Motive?

[terry5732]

http://news.google.com/nwshp?hl=en&gl=u ... -for-real/

or

http://www.intellicast.com/DrDewpoint/Library/1295/


Why do so many insist the sky is falling when reason says it isn't?

[Jonathan]

I didn't read much of either, but I did scroll through the graphs of the second link, and there is no clear correlation to anything throughout many of them, while many others have interesting, rarely noted, and clear correlations. At the end I read the summary, and I agree that that is what the graphs show.
I'd like to point out the graphs that stick out in my mind:
The graph of El Ninos and La Ninas from '79-'00. That is a graph of unpredictable behavior.
Under the heading 'greenhouse effect', which has a graph of CO2 concentration vs years during '50's-'00. It doesn't look good, but I've seen this graph before, and since I'm no oceanographer or meteorologist, I wonder every time I see it if it matters that this graph represents the CO2 concentration over a volcanic island (Mauna Loa is the world's most massive volcano, only a few miles away from the world's most active volcano, Kilauea).
There is an interesting graph of 'global mean temp. vs sunspot cycle length' over the last 140 years even further down the page than the last graph. It looks to me like a kid scribbled with two different markers held in one(!) hand. A similar graph shows the same results just below, from a different source. That last graph mentioned was reported by the BBC, to their credit.
In general, I don't think any media outlet really gives the level headed interpretation of data much voice for two reasons: first, just because it's not interesting to hear that things are fine, and second, that there are a lot of people out there that want to believe the alarmist stuff you hear sometimes. One of the quotes at the bottom of the BW.com site is "For every expert there is an equal and opposite expert.". This should really be taken to heart, because not only does it mean that roughly 50% of the experts are idiots in the very field they are supposed to be experts in, but also that those in that 50% are therefore easy to find and quote.

[ken_behrendt]

I am a believer that "global warming" is occurring and beginning to seriously alter world weather patterns. However, providing "solid", undeniable proof of it is, apparently, not that easy.

All I know is that the quantity of carbon being pumped into the atmosphere increases each year and now the polar ice caps are getting so thin that artic explorers are cancelling trips via dog sled across the ice packs! The news reports of weather related disasters such as floods, droughts, hurricanes, etc. also seem to be more extreme then I remember prior to the 1990's...consider that the state of Florida got hit by FOUR killer hurricanes in about a month's time last year.

Yes, I know it is easy to dismiss all of this as just a "natural" change in climate. But, I would rather err on the side of caution and begin cutting back on the carbon emissions NOW. If we play games until the end of this century and are wrong then heaven only knows how much damage will be done and how long it will take to repair it. If we cut back now and are wrong, we'll just conserve some of our fossil fuels and bring the cost down a bit.

ken

[Jonathan]

It is easy to prove that the world is warming, the data is there at the second link. What role we play is debatable.
PS. I hear that the Kyoto protocol is projected to alter the earth's temperature by -.1F degrees, has anyone else heard something like this (I think I had a reliable source, but I don't remember what). If it's true then I'm glad the US didn't sign up, that's not worth the would be lost money.

[trevie]

that's not worth the would be lost money.

I not quite sure what you mean here?

I'm glad the US didn't sign up,

-0.1 degree is probably the the overall change without USA signing.

With USA signing to the Kyoto then the overall change could be 5 times greater.

[Jonathan]

I meant that -.1 degree temp change is not worth the damper it'd put on the economy. Since there are no responses, apparently no one else has heard this stat.?
>With USA signing to the Kyoto then the overall change could be 5 times greater.<
As long as were guessing, let uses something to make it more interesting, like 'infinity-triple-dog-times greater'. :D
I paused writing the message for a bit here, and looked and found an indirect reference, though still not the original source, for the numbers. The projected net temp. change by 2050 if the protocol were completely implemented is -.07C degrees, which is -.126F degrees. I don't know where that number came from, but I'm told that both those for and against the protocol generally agree with it. The estimated economic cost is 150 billion USD/year, I think for the whole world if it were completely implemented, but I'm not clear on that.
PS. "completely implemented" means that the US and AU are included, but since in reality they didn't sign up, the projected temp. change would be less, and the cost would be less by some amount too, though I can't quantify either at this point.
Notice I've been saying "(C or F) degrees" and not "degrees (C or F)". The latter is used in regards to temp. differences, the former for actual temps. You'll notice then that the C to F conversion above is not what you usually use, because you don't convert their actual values (since they are not values but changes in such values), you just convert to make up for the fact that the tick marks on each scale are different distances apart.
Lastly, it should be noted that we don't know the Earth's mean temp. to an accuracy of +/-.07C degrees, so even in theory it will be impossible to tell if the protocol is actually helping (of course it will, but if you can't tell, is it worth it?).

[MrTim]

Here's an interesting site. Lots of argument on this subject.

http://www.ehmac.ca/archive/index.php/t-23785.html

MacNutt makes a lot of good points.

[Vic Hays]

Yes, I know it is easy to dismiss all of this as just a "natural" change in climate. But, I would rather err on the side of caution and begin cutting back on the carbon emissions NOW. If we play games until the end of this century and are wrong then heaven only knows how much damage will be done and how long it will take to repair it. If we cut back now and are wrong, we'll just conserve some of our fossil fuels and bring the cost down a bit.
ken

I think there is an underlying theory that the earth is in some kind of balanced state. This is a bunch of hoey. The climate of the earth is dynamic not static. I do agree that we can influence the climate with our activities especially on the massive scale we are capable of with our population and our industry. It does make sense to be prudent with the resources that God has given us to use rather than destroying everything we have for temporary gain.