:
What are the physical manifestations  of global warming that we can
actually MEASURE  and OBSERVE?

When it comes to making important policy decisions that effect all of
us, there needs to be a clear distinction between PREDICTIONS and
SIMULATIONS vs. physical MEASUREMENTS  and OBSERVATIONS.  To make an
analogy to electronics, are you going to make major decisions that
impact the economic health of your company based solely upon the results
of  PSPICE simulations or  are you going to build prototypes and make
real measurements?

 1) CO2 CONCENTRATION
The measured increase in CO2 concentration is well established.  The
CAUSE of the increase is not well established.  The measured increase is
within the same order of magnitude as the amount of CO2 civilization is
putting into the atmosphere therefore theory that the CO2 increase is
anthropogenic is a reasonable possibility  but not a 100% certainty.
The CO2 concentration has varied widely well before the use of fossil
fuels.   The increase in CO2 concentration  is conclusive but the cause
of the increase is not conclusive.

2) GLOBAL TEMPERATURE INCREASE
The measured global temperature increase we measure today is very small
and is within the noise of normal weather variations.   There are no
conclusive measurements that can show  the cause of this small
temperature increase is due to CO2 or to sun spots or to anything else.
 Predictions that there will be dangerous climate  temperature increases
in the future are based on simulations.  The simulations assume that the
 temperature rise is caused by the C02 concentration increase and that
the CO2 increase is anthropogenic.  The cause of the small measured
global temperature increase is not conclusive.

3) SEA  LEVEL INCREASE
The measured global sea level rise today is very small also.  There are
no conclusive measurements that can show this small increase has
anything to do with CO2 or temperature or anything else.  Predictions
that there will be dangerous increases in sea level in the future are
based on simulations. The cause of the small measured sea level rise is
not conclusive.

4) POLAR ICE
The measured decrease in Arctic polar ice is well established.  The
measured increase in Antarctic polar ice is also well established. There
are no conclusive measurements or physical evidence that indicate a
dangerous trend.

If we did not have sensitive scientific instruments,   we would not even
be aware of some of the small changes that have been measured. These
observations are interesting and worthy of further study. However,
there is no conclusive  physical evidence  that anything dangerous is
actually  happening.

Does it make sense to base a national and world energy policy on
simulations without conclusive physical evidence?

Does it make sense to levy a carbon tax or establish a cap and trade
bureaucracy,  without conclusive physical evidence?

Does it make sense to use resources to build large carbon capture
facilities to sequester  CO2 underground without conclusive physical
evidence?

Does it make sense to forgo the use of our oil and coal resources
without conclusive physical evidence?

Regardless of the validity of AGW,  we do need to address the issue of
our energy supply.   We DO need to develop alternative energy sources.
We do need to develop renewable energy sources.  We do need to improve
energy efficiency.  We do need to consider nuclear energy. These are all
forward moving productive steps for civilization to progress and improve
the quality of life.

However,  imposing taxes, building CO2 sequestration plants, creating a
cap and trade bureaucracy and demonizing oil and coal without CONCLUSIVE
physical evidence of a real problem just does not make any sense.

     Mark

Imagine that you're on a bus, having a party with beer and good looking
fellow party-goers.  The bus is hurtling down the freeway at 60 miles an
hour.

Now some egghead pulls a map out of his pocket, and on the map, printed
in big letters, is a note that the freeway ends at a brick wall.

So you have two options: pull over, stop the party, and let everything
cool down, or just keep going, possibly to drive into a brick wall at 60
miles an hour.

So which do you do?  The low-cost, extra precaution that reduces your
immediate fun but insures your survival?  Or do you just keep drinking
your beer and tell the driver to speed up, because _you_ haven't _seen_
that wall with _your own eyes_?

Enjoy your beer.

--http://www.wescottdesign.com- Hide quoted text -



what do YOU propose we do? totally stop the bus? following your
analogy that means stop all use of fossil fuel immediatly ? Did you
stop yet? Is the heat off in your house?

Mark

What I would do, and what I'm going to do, is keep driving.

John

.

Quantcast