Climate Change
 

Here's a very short, easy to read, interesting article on climate change. http://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2...te-change.html

I was particularly interested in the possibility that climate change policies, instead of being fought tooth and nail by some, could be instead negotiated over to make them more subject to free-market principles.

I was also interested to learn that some countries could benefit from climate change by making more of their land productive. In particular, Russia, who has never been willing to make "ambitious climate change commitments."

I'm not trying to get anyone to change his mind re climate change. I just found the article thought-provoking.

I am pretty sure that most of us are aware of climate change and many of us don't question that it is happening.


But....I doubt that there is any entity on earth that can hold it back. People will not be willing to give up their gas engines. Most of us have been raised to reuse and conserve and to save. I am amused by people on Television who renew their kitchens with energy saving appliances when throwing them out instead of using them until they die is a wash.


I am not arguing with you CFrance. I just think that the way to stop or even slow it down is not in place. It is like the horrible scourge of drug use, legislation and education and plain knowledge of the horrors of drug addiction does not stop this problem.


People are selfish and those who are not are those who have been church raised and even that is now fodder for scorn.


I think every rich person should buy a homeless person a Tezla. How's that? I am being flip and sarcastic but many of us quietly do what we can.

You might read the article anyway, Gracie, just from an interest standpoint. It has both pros and cons. It's not very long and doesn't go into a whole lot of mumbo-jumbo that only scientists can understand.

Unfortunately, the premise in the first sentence is based on corrupted data, especially the clever inclusion of the words "including ocean surface temperatures" which recently have been "adjusted" (upwards, of course) using unscientific ship engine water intake temperature data. Secondly, IT'S THE NYT! Not exactly an unbiased source regarding climate change. Until the CC industry gets honest with their data sets, there is no need discussing remedies to an unproven problem.

The article is written with a leftist point of view. While anthropogenic warming is a component of the climate drift, the real question is "how much is anthropogenic and how much is the natural cycle?" The attempts to answer this question are based on coupled atmospheric/ocean/ice computer models. While the models have come a long way in terms of the attempts to improve their fidelity, there are still poorly understood processes and processes that are just plain difficult to model, but are important. There are a number of well regarded atmospheric scientists who believe man's impact is overstated by the IPCC. I view climate models as an area of continued research. Full disclosure: undergraduate and graduate degrees in atmospheric science and I wrote operational atmospheric computer models for the National Weather Service.

Climate Change Policy: Updates Webcast | Library of Congress

This might be of interest.

Climate Modeling 101

Do you have any good links to recommend on this????

Papers on models can be a bit tedious to read unless you have a background in fluid dynamics, turbulence, radiative transfer, numerical methods, and thermodynamics. You might find the results from the model simulations more interesting. The IPCC reports (you can google them) are a good place to start.

https://www.ipcc.ch/publications_and..._reports.shtml

Thanks tuccillo.

Thank you both for reading the article.:ho:

Doomsday predictions go back so far that the Bible (Early Testament). I suppose its how man is hard wired. My prediction is we are going to become extinct because of an over population of crickets

Nice to hear from a true expert! Most of what I've read indicates man's impact is essentially zero, and what little impact there may be is from the rise of agriculture in Asia over the last 7,000 years, NOT internal combustion engines. I would also venture to say that those scientists that agree with this are NOT receiving grant money from the government. Those that are have to play the political game or get left out in the cold. Personally, I think the whole issue is nothing but a planned distraction---shiny, shiny, look over here.
I hope Tuc will agree with this: We are currently in an ICE AGE. We have been in an ice age for the last 3 1/2 million years. During this ice age there are periods of glaciation and interglacial thaws, running in a 50-60,000 year cycle. We are about 20,000 years past the peak of the last maximum glaciation, and hence still warming. This will reverse in about 10-15,000 years when we will start slowly cooling into the next period of glaciation. If you eat your veggies and quit smoking, maybe you'll need your snowshoes by then:1rotfl::1rotfl::1rotfl:

I am hardly an expert on climate change. I am not sure even the "experts" are experts. To some degree, researchers find what they expect to find, but I digress. I did work on numerical prediction models so I have insight into the assumptions all modelers use and thus a healthy skepticism for model results. Assumptions are made for two reasons: you don't understand the real physical processes or you don't have the computer power to do what you want to. The latter is slowly disappearing.

The impact of burning fossil fuels is not zero. What concerns me, and should concern anyone who states that the "science is settled", is that the track record for using models to reproduce the past is not all that great. Part of this could be non-modeled or poorly modeled processes that compensate for the increase in CO2. If the worst case scenarios are true, it isn't clear to me that there is anything that can be done because it may be impossible to sufficiently reduce CO2 emissions to have an impact. I, however, don't believe the worse case scenarios because there may very well be compensating processes at work that aren't modeled accurately. The time scales that you referenced are much longer than what the climate change researchers are concerned about.

The TV crowds are probably due to climate change migration.

I have never for one second thought you were just another pretty face, Tuccillo.


Smart fellow in MANY areas and I always enjoy reading your well thought out posts.