Re: August 2008 is 39th warmest since 1895

On Sep 12, 11:44 am, Sam Wormley <sworml...@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
Mike Jr. wrote:
On Sep 12, 9:40 am, Sam Wormley <sworml...@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
Mike Jr. wrote:

The way I see it, these are mostly natural changes.  I recently posted
a link to a paper showing how other (than CO2) man-made changes are
affecting climate.
There are energy considerations that lock the earth's greenhouse
factor to a constant value that keep CO2 a minor player.  These
considerations indicate that we should be looking elsewhere for the
cause of the late 20th century warming trend.  I favor solar UV, X-Ray
but we need more data.
Back in the little ice age, say 1850, it was really cold.  It's warmer
now.  The climate just isn't a constant.  It never has been.
Unchanging climate is an unrealistic expectation.  I wish that mankind
had the power to control climate but we don't.
--Mike Jr
   We like to understand cause and effect... Science... how things
   work... changing climate affects ecosystems... life has adapted
   to the changing environment in which it finds itself (Darwinian
   evolution).

   Nature accumulated tens and hundreds of millions of years of what
   we call "fossil fuel"... and now humans are "burning" it in a few
   hundred years.  CO2 is increasing. Does that have climatological
   consequences on top of other natural processes?

   A lot of climatologists think so.

Fortunately, science requires more than bandwagon appeals.  I have
read the evidence behind AGW and I find it wanting.

   The evidence is sparse and there are many research working on
   gaining more data and gaining better understanding... pretty exciting
   really.



 >    Time will tell.

That it will.  Let's hope we don't wreck the world economies while we
wait to find out.  Oh, not the world economy just the western
economies; China and Russia aren't buying it.

   Wrecking world economies is pretty much a given... how fast and
   at what price -- killing off ecosystems worldwide, displacing 1.3
   billion persons due to rising sea levels... depleting natural
   resources... air, water, sustainable crop land.... it ain't a
   pretty picture.

I don't think it is a given that the world economies will be wrecked.

   We should have way bigger families... so there will be more
   survivors from those families to compete for the limited resources..

   The existing damage is measurable... you don't need a model
   for that.

I'll have to disagree with you on this point as well. Even in the
papers that you cited the damages were offset by the gains. We would
be in far worse shape if the world was heading for another little ice
age. The point is that the climate changes. It always has and it
always will. AGW is a theory that states that man made CO2 emissions
is causing the global heat up. I don't find that argument compelling.

When I look at the evidence I see tissue paper. Mann is a prime
example. Computer climate models? Give me a break. Dramatic claims
require dramatic evidence. I just don't see it.

I know that we differ on this. Let us hope that better evidence comes
along that settles the debate. I'll keep pointing to that evidence as
I run across it. Please do the same. Eventually we will get to the
point where the evidence is compelling, one way or another.

--Mike Jr



90% confidence levels ... that takes a lot of arrogance given the
quality of the models.

--Mike Jr

.

Relevant Pages