[lit-ideas] Re: global luke-warming -- addendum
- From: Teemu Pyyluoma <teme17@xxxxxxxxx>
- To: lit-ideas@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
- Date: Mon, 17 Apr 2006 09:35:08 -0700 (PDT)
Reading Paul's other post on the subject I realize I
am being too harsh on him
--- Paul Stone <pas@xxxxxxxx> wrote:
{snip]
> I talked a few days earlier of the politicization of
> things. The people who
> are yelling 'global warming' continuously have one
> basic premise --
> something's happening to our weather. Then when
> ANYTHING happens, they jump
> up and say "I told you something was happening to
> our weather".
I agree. We've got the scientist saying that climate
is chancing, then we've got some environmentalist
yelling the same thing. I try two listen the former,
good rule of thumb for telling the to apart is that
the former qualify their warnings and provide error
margins. Still, I don't see any reason above for
ignoring the scientists.
> I would
> LOVE to see an actual model for what is actually
> happening during this
> 'global warming', but it seems you can look in 10
> different places and get
> 10 distinctly different views of it
People building models would certainly agree. Modeling
global warming is difficult. The basic stuff is simple
physics, but for example clouds and their effect is
beyond most current models. Hence the large error
margins in prognoses
> -- and most of
> the time, wherever the
> person who is writing about it is from is the focus
> of his/her view. A
> researcher in England say "London will be swamped".
Local effects are yet another thing. The global
picture is fairly clear, but how say London, UK will
be affected is very much work in progress.
> Terms like
> "greenhouse gases" and "global
> warming" are misleading. That's my beef. There are
> no special gases in a
> greenhouse and the globe does not have A
> temperature.
I don't really follow. Global temperature is a
statistical average, I don't know what you mean by it
not existing. Greenhouse gases certainly exist.
> Education is the
> first step in sea-change (literally in this case) so
> lets start at the
> ground and start with at least correct,
> non-hysterical language to describe
> the dilemma. Then, maybe we can begin to address the
> problem objectively.
>
Once again, may I suggest realclimate.org for
education. You'll learn a lot of stuff, for starters
that the Gulf Stream isn't exactly what you think it
is. Or that glaciers take centuries to melt
completely. Or that to this date not a single so
called skeptic has added anything to the discussion
that wasn't either all ready known by the researchers
or, more often, complete nonsense.
As for addressing the problem: We're extracting CO2
stored deep in earth for millions of years at a pace
unseen in the history of the earth. What effect
exactly will that have is uncertain, as in bad or
worse. Given that we have dozens of other reasons for
kicking the carb habbit, and that it will take decades
to do that, we should start now. As an optimistic end
note, I think we already have.
Cheers,
Teemu
Helsinki, Finland
__________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around
http://mail.yahoo.com
------------------------------------------------------------------
To change your Lit-Ideas settings (subscribe/unsub, vacation on/off,
digest on/off), visit www.andreas.com/faq-lit-ideas.html
Other related posts: