Home Forums Hunting & Shooting Hunter's Campfire Mathematical Musings on Global Warming

Convoluted and pointless when there is a easier more precise method to determine veracity...politicians and media love it, it is a lie.

tag

To answer that question, I'd have to know who issued the grant.....

Look, it is simply ostrich head-in-the-sand to say that humans don't influence climate. Take the Sahara desert. Some nomads and a bunch of goats and cows, and presto!. The size of the desert has doubled. Climate has changed.

Denying that cutting half the rain forest of the Amazon is going to change the climate locally is not a sign of intelligence.

How did Paul Bunyan and his blue ox change the climate in the US? How does the recent increase in timber coverage in the central US change climate? Will we ever know?

What would happen if we made a deliberate attempt at de-desertification? The Chinese are attempting it. (http://time.com/4851013/china-greening-kubuqi-desert-land-restoration/) Should we try something like it in the Great Basin? And what would happen to the earth's climate if we turned the Sahara, the Great Basin and other deserts green?

Those are questions that are a lot more interesting to discuss, and a lot more practical (and cheaper) to implement than trying to tell the Chinese to quit using fossil fuels......

Anyone that predicts the weather 5 days out....should be hanged!

The Sahara desert goes through roughly 26,000 year cycles going from desert to savannah/forest and back again. This is based on the wobble of the earth on it's axis. This has happened numerous times over the last several millions years and has nothing to do with human influence.

Like Yogi said "It's hard to predict anything, especially when it's about the future".

One thing you can believe, if they do it correctly then it is for damn sure they don't work for the Australian Bureau of Meteorology.


One of these days I am going to get put of bed and the weather report will be an absolute 100% guarantee of no rain...I know then that it is going to piss down buckets.

The bigger question is what would out lives be like if Paul Bunyan hadn't logged? Should the Amazon be left to a few isolated tribes? Do we need aluminum, copper, moly, the poisons batteries are made from? What correlation is there in the temperature at Denvers City Park in 1880 and that in 1960 at Stapleton, and 2015 at DIA? That is a lot of their data. Is there really enough ice to melt and raise the oceans 250 feet? I know the Mercator projection shows Greenland being larger than the US, but a globe shows different.

I have read Colorado (big rectangle with no geographic/economic relationship in the areas) supported 50,000 Indians at most. And they had high infant mortality, went hungry and cold in winter.

Was it too many farts that forced the Anasazi out? When the "experts" give up their private jets maybe I will listen a bit more.

The part I disagree with the Warmist bigots about is the idea that changing climate is one big problem.

They miss the fact that the thing people do best is adapt. Frankly, I really don't care about climate change. It hasn't affected me and if it has, I've adapted to it. Everyone else with their own particular problems will adapt as well.

Just to add to the confusion I recently heard the Ozone hole was repairing itself. There are several articles over the last two years suggesting this is the case, then one in February saying- No, sorry, then this one last month.
Is it getting better?

Warming would mean an awful lot more wet weather for Australia, cooling will make it drier...I know which I prefer.

In recent history (2,000 or so years), cool periods have been periods of regression, wars and famines (i.e. dark ages), and warm periods are associated with prosperity and progression (i.e. the renaissance).

Absolutely, but the desertification of the second part of the last century wasn't part of that cycle. At it's core, it was created by foreign aid drilling wells to provide water for people that didn't have it. People being people, they used that water to increase their herds dramatically and overgrazed the land.

Unintended consequences are a bitch.

If that one was you.


mike r

Bingo

I am guessing you prefer wetter. And that goes along with my earlier question about warming being beneficial. As to the rise in sea level, I understand that land based ice melt would add to the ocean but Arctic ice is floating so I assume it displaces all the water it can for its weight. As to the CO2 increase, it seems to me that would enhance plant growth. What we maybe should be more concerned about is global cooling. I can only imagine the disaster of a 10% reduction in food production.

I'd say since mankind has not been on the planet that long, vs what the effects we are blamed for, then its easy. Sure we might be able to change it a hair. But not much more. And that would be a fine frog one at that IMHO.

While I'm neither a scientist or mathematician, my son got his undergrad degrees in Physics and Math and then went on to get a PhD in Physics, specifically Condensed Matter Physics and now he works at NIST, a National Lab in Boulder, CO, as a research scientist. In all there are three Nation Labs on the Boulder Federal campus; the National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST) - promotes U.S. innovation and industrial competitiveness by advancing measurement science, standards, and technology; the National Center for Atmospheric Research (NCAR) - managed by UCAR, is a National Science Foundation R&D Center; and the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) - the federal government's top agency for monitoring our climate, the space environment, and ocean resources.

In addition, within 50 miles of Boulder, there are four more National Labs; the University Corporation for Atmospheric Research (UCAR) - dedicated to exploring and studying our atmosphere and its interaction with the sun, oceans, biosphere, and society also in Boulder. The Cooperative Institute for Research in Environmental Sciences (CIRES) - dedicated to research targeted at all aspects of Earth System Science and communicating its findings to the global scientific community located on the University of Colorado, Boulder's East Campus. The National Renewable Energy Laboratory (NREL) - the nation's primary laboratory for renewable energy and energy efficiency R&D located in Golden, CO (25 miles south and also home of Coors Brewery). The Cooperative Institute for Research in the Atmosphere (CIRA) - directs research in the atmospheric sciences into practical applications in weather and climate located in Fort Collins, CO (about 50 miles north of Boulder).

Together, these 7 National labs are world leaders in the study of the world's climate and work closely with all major labs around the world studying the world's climate.

Just a bit of background on issue of 'Global Warming' would be helpful. Scientists studying ice core samples dating back some 6 million years have long known that the world's average temperature runs in cycles. In fact, currently, we are some 4°C (7.2°F) cooler than 12,000 years ago (the start of man's impact on the weather) and are in a naturally occurring warming cycle. The 'Global Warming' debate is based on the current faster rate of temperature increase (not that it's increasing because that is a naturally occurring cycle) and what, or who, is the cause. While there is some disagreement on how much man's use of fossil fuels has added to the rate of warming in the current global warming cycle, there is no disagreement that man's use of fossil fuels has had an impact. It's also true that the computer models used by scientist around the world have not mapped to the observed data as well as they had predicted, but it's clear that the warming cycle we are in is ramping at a rate faster than any previously observed during the last 6 million years of data.

Because the models are used by the faction that argues that man is 'killing the planet' and Global Warming will be the death of us all unless draconian measures are taken world wide today, their accuracy in predicting the future is fundamental to the whole issue. So, the fact that the models predictions aren't mapping well to observable data means that the debate over man's contribution to the problem or even if there is a problem is problematic. So, therein lies the basis for the argument.

Most scientists believe that long term effects of the greenhouse gasses released by burning fossil fuels will ultimately cause the warming cycle to peak at a higher temperature than the average high. Some predict that it might peak at 4°C (7.2°F) higher than the normal high. This will cause issues with global weather intensity, crop growth paterns, and ocean levels. With the increased energy in the atmosphere due to the rising temperature, we are already seeing weather spikes, both highs and lows, that are larger than those seen during the previous 300 yrs and scientists believe that the extra energy put into the global weather system is the cause.

Now, the $6 Million question. How much of this rate change in temperature rise is due to man's impact? If it's all of it, then changes in man's impact will slow the rate of change. If man's impact is small, then changes in man's impact will have no effect. That's where the science and modeling runs into issues. Intuitively, adding greenhouse gasses into the atmosphere, reducing the ozone layer, and all the other 'bad' things mad does should be adding to the rate change so reducing those 'bad' things should help. Problem is that as we measure increase of the 'bad' things we've added to the atmosphere, the observed results don't fit the models of what affect those 'bad' things should produce.

Bottom line is that the models everyone uses to claim 'the sky is falling' aren't accurate and even small variations from predicted to observed are huge drivers for the validity and even the believably of future predictions. So, we are left with trying to divine what the truth is. The scientists are convinced that we are on a bad temperature rise curve but can't use their modeling to 'prove' it because the observables don't match the model's predictions well enough to use them to absolutely say with certainty that the models can accurately predict future temperature and weather patterns.

I, for one, assume that man's actions are having a negative effect on the globe in general, not just the weather and temperatures. That said, I've not seen any data, not hypothesis based on ??, but real, scientific data supported by the scientific method, that shows me how much of the effect man is causing. Some scientists and environmentalists suggest man is responsible for most or all of the rate of rise and predicted dire consequences while other scientists and people working in the field suggest our impact may be as little as 4% of the change.

So I ask myself, how does a nation or the world agree on a hugely expensive policy, estimated in the Hundred's of Trillions of Dollars, that could cripple the world's economies and cause the deaths of millions of the poor and impoverished from lack of support, based upon a set of models that track so poorly to observable data? The answer is . . . we don't. Further, as China and India together make up 34% of the Global CO2 emissions from fuel combustion (the US share is next at 15% with Russia next at 5%) and they have yet to acknowledge their responsibility, what affect will the entire rest of the world's draconian efforts really have?

Water Vapor