Since I am squarely on the side of good science, and somewhat perturbed
about Dr. Lombord's treatment at the hands of other scientists, this link
might give the 'I am a politically motivated evironmentalist so I
reflexively slam Dr. Lombord' crowd something to think about, perhaps. It
serves no one if we adopt emotionaly based practices that obscure, postpone,
or eliminate the scientific process.
Val
>[...] It
>serves no one if we adopt emotionaly based practices that obscure, postpone,
>or eliminate the scientific process.
>
>http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2004/01/040119082910.htm
>
Typical sensationalism on anything that seems to lightly counter "global
warming".
The aerosol effect has been known for decades. Global aerosol levels
have been actually dropping recently, which has contributed to increased
warming. One major proposal for mitigating CO2 increase has always been
to artificially increase stratospheric aerosols. It may well be the
least expensive solution to the problem; however side effects are quite
unknown. One known side effect: the sky would become whiter, no longer
blue. Could you live with that?
effect will be minimal when compared to the climate warming of carbon
dioxide"
Arthur
>for decades. Global aerosol levels
One major proposal for mitigating CO2 increase has always been
>to artificially increase stratospheric aerosols. It may well be the
>least expensive solution to the problem; however side effects are quite
>unknown. One known side effect: the sky would become whiter, no longer
>blue. Could you live with that?
>
>And, quoting the article (did you read it?): "the indirect aerosol
>effect will be minimal when compared to the climate warming of carbon
>dioxide"
>
> Arthur
In fact I did read the article, and recognized the potential for the
sensationalism you mentioned, and noted the refernce to CO2. However, I want
to be sure you understand that I am not attempting to argue the issue of
global warming. Clearly many data indicate that that is happening, and has
happened numerous times throughout trackable history. Other data strongly
indicate the same and to larger extents in the deep past. In addition, it is
clear that humanity is contributing in some way to the process. I know this
because, reductio absurdum, every time I start my car I release more heat
into the system, and gases that are known to alter the balance of said
system. Surely anyone can see that on the vastly larger scale of nations,
these simple things multiply in ways that until recently could only be
guessed at. It seems that we are now developing the abilities to measure,
track, and perhaps predict, to a limited degree, what the consequences of
our own contributions may be.
These things I will argue in support of to no end, but I find that the
extreme public invovement and their tendency to over react, and the
malleability of their opinions when subject to manipulation, and the fact
that scientists are also human and subject to many of the same things,
should lead to extreme caution on the part of the scientific community when
it comes to staying the course of scientific rigor. I did follow the
discourse regarding Dr. Lombord, and came away feeling that the entire
affair was handled inappropriately in this regard by the establishment. A
point by point refutation of his work would have been what I expected,
considering Dr. Lombord's stature and apparent ability to move popular
opinion. In my view, this would have been a far more effective, and thus
strengthing, method for the climate research crowd to have used. Again, I
stand by my statement that no one is served by not following the most
effective way of persuing science.
Personally, I see no way around the global warming issue for several
reasons. One, the obvious contribution of humanity to the overall situation.
While the exact amouint is certainly debatable, and it seems probable that
the net effect contributes, we can certainly say that the rapid introduction
of all manner of things from green house gasses to aersols raises the
uncertainty factor a fair margin. Two there are definite swings in global
temperatures that have nothing to do with humanity, as recorded in a diverse
array of data. Three, absolutely unpredictable contributions to climate
thermal balance that range from possibly minor, to possibly huge, such as
sun output, interstellar dust clouds, and so on to probably include things
we no nothing about at this time. All that being said, it seems that enough
of these factors have lined up to increase the temperature, and it is very
unlikely from a natural perspective (considering the huge amount of inertia
built up in the system swinging us towards warming), and somewhat lesslikely
from a political standpoint (third world countries rapidly raising their
standards of living), that we can do anything significant to change it in
any significant way. In my view, this is all the more reason to get off
planet with heavy industry, and possibly population as well.
As a temporal disclaimer: I am looking ahead over the next century.
I also finally read Dr. Cricthon's speech that was a bone of contention
here. It didn't seem that he argued against global warming, but that he
argued about our inability to accurately predict said warming or trends. In
this he is certainly correct, and offers quite a few historical examples of
both this and the errors of throwing in blindly with consensus. I take this
as a prudent assessment of the situation and a warning to those involved to
remember these things and not get carried away and emotional, not a
naysaying or denial. Have you read his speech in that light :-) ?
Val
That science daily article was replete with ambiguities, disclaimers about
application to the overall model, and noted that said predictions were
speculation - a far cry from newtonian physics, don't you think :-) ?
Rethink your business approach for the new year with the helpful tips here.