AGW supporters have a number of mostly derogatory names for people who aren't on board with their theories: Deniers, skeptics, lunatics, morons, anti-science.
A lot of "us" in the skeptic camp aren't so much skeptical of the science (although there is plenty to be skeptical of, as predictions have rarely been accurate or provable. It doesn't help that Al Gore's graphs showing a hockey stick increase in temperatures (and hurricanes) has been flat-lined for a decade.) The majority of "skeptics" are simply skeptical of the solutions being proposed to "fix" it. Anti-AGWer are more likely to want to "ride it out" rather than try spend AGW into submission. Whether that is stupidity or not depends on the economics and the possible outcomes. One thing we can agree on: Any "solution" proposed to fight global warming will cost trillions of dollars (short of a breakthrough in LENR, or a nuclear renaissance). The outcome, depending on where the money is spent, is unknown. Some scientists have said that we've already passed a tipping point and that we might be able to delay GW for a decade or two, but otherwise it is inevitable. Beachfront property should be going down in value (but I suspect it isn't). In the US, we have lots of things with trillion dollar price tags.. Wars/military spending, Health Care Costs, Social Security, disability/welfare payments, financial bailouts, stimulus programs, unfunded pensions, infrastructure spending... Then there are future unanticipated expenditures-- maybe a city gets destroyed or an anti-aging breakthrough (google C60 or sirt3) increases the lifespan of retirees by 50%... maybe a state or two goes bankrupt We might be able to afford 2 or 3 of those trillion dollar expenditures, but the rest are unfunded and can't be paid for--taxing the life out of every citizen just won't cover it. (Look at Apple, a $431B company, and take all their profits, and sell their business off to the highest bidders, and you could run the US without a deficit for a month.) We have a seriously underfunded set of liabilities that low-cost solar panels are not going to help. People think that when we end the war, we'll have a "peace dividend" that we can spend on green programs, social benefits, etc. Well, we've left Iraq and spending has not gone down a penny. That, and we didn't have the money to go to war in the first place-- it was all borrowed and any "dividend" of lower spending will mean less to pay back (or print). But don't hold your breath that the dollar printing press will slow down. By the way, China has been dumping our debt and buying hard assets -- gold, rare earth minerals, real estate, infrastructure... So they won't be left holding the bag. So is printing trillions of dollars to spending on "green" technology the best economic decision? No one knows.. but there are strong hints that printing money 24/7 may not be a good thing in the long run. So.. back to the OT AGW.. Is it one of the top 5 solvable unfunded trillion dollar+ problems? Maybe....But maybe it will solve itself using the time-honored system that sucks the least... Free market capitalism.. And maybe, just maybe, we are seeing it in action with Rossi and DGT. Respectfully, - Brad On Wed, Feb 6, 2013 at 6:48 AM, ChemE Stewart <cheme...@gmail.com> wrote: > Exactly, and just like on Earth, most low pressure atmospheric > disturbances, as gasses are collapsed and condensed are very cold. Same > thing when you collapse and condense Hydrogen in the sun's atmosphere. > In space orbiting particles less than 1e+20 kg are very hot because there > is no surrounding gas to condense, until they reach Earth @ 1000 miles/sec > with that CME > > > On Wednesday, February 6, 2013, Alexander Hollins wrote: > >> Sunspots look dark because they are cooler, not because they put out less >> light. >> >> On Tue, Feb 5, 2013 at 11:48 PM, Chuck Sites <cbsit...@gmail.com> wrote: >> >> Sunspots do reduce the solar input and during peak sunspot activity it >> can be as high as 15% more or less. Think about it. Sunspots are dark; >> Dark spots emit less light. So more sunspots, less light. Less light, >> less Solar input. Less solar input should mean less average global >> temperature rise from sun cycles.. What does effect the solar input is >> seasonal. The Earth-Sun orbit is elliptical so at certain times of the year >> we are closer to the sun than the other half. So yes Craig, I will agree >> that on the solar input side of the global warming equation you have many >> variables that can influence the input, but let me point out that has been >> happening for millions of years with little variation from what is >> happening now. >> >> Craig; the only conclusion you can deductively come to is that the >> average global temperature increase over the past 68 years is caused by >> human activity and based on the scale, it's human industrial scale activity >> creating CO2 as a byproduct. >> >> Craig, what convinced be about global warming wasn't all the numbers >> facts and figures, It was looking up in the sky and seeing all of these >> very high altitude clouds. Water vapor lofted up to the stratosphere by >> additional thermal energy dumped in the oceans from global warming. I >> encourage everyone to look for the really high vapor clouds. >> >> -- >> Chuck >> >> >> On Wed, Feb 6, 2013 at 12:59 AM, Craig <cchayniepub...@gmail.com> wrote: >> >> On 02/06/2013 12:27 AM, Chuck Sites wrote: >> > Haha. Yeah I saw that story, It's just bait for the deniers >> > (or contrarians), or just weird science to normal folks. For that >> > matter, mushrooms exhale CO2. Trust me, worms are not the cause of >> > global warming. >> > >> > I want to reply to Craig's comments and to argue scientifically >> > against his denial of Man-made causes of global warming. First lets >> > start with this graphic >> > http://www.climate4you.com/images/CO2%20MaunaLoa%20MonthlySince1958.gif >> > >> > With every seasonal cycle you can see the earth breath. The cycle is >> > cause by vegetation in northern hemisphere dying out each year, >> > releasing stored CO2 back into the air in winter and pulling CO2 back >> > into it's stems and roots during growing season. It's a cyclic >> > effect, and it show very well how easy it is to measure CO2 levels. >> > The trend line in background of that graph is all fossil fuel CO2 >> > from human activity. >> >> I am not arguing against the idea that man made the causes of global >> warming. I am arguing against the certainty that a correlation demands a >> certain causation. >> >> I'll stand corrected on the cyclical nature of CO2. I understand now, >> that you are correct, in that during the summer, the CO2 levels fall, so >> this would be the opposite to what I had assumed, which was the during >> the summer the CO2 levels rose. Good point. >> >> > >> > Craig, I appreciate your wanting to find alternative explanations to >> > global warming that isn't man made. All polluters wish they didn't >> > pollute I guess. But solar input isn't the cause of global warming >> > either. For example; there are sunspots which somehow in denier's >> > rose colored glasses cause the atmosphere to heat up. Exactly how is >> > that to happen when the solar input to earth is REDUCED by sun spots. >> > It's part of the solar forcing equation that balances with how much >> > heat is trapped by CO2 and how much escapes into space. >> >> Solar input is not reduced by sunspots. This is documented, but I can't >> look for the studies tonight. But higher sunspot activity yields a more >> active sun, and a higher total radiation to Earth. Those who consider >> the issue, but deny it, believe that the increased activity cannot >> possibly yield warmer temperatures. But those same people, who believe >> so strongly in correlations without causation, deny that the >> correlations between the sunspot activity and the Earth's temperatures >> are greater. What if I could show you a greater correlation between >> sunspot activity and the Earth's temperature, over t >> >>
