Portrait of the average American voter...

David J. Littleboy wrote:
"Michael Johnson, PE" wrote in message
...
rafe b wrote:
"Michael Johnson, PE" wrote in message
...

Unfortunately, most people like things to stay the same. For change to
occur something has to impact them personally and generally for a long
period of time. We have limited resources to spend on reducing CO2
reductions and I question the wisdom of using a large portion of it up
in a futile effort to change greenhouse gas emissions. It will most
certainly fail and then IF (that is a BIG if) the disaster looms like we
are being told there will be much less financial resources available to
mitigate any impacts that develop. This is a consideration that should
not be removed from the table, IMO.

It's the old frog-in-a-pot-of-hot-water story.

Without "ample" evidence (on the scale of Katrina,
but leaving less room for doubt) the powers-that-be
will remain in denial, point us at "silver linings" and
do nothing. Just as you have been advocating
throughout this discussion.
I am not advocating doing nothing. I am advocating doing what is
reasonable.

Am I politically motivated in all this? No more or
less than you. You want things the way they are,
and dwell on the risks of change. I'm not terribly
unhappy with the status quo (personally) but I
believe that it is not sustainable.
Most status quo isn't sustainable. That is why change and adaptation is
required. It is the way it always has been and will be, IMO.

One of my gripes with the the US political class
(of both parties) is that they treat their citizens
like children. Woe unto any politician that asks
for serious sacrifice from their constituents.

I'd like to think we're not that stupid. Why not
be straight with us about what's at stake, and
brainstorm on how we might deal with it -- instead
of lying and denying. As it stands, your attitude
holds sway, because too many people have
been led to believe that the science is "in doubt."
I probably have more education, on paper anyway, than the majority of
Americans. It is in a highly technical field too. This irrefutable
science, IMO, just doesn't exist at this point in time. It doesn't help
that we have heard so many doomsday predictions over the last fifty years
that have never even remotely materialized. The population's "doomsday
nerve" has been plucked so many times it requires a hit from a sledge
hammer for it to send the slightest signal.

All this "science" regarding global warming is just like me preparing a
flood plain study for FEMA. It is one guess and assumption piled on top
of another until we collectively "feel good" about the result. We have no
idea if the numbers we generate are real. Even empirical data can't tell
me if a watershed really experienced a 100 year storm in a homogeneous
manner. The numbers are just used as a benchmark in a hypothetical
world. All this climate science is the same. They act like everything
they model is 100% given which isn't remotely true.

Your description of the science is simply dead wrong. If you actually read
the articles, it's very good, solid, peer-reviewed science. There has never
been any article in Science in the 20 years os so that I've been reading it
on climate change that "act(s) like everything they model is 100% given".
That charge is completely unfounded.

The only articles in this area that are problematic from a scientific
standpoint are the ones that deny human influence on climate change.

I'm sure some of these studies are prepared by people with an unbiased
motive. The trouble is that most people can't separate the wheat from
the chaff. The same people that think they can predict climate 100
years in the future can't tell us the causes of climate change over the
last fifty years. For me, others may have a different opinion, this
makes it hard to take them as serious as they feel I should. At the end
of the day all they are presenting is a prediction. The very definition
of the word precludes 100% accuracy. They are telling the developed
world to set themselves on a course that can have dire consequences of
its own. I ask "Is the cure worse than the disease?" and then follow it
up by "Do we even have the disease?" These are not invalid questions.
I ask them and get attacked for it. Most of the population is asking
them too. Don't tell me there aren't a lot of researchers out there
feeding at the global warming money trough. They can't eat fast enough.
Throw in politics and the whole issue turns into a quagmire that even
well educated people can't sort out.

Even if we are the cause of global warming the world can't stop or even
reduce CO2 emissions 1%. It just won't happen. You and every
researcher on the plant can scream from the top of Mt. Everest and it
won't make a difference. I'm not saying this is right but it is the
reality of the situation. There are too many humans on the planet to
even remotely enact the changes global warming alarmist are demanding.
Many people are too worried about tomorrow to worry about something that
might happen 100 years from now. They also consider the track record of
all the doomsday sayers over the years and many see this as just another
episode of Chicken Little.

Pat O'Connell wrote:
Michael Johnson, PE wrote:
Ray Fischer wrote:
Michael Johnson, PE wrote:
Climate scientists can't tell us why we had an active hurricane
season last year and a dead one this year.

Well, in fact, I recall predictions from a while ago saying that this
year would have fewer hurricanes.

Forget about an accurate prediction for next year.

Why do you assume that your ignorant prejudices are reality?

Why do you assume I am prejudiced and ignorant? You know what they
say about assumptions?

Now why is it they can they predict global climate change 100 years
from now but not hurricane activity in the Atlantic a year from now?

You're assuming your conclusion.

Why can't climatologists accurately predict the next hurricane season
but claim they can predict the global climate in 2106?

If you're really an engineer, you'll know about chaos theory and the
"butterfly effect" (sensitivity dependence on initial conditions) that
is one of the hallmarks of a chaotic equation.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Butterfly_effect

Formation of hurricanes is chaotic (because the Lorenz equations that
govern weather are chaotic), therefore it is difficult to predict the
number of hurricanes in advance. However, the number of hurricanes (or
tornadoes, or flash floods) that have actually occurred over the years
can be analyzed to predict general trends in weather, if not the actual
number of hurricanes, tornadoes, whatever. That's climatology.

Quoting from Wikipedia, "Weather is chaotic, but its statistics -
climate - is not."

So which is less complicated to predict? Is it weather or climate? If
they are both equally complex, and we still haven't figured how to
predict the weather more than a few days in advance, why should I
believe we can predict global climate 100 years from now?

"Ol' Bab" wrote in message
...
Michael Johnson, PE wrote:
snip
Are you saying there are no benefits to climate change?

Here are excellent reasons to downplay the positive changes -and I
agree there will surely be positive changes-

Even if there is a 50 - 50 relationship between areas that become to
hot/cold/wet/dry/flooded, and other areas that were too


Who cares?

I want palm trees and tropical weather back in Canada!!

:-)

"Michael Johnson, PE" wrote:
David J. Littleboy wrote:

All this "science" regarding global warming is just like me preparing a
flood plain study for FEMA. It is one guess and assumption piled on top
of another until we collectively "feel good" about the result. We have
no idea if the numbers we generate are real. Even empirical data can't
tell me if a watershed really experienced a 100 year storm in a
homogeneous manner. The numbers are just used as a benchmark in a
hypothetical world. All this climate science is the same. They act
like everything they model is 100% given which isn't remotely true.

Your description of the science is simply dead wrong. If you actually
read the articles, it's very good, solid, peer-reviewed science. There
has never been any article in Science in the 20 years os so that I've
been reading it on climate change that "act(s) like everything they model
is 100% given". That charge is completely unfounded.

The only articles in this area that are problematic from a scientific
standpoint are the ones that deny human influence on climate change.

I'm sure some of these studies are prepared by people with an unbiased
motive. The trouble is that most people can't separate the wheat from the
chaff. The same people that think they can predict climate 100 years in
the future can't tell us the causes of climate change over the last fifty
years.

You are (mis)characterizing a body of science that you haven't even read.

You don't know what you are talking about.

But you talk a lot anyway.

That's why people are calling you rude names; you have succeeded in earning
those insults.

David J. Littleboy
Tokyo, Japan

David J. Littleboy wrote:
"Michael Johnson, PE" wrote:
David J. Littleboy wrote:
All this "science" regarding global warming is just like me preparing a
flood plain study for FEMA. It is one guess and assumption piled on top
of another until we collectively "feel good" about the result. We have
no idea if the numbers we generate are real. Even empirical data can't
tell me if a watershed really experienced a 100 year storm in a
homogeneous manner. The numbers are just used as a benchmark in a
hypothetical world. All this climate science is the same. They act
like everything they model is 100% given which isn't remotely true.
Your description of the science is simply dead wrong. If you actually
read the articles, it's very good, solid, peer-reviewed science. There
has never been any article in Science in the 20 years os so that I've
been reading it on climate change that "act(s) like everything they model
is 100% given". That charge is completely unfounded.

The only articles in this area that are problematic from a scientific
standpoint are the ones that deny human influence on climate change.
I'm sure some of these studies are prepared by people with an unbiased
motive. The trouble is that most people can't separate the wheat from the
chaff. The same people that think they can predict climate 100 years in
the future can't tell us the causes of climate change over the last fifty
years.

You are (mis)characterizing a body of science that you haven't even read.

You don't know what you are talking about.

But you talk a lot anyway.

That's why people are calling you rude names; you have succeeded in earning
those insults.

It is good to know you are out there looking out for all us dumb folks.
I'll sleep well tonight. Keep up the good work.

On Mon, 13 Nov 2006 20:55:17 -0500, "Michael Johnson, PE"
wrote:


So which is less complicated to predict? Is it weather or climate? If
they are both equally complex, and we still haven't figured how to
predict the weather more than a few days in advance, why should I
believe we can predict global climate 100 years from now?


But of course -- there are things we don't know and
can't predict. The models aren't perfect. Science never
is. But why blind yourself to what's known, beyond
all doubt?


1. Fact: While CO2 concentration is only one of
many forcing functions for climate, its effect as
a forcing function is utterly beyond doubt -- not
just in the short term, but over eons. (Ditto for
other greenhouse gases such as CH4 and NO2.)

2. Fact: CO2 concentrations in the atmosphere
have risen over 30% since the first accurate
measurements were taken, in 1750.

How anomalous is this? According to the ICC
report: "the current CO2 concentration has not
been exceeded during the past 420,000 years
and likely not during the past 20 million years."

3. Fact: CO2 concentrations continue to rise
in an predictable manner. The 2nd derivative
is also strongly positive.

4. Fact: The increases in atmospheric
concentration of CO2, CH4 and NO2 are
almost entirely due to human activity.


Yes, indeed, there are things like volcanic
eruptions, solar activity and ocean currents,
that can mask or reverse warming trends.

*None* of that negates the facts listed above.
Again, from the ICC report:

"Uncertainties in other forcings that have
been included do not prevent identification
of the effect of anthropogenic greenhouse
gases over the last 50 years."

Again: why ignore what we do know, just
because we don't know "everything" yet?

Would you follow that logic if your own
health were at stake?


rafe b
www.terrapinphoto.com

Michael Johnson, PE wrote:
David J. Littleboy wrote:
"Michael Johnson, PE" wrote:
David J. Littleboy wrote:
All this "science" regarding global warming is just like me
preparing a flood plain study for FEMA. It is one guess and
assumption piled on top of another until we collectively "feel
good" about the result. We have no idea if the numbers we generate
are real. Even empirical data can't tell me if a watershed really
experienced a 100 year storm in a homogeneous manner. The numbers
are just used as a benchmark in a hypothetical world. All this
climate science is the same. They act like everything they model
is 100% given which isn't remotely true.
Your description of the science is simply dead wrong. If you
actually read the articles, it's very good, solid, peer-reviewed
science. There has never been any article in Science in the 20 years
os so that I've been reading it on climate change that "act(s) like
everything they model is 100% given". That charge is completely
unfounded.

The only articles in this area that are problematic from a
scientific standpoint are the ones that deny human influence on
climate change.
I'm sure some of these studies are prepared by people with an
unbiased motive. The trouble is that most people can't separate the
wheat from the chaff. The same people that think they can predict
climate 100 years in the future can't tell us the causes of climate
change over the last fifty years.

You are (mis)characterizing a body of science that you haven't even read.

You don't know what you are talking about.

But you talk a lot anyway.

That's why people are calling you rude names; you have succeeded in
earning those insults.

It is good to know you are out there looking out for all us dumb folks.
I'll sleep well tonight. Keep up the good work.

Hi...

Let me politely try one more thing that may convince you that
things are changing, and very quickly, if I may?

Not very many years ago we'd send the youngsters outside on
a hot, sunny prairie day dressed in their skimpiest outfits
to get some fresh air and sunshine... "it's good for you"

Now we send them outdoors with long sleeves and pant legs, large
wide-brimmed hats, and slathered with sunblock to protect them
from that same sunshine.

Compelling enough?

Take care.

Ken

Ken Weitzel wrote:
Michael Johnson, PE wrote:
David J. Littleboy wrote:
"Michael Johnson, PE" wrote:
David J. Littleboy wrote:
All this "science" regarding global warming is just like me
preparing a flood plain study for FEMA. It is one guess and
assumption piled on top of another until we collectively "feel
good" about the result. We have no idea if the numbers we
generate are real. Even empirical data can't tell me if a
watershed really experienced a 100 year storm in a homogeneous
manner. The numbers are just used as a benchmark in a
hypothetical world. All this climate science is the same. They
act like everything they model is 100% given which isn't
remotely true.
Your description of the science is simply dead wrong. If you
actually read the articles, it's very good, solid, peer-reviewed
science. There has never been any article in Science in the 20
years os so that I've been reading it on climate change that
"act(s) like everything they model is 100% given". That charge is
completely unfounded.

The only articles in this area that are problematic from a
scientific standpoint are the ones that deny human influence on
climate change.
I'm sure some of these studies are prepared by people with an
unbiased motive. The trouble is that most people can't separate
the wheat from the chaff. The same people that think they can
predict climate 100 years in the future can't tell us the causes
of climate change over the last fifty years.

You are (mis)characterizing a body of science that you haven't even
read. You don't know what you are talking about.

But you talk a lot anyway.

That's why people are calling you rude names; you have succeeded in
earning those insults.

It is good to know you are out there looking out for all us dumb
folks. I'll sleep well tonight. Keep up the good work.

Hi...

Let me politely try one more thing that may convince you that
things are changing, and very quickly, if I may?

Not very many years ago we'd send the youngsters outside on
a hot, sunny prairie day dressed in their skimpiest outfits
to get some fresh air and sunshine... "it's good for you"

Now we send them outdoors with long sleeves and pant legs, large
wide-brimmed hats, and slathered with sunblock to protect them
from that same sunshine.

Compelling enough?

Surely you realize that this behavior change has nothing to do with climate
change (whether it is real or not), and everything to do with a greater
awareness/understanding of the damage/aging caused by the sun's rays.
People have been tanning for many moons...and damaging their skin for many
many moons. It's only recently (the last 20 or 30 years) that people really
started recognizing and avoiding the dangers that have ALWAYS been present.
--
Images (Plus Snaps & Grabs) by Mark² at:
www.pbase.com/markuson

Raphael Bustin wrote:
On Mon, 13 Nov 2006 20:55:17 -0500, "Michael Johnson, PE"
wrote:


So which is less complicated to predict? Is it weather or climate? If
they are both equally complex, and we still haven't figured how to
predict the weather more than a few days in advance, why should I
believe we can predict global climate 100 years from now?


But of course -- there are things we don't know and
can't predict. The models aren't perfect. Science never
is. But why blind yourself to what's known, beyond
all doubt?

Remember, you said the models aren't perfect. Well, how close to
perfect are they? Trouble is no one knows.

1. Fact: While CO2 concentration is only one of
many forcing functions for climate, its effect as
a forcing function is utterly beyond doubt -- not
just in the short term, but over eons. (Ditto for
other greenhouse gases such as CH4 and NO2.)

Remember, you said CO2 is one of many forcing functions. Do we know
them all? How they interact with and counteract each other? Remember,
the models aren't perfect.

2. Fact: CO2 concentrations in the atmosphere
have risen over 30% since the first accurate
measurements were taken, in 1750.

I'll even concede this one without reservation.

How anomalous is this? According to the ICC
report: "the current CO2 concentration has not
been exceeded during the past 420,000 years
and likely not during the past 20 million years."

Well how many severe climate shifts have occurred during the last 20
million years? I guess more than we actually know about. If it wasn't
widely fluctuating CO2 levels that caused these climate swings then what
was it exactly? Have we considered all these impacts in the current
climate models? Remember, the models aren't perfect.

3. Fact: CO2 concentrations continue to rise
in an predictable manner. The 2nd derivative
is also strongly positive.

I'll even give you this. What is the impact on climate 100 years from
now. Will it be warmer? Probably. How much warmer? We don't know.

4. Fact: The increases in atmospheric
concentration of CO2, CH4 and NO2 are
almost entirely due to human activity.

I'll even agree with this statement.

Yes, indeed, there are things like volcanic
eruptions, solar activity and ocean currents,
that can mask or reverse warming trends.

So, we are one good volcanic eruption away from wishing we had more CO2
in the air to counteract the potential resultant global cooling? Now
you are getting to my point. We can't predict the future climate! We
would have to have a crystal ball that tells us the future volcanic
eruptions, the gases they release, the sun's fluctuations, among many,
many other conditions and occurrences. Remember, the models aren't perfect.

*None* of that negates the facts listed above.
Again, from the ICC report:

"Uncertainties in other forcings that have
been included do not prevent identification
of the effect of anthropogenic greenhouse
gases over the last 50 years."

Again: why ignore what we do know, just
because we don't know "everything" yet?

We don't know the future. We can predict it but, remember, the models
aren't perfect. I'm not ready to map a course as radical as the
alarmists are clammering for based on their best guess. Right now their
best guess isn't good enough, IMO. You obviously think differently. It
is your right as it is mine.

Would you follow that logic if your own
health were at stake?

Depends on if they are recommending amputation of my leg to treat a hang
nail because the models say I might develop gang green in my big toe.
The alarmists may be recommending to us the equivalent in regard to
climate change. Remember, the models aren't perfect. How perfect are
they? I would like to know.

Mark² wrote:
Ken Weitzel wrote:
Michael Johnson, PE wrote:
David J. Littleboy wrote:
"Michael Johnson, PE" wrote:
David J. Littleboy wrote:
All this "science" regarding global warming is just like me
preparing a flood plain study for FEMA. It is one guess and
assumption piled on top of another until we collectively "feel
good" about the result. We have no idea if the numbers we
generate are real. Even empirical data can't tell me if a
watershed really experienced a 100 year storm in a homogeneous
manner. The numbers are just used as a benchmark in a
hypothetical world. All this climate science is the same. They
act like everything they model is 100% given which isn't
remotely true.
Your description of the science is simply dead wrong. If you
actually read the articles, it's very good, solid, peer-reviewed
science. There has never been any article in Science in the 20
years os so that I've been reading it on climate change that
"act(s) like everything they model is 100% given". That charge is
completely unfounded.

The only articles in this area that are problematic from a
scientific standpoint are the ones that deny human influence on
climate change.
I'm sure some of these studies are prepared by people with an
unbiased motive. The trouble is that most people can't separate
the wheat from the chaff. The same people that think they can
predict climate 100 years in the future can't tell us the causes
of climate change over the last fifty years.
You are (mis)characterizing a body of science that you haven't even
read. You don't know what you are talking about.

But you talk a lot anyway.

That's why people are calling you rude names; you have succeeded in
earning those insults.
It is good to know you are out there looking out for all us dumb
folks. I'll sleep well tonight. Keep up the good work.
Hi...

Let me politely try one more thing that may convince you that
things are changing, and very quickly, if I may?

Not very many years ago we'd send the youngsters outside on
a hot, sunny prairie day dressed in their skimpiest outfits
to get some fresh air and sunshine... "it's good for you"

Now we send them outdoors with long sleeves and pant legs, large
wide-brimmed hats, and slathered with sunblock to protect them
from that same sunshine.

Compelling enough?

Surely you realize that this behavior change has nothing to do with climate
change (whether it is real or not), and everything to do with a greater
awareness/understanding of the damage/aging caused by the sun's rays.
People have been tanning for many moons...and damaging their skin for many
many moons. It's only recently (the last 20 or 30 years) that people really
started recognizing and avoiding the dangers that have ALWAYS been present.

I would like to add that there are hundreds of millions of people,
adults and children, that will play in the sun tomorrow the way they
have been for all their lives and will for the rest of their lives.
They aren't going to go up in a puff of smoke because they don't wear
sunscreen. People who spend many hours a day in the sun adapt to it.
It is why Norwegians are white and Africans are black. Granted people
that have long term exposure to the sun will look like a dried up prune
eventually but most live a normal lifespan otherwise.

As Mark said, we know more today about the Sun's effect on the skin than
we did 50 years ago. Lounging in the Sun, as a leisure activity, is a
relatively new phenomenon. This combined with the fact we can diagnose
skin diseases more effectively and record the rates of occurrence and I
see no reason to be surprised by the current warnings about over
exposure to the sun. I definitely don't see how this can somehow
correlate to global climate change.