I read Glenn Beck's book an Inconvenient Book. I found my self skipping pages, and later chapters, but there were a few things that I did pick up from him.
First, in the '70s there was actually a global cooling scare. I was bewildered that there were some people who wanted to spread coal across the Antarctic to melt the snow to curb global cooling. I think this shows how poor our understanding is of our own climate.
Secondly, it is completely irrelevant whether global warming is true or not, because there is nothing we can do to stop it anyway. According to Beck, even if every car were taken off the road, that still would not be enough.
I think the green movement is nothing more than a marketing scheme. It's just a companies way to add a little extra value to their product. Don't get me wrong, it certainly is a noble cause to try and be green. After all, pumping CO2 into the air for 100 years can't be good. Assuming the worst case scenario, our efforts to change now are futile, because the technology is just not there yet.
But twenty years ago, standards for collecting and archiving data simply weren't what they are now
I think 'in the field of climatology' might usefully be added here. This stuff is really old news in more 'traditional' areas of inquiry. If nothing else climatology might have to 'grow up' a bit - particularly if they purport to advise public policy with substantial social impact.
Cheers, Mike.
I have made this letter longer than usual because I lack the time to make it shorter ...
... and my other CPU is a Ryzen 5950X :-) Blaise Pascal
First, in the '70s there was actually a global cooling scare. I was bewildered that there were some people who wanted to spread coal across the Antarctic to melt the snow to curb global cooling. I think this shows how poor our understanding is of our own climate.
There's a lot of 'bounce' in the models, and considerable uncertainty in what 'gains' you insert for feedback. Take volcanic eruptions, say, like Mount Pinatubo.
Shortly after a major blow you'd expect a reduction in temperatures ( measured within a few miles of the surface ) as high altitude dirt from the eruption blocks sunlight for a while. However that dust settles out with time - onto the snow for instance - changes albedo, this time at low level/ground level. So snow can melt more because it is dirty. Oddly this may not actually change the temperature much, just more liquid water about rather than solid. Water has a great specific heat capacity.
But all this is 'just so' stories, a narrative without predictive power, especially if cherry picking of data points has happened ( and I think the Jones article also mentioned material uncertainty as to the physical locations of the measuring stations ). So a complicated way of saying 'it is because it is', containing a long explanatory arc that could hide self referential aspects, may arise. Phrases like 'global warming' and 'climate change' ( as language constructs or hypotheses ) are so ripe for this type of circumlocution. Again if you are not rigorous with the data, and meanings, then you may wind up with word play and not factual proof of anything : far less lessons to guide the future. One may not even be aware that intellectual substitution ( proof word play ) has occurred!!
Cheers, Mike.
( edit ) So I've seen it said, paraphrased :
"winters are warmer" -> "oh, that's Global Warming"
and
"winters are cooler" -> "well, that's Climate Change"
So is Global Warming the same, or is it a different hypothesis to Climate Change?? Answers on one foolscap side please .... :-) :-) :-)
I have made this letter longer than usual because I lack the time to make it shorter ...
... and my other CPU is a Ryzen 5950X :-) Blaise Pascal
Glaciers are melting all over the world although at different rates. When I climbed the Marmolada peak, the highest in the Dolomites with its 3300 meters, in 1960, ice covered all its North face and people used to ski on it in summer. When I saw it again in 2000 the ice area was one third of the face. The cause? Occam's razor is enough for me.
Tullio
(edit)Maybe I was not clear enough. The main causes of Global Warming, which is a fact not a theory (see NASA data), are man made greenhouse gases. Cheers.
But you can't use Occam if there's only one choice to select from!! :-)
Cheers, Mike.
( edit ) And if it's AGW vs Null, then Null is simpler and thus would be Occam's favorite! You see, Tullio, if not's GW then 'fixing' a non problem won't bring your glacier's back .....
I have made this letter longer than usual because I lack the time to make it shorter ...
... and my other CPU is a Ryzen 5950X :-) Blaise Pascal
Winter Olympics in Vancouver... The weather predicted this month of February 1 in a 100. The warmest January on record. Go Figure :-).. I have been here before a few times.. Its always a strong [url=http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/El_Niño-Southern_Oscillation] El Nino[/url]. It always affects the North American Continent.. Cold Down South.. Warm up North..
Edit: From my limited experience, I would put a lot of resources in studying this current in more detail.
Maybe I am talking through my hat.. But sometimes we miss the forest because of the trees..
There are some who can live without wild things and some who cannot. - Aldo Leopold
Well, unless you really want to twist the meaning of the term, Global Warming is real. We've only been able to tell recently, but global average temperatures have been steadily going up since those ozone-destroying gas products I keep forgetting the name of were banned. Of course, Global Warming is not the same as climate change. It's certainly a part of it - you can't exactly have the same climate when temperatures are higher - but climate change is about so much more, and unfortunately much of it is very uncertain. As far as I'm aware the only thing we really -know-, aside from global warming and greenhouse gas levels (where the difference between correlation and causation is an important factor), is that weather patterns are shifting to become more unstable. That means more extreme weather - more early days of summer followed by freezing cold, more hot days in autumn, or early and late wintery days, as we're currently seeing. None of that is good for the ecosystem, and there is at least some evidence that it makes natural disasters worse.
I read Glenn Beck's book an
I read Glenn Beck's book an Inconvenient Book. I found my self skipping pages, and later chapters, but there were a few things that I did pick up from him.
First, in the '70s there was actually a global cooling scare. I was bewildered that there were some people who wanted to spread coal across the Antarctic to melt the snow to curb global cooling. I think this shows how poor our understanding is of our own climate.
Secondly, it is completely irrelevant whether global warming is true or not, because there is nothing we can do to stop it anyway. According to Beck, even if every car were taken off the road, that still would not be enough.
I think the green movement is nothing more than a marketing scheme. It's just a companies way to add a little extra value to their product. Don't get me wrong, it certainly is a noble cause to try and be green. After all, pumping CO2 into the air for 100 years can't be good. Assuming the worst case scenario, our efforts to change now are futile, because the technology is just not there yet.
RE: Just one
From the article
I think 'in the field of climatology' might usefully be added here. This stuff is really old news in more 'traditional' areas of inquiry. If nothing else climatology might have to 'grow up' a bit - particularly if they purport to advise public policy with substantial social impact.
Cheers, Mike.
I have made this letter longer than usual because I lack the time to make it shorter ...
... and my other CPU is a Ryzen 5950X :-) Blaise Pascal
All good scientists are
All good scientists are skeptics it comes with the job..:-)
Edit: Yikes: The Guardian.. There Probably some science from The Guardian in the IPCC Report:-)
There are some who can live without wild things and some who cannot. - Aldo Leopold
RE: First, in the '70s
There's a lot of 'bounce' in the models, and considerable uncertainty in what 'gains' you insert for feedback. Take volcanic eruptions, say, like Mount Pinatubo.
Shortly after a major blow you'd expect a reduction in temperatures ( measured within a few miles of the surface ) as high altitude dirt from the eruption blocks sunlight for a while. However that dust settles out with time - onto the snow for instance - changes albedo, this time at low level/ground level. So snow can melt more because it is dirty. Oddly this may not actually change the temperature much, just more liquid water about rather than solid. Water has a great specific heat capacity.
But all this is 'just so' stories, a narrative without predictive power, especially if cherry picking of data points has happened ( and I think the Jones article also mentioned material uncertainty as to the physical locations of the measuring stations ). So a complicated way of saying 'it is because it is', containing a long explanatory arc that could hide self referential aspects, may arise. Phrases like 'global warming' and 'climate change' ( as language constructs or hypotheses ) are so ripe for this type of circumlocution. Again if you are not rigorous with the data, and meanings, then you may wind up with word play and not factual proof of anything : far less lessons to guide the future. One may not even be aware that intellectual substitution ( proof word play ) has occurred!!
Cheers, Mike.
( edit ) So I've seen it said, paraphrased :
"winters are warmer" -> "oh, that's Global Warming"
and
"winters are cooler" -> "well, that's Climate Change"
So is Global Warming the same, or is it a different hypothesis to Climate Change?? Answers on one foolscap side please .... :-) :-) :-)
I have made this letter longer than usual because I lack the time to make it shorter ...
... and my other CPU is a Ryzen 5950X :-) Blaise Pascal
Glaciers are melting all over
Glaciers are melting all over the world although at different rates. When I climbed the Marmolada peak, the highest in the Dolomites with its 3300 meters, in 1960, ice covered all its North face and people used to ski on it in summer. When I saw it again in 2000 the ice area was one third of the face. The cause? Occam's razor is enough for me.
Tullio
(edit)Maybe I was not clear enough. The main causes of Global Warming, which is a fact not a theory (see NASA data), are man made greenhouse gases. Cheers.
RE: The cause? Occam's
But you can't use Occam if there's only one choice to select from!! :-)
Cheers, Mike.
( edit ) And if it's AGW vs Null, then Null is simpler and thus would be Occam's favorite! You see, Tullio, if not's GW then 'fixing' a non problem won't bring your glacier's back .....
I have made this letter longer than usual because I lack the time to make it shorter ...
... and my other CPU is a Ryzen 5950X :-) Blaise Pascal
Winter Olympics in
Winter Olympics in Vancouver... The weather predicted this month of February 1 in a 100. The warmest January on record. Go Figure :-).. I have been here before a few times.. Its always a strong [url=http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/El_Niño-Southern_Oscillation] El Nino[/url]. It always affects the North American Continent.. Cold Down South.. Warm up North..
Edit: From my limited experience, I would put a lot of resources in studying this current in more detail.
Maybe I am talking through my hat.. But sometimes we miss the forest because of the trees..
There are some who can live without wild things and some who cannot. - Aldo Leopold
More NASA
More NASA stuff:
Greenland
Tullio
Well, unless you really want
Well, unless you really want to twist the meaning of the term, Global Warming is real. We've only been able to tell recently, but global average temperatures have been steadily going up since those ozone-destroying gas products I keep forgetting the name of were banned. Of course, Global Warming is not the same as climate change. It's certainly a part of it - you can't exactly have the same climate when temperatures are higher - but climate change is about so much more, and unfortunately much of it is very uncertain. As far as I'm aware the only thing we really -know-, aside from global warming and greenhouse gas levels (where the difference between correlation and causation is an important factor), is that weather patterns are shifting to become more unstable. That means more extreme weather - more early days of summer followed by freezing cold, more hot days in autumn, or early and late wintery days, as we're currently seeing. None of that is good for the ecosystem, and there is at least some evidence that it makes natural disasters worse.
This how things can still get
This how things can still get done in the US..
EPA Challenge
There are some who can live without wild things and some who cannot. - Aldo Leopold