And what have we to show for that brief instant of geological time?
Extensive and pervasive slaughter (>15% by Mongol hordes) and genocide (Turks, Jews, Armenians, American Indians, etc); catastrophic diseases like plague and 1917 flu which reduced earth's population by 20 to 40%; two major world wars, one of which incinerated whole cities of people in moments...
So by analogy, since we have been here only a short time, we cannot possibly be responsible for any extensive damage.
I have only read perhaps two dozen "scientific" papers, but they contained only charts of refined data. This is not science, it is simply data collection. And on top of that it seems much of the data was either cherry picked or fraudulant to show the desired results. Quantity does not trump quality and truth is not determined by a majority. Computer models are not science either.
This entire entire global warming thing has taken on all the looks of religeon where true believers will never be swayed.
If you AGW folks want to believe, then so be it. If you want to believe creation happened 10k years ago, then thats OK too. If you think fairy dust can save the planet, well thats OK too. Just do it all on your own dime and do not expect me or my family to pay for it. I'm just not willing to provide a sacrifice for you.
This whole topic should have never appeared in an engineering forum and by the sounds of some of the posts, a lot of non engineers are writing. I have spoken my last word on the subject. I don't have time for tar babies. Have fun
Conservative estimates (of anthropologists) would put man's extent at no more than 2 Million years to present. Dinosaurs quite surpassed humans in their geological history which extends through hundreds of millions of years.
Of course, you can get off the boat wherever you'd like and go with the creationists who place man's existence as contemporaneous with the dinosaurs. That's about the same 'scientific' logic as equating extensive climate alterations due to the exponential effects of only very few degrees of global climate change with the evil machinations of "climate scientists" and the "green empire of world control"!!!
The very simple relation of who actually profits from "climate warming is no big deal" is quite obvious --- ExxonMobil, Cabot O&G, Shell, etc, Halliburton, Schlumberger, and their lapdogs - the WSJ, FOX news, CNN, and most of the MSM. No big deal = Continue to generate income and pad their accounts...
On the other hand, dinosauers are pretty good with frankenfurters.
Aside from the changes in solar activity, which it does increase and decrese, what about the likelyhood that there are other cycles with a much longer period?
For that matter, do you really believe that the world would otherwise just go on the same for ever? Some folks point to evidence showing that at one time we had an ice age, and then things warmed up. Then in the sixties the predictions were for the next ice age. It must have slipped right by me. My point being that the climate change is a lot like the sun setting and the tide rising, in that it is going to happen, and so we need to figure out how to live with it.
I will probably survive, but others here may not. Learn from the dinosauers before it is too late.
If your calculations are meaningful, the exact chemical description needs to be meaningful, as well. 3 or 4 drops of LSD25 or botulism could kill or seriously debillitate anyone entering that olympic pool.
They have. It is in thousands and thousands of scientific papers in many journals covering research going back 1/2 a century. And ExaBytes of observational data. They have shown you the science. But you haven't read it yet.
Or are you suggesting that the worlds scientists should come to your home to give you a personal briefing on it?
"Undeniably the one and only source of global warming is the sun, not man. The sun is producing an upsurge in solar flares putting out more heat some of which hits the earth."
Over the last 1/2 century solar activity has declined very slightly at the same time that temperatures have been rising. So its not the sun causing it. Inconvenient thing ain't it. A nice speculation about alternative theories shot down by inconvenient data.
Done. All though you have a bit of reading ahead of you. Start with the IPCC's last report - AR4. Read the working group 1 section, the physical science basis. Then read the thousands of scientific papers cited in support of this across many different branches of science - Physics, Thermodynamics, Radiation Heat Transfer theory. Oceanography, Ocean Chemistry, cloud science, geochemistry, hydrology, paleoclimatology.... Then start following the citation links in all those papers to earlier papers containing more of the earlier research. After reading thousands of scientific papers stretching back to the 1950's, with a handful from pioneers before WWII you will a grasp of the scientific basis for it.
Then to look at data you can use the Data Sources page at RealClimate.org to link to all the main repositories of data amassed Exa Bytes of it - spectroscopic data, satellite observations of everything imaginable, radiosonde data, sea surface temperatures, GH gas concentrations, Solar activity, aerosol ovservations, Soil moisture data, ocean temperature, density, salinity, Ph, Carbonate concentrations, ocean current speeds,, recently satellite gravity measurements of mass changes, cloud height & composition, paleo climate data - sediment cores, ice cores, diverse isotope ratio studies, geological and geochemical data and .....
"Bottom line, I'll have more confidence when my local Weatherperson can predict daily temperatures a year in advance and be more than 3 sigma accurate. I'm expected to be within 3 sigma in my calculations / tests / and predictions in my job. Heck, just to give them the benefit of doubt, make it very simple and only predict the daily temperatures 2 weeks in advance and be within 2 sigma accurate."
Sorry but this is very faulty reasoning. I'll give you an analogy. My swimming pool's water level is low so I throw a hose in and start adding water.I know that it will take hours to fill but I'm not sure exactly because I can't measure the flow rate in the hose that accurately. But certainly some hours. Now you are suggesting that if I watch one single point in the pool and look at the instantaneous level changes, while my family are busy using the pool, making waves, if I can't predict exactly what that spot will be like 33 seconds from now, I can't possibly predict what the water level will be like hours from now. You are trying to judge how well we can prdict the signal ased on how well we can predict the noise.
Focus on Fundamentals consists of 45-minute on-line classes that cover a host of technologies. You learn without leaving the comfort of your desk. All classes are taught by subject-matter experts and all are archived. So if you can't attend live, attend at your convenience.