Comments on: Um, er, um — maybe it’s not all global warming’s fault

By: benning

benning — Fri, 14 Dec 2007 20:05:39 +0000

I touched lightly on the rise in Volcanism on the earth, and its effects on the Arctic, among other things. Volcanism is one of those items ignored or forgotten by the Climate Change Chicken Littles.We have no power at all to stop volcanoes.

By: Allen L.

Allen L. — Fri, 14 Dec 2007 19:50:14 +0000

Danny- I am reminded of Hilbert’s solution of temperature distribution in a body. Einstein said of it something like, it makes no sense but it’s right. In reality the right answer was the non-simplistic non-obvious one. This happens a lot.

We are pretty much saying the same thing. Indeed climate change is made up of numerous forcing factors with feedback. The understanding of those various factors is elusive. I have always had a problem with models, even though I use them extensively. In my case I use hydrodynamic codes, which we think we have a good handle on, but they are still off at times. Global climate models? I don’t think we’ve even scratched the surface yet.

By: Danny Lemieux

Danny Lemieux — Fri, 14 Dec 2007 12:35:38 +0000

Allen L - Occam’s razor merely posits that you look at the most obvious, simplest explanations first. In the case of climate change, this would be a source of heat (the sun) and greenhouse gases (water, not carbon dioxide). My own skepticism was peaked in the climate change debate when these two factors were being deliberately downplayed by global warming proponents.

Upon further investigation, it turned out that most if not all climate change could be explained by solar cycles and water’s role as BY FAR the most important global warming gas was simply not understood - i.e., it could not be modeled. Hence, water was ignored. Finally, there was this niggling problem with all the elegant computer models that they simply didn’t work - they could make wild predictions going forward but could not explain anything going backwards.

So, back to Occam’s Razor - if science couldn’t even explain the most obvious, how could it even begin to explain the more complex?

By: Al

Al — Fri, 14 Dec 2007 10:41:31 +0000

Right now, there is plenty of oil, and not only under the sands of Arabia. The Arctic, the Gulf of Mexico, and more and more appearing off Brazil. I agree with Margaret that we need to redevelope our own oil infrastructure and there by save money, jobs, and the US economy. Once we throw the environmentalists on the dust bin of history, we’ll be able to do that. (I know it’s over used, but it’s the politest way I could describe them.) But…at some point we will run out and we must create new types of energy. And of course, the ultimate source is the Sun. That’s were our real research efforts should go.
Al

By: Allen L.

Allen L. — Fri, 14 Dec 2007 04:23:34 +0000

Occam’s razor is overly used. Some things by their very nature defy the simplistic explanation. Willem of Occam was a monk in, I think, the 13th century. Science progresses, and refines over time. I would argue that the current climate change folks, who are also claiming Willem, do not truly understand a multi-variable system and feedback loops.

By: Morgan K Freeberg

Morgan K Freeberg — Fri, 14 Dec 2007 02:55:45 +0000

Eye Blayme Boosh.

By: expat

expat — Fri, 14 Dec 2007 02:03:50 +0000

Cliff May has an interesting article on flex-fuel cars at NRO today. And check out http://www.nanosolar.com for some other interesting developments. We will get to energy independence. I can’t wait for the day when we can tell the oil thugs and faschist tree hugger to take a dive.

By: highlander

highlander — Fri, 14 Dec 2007 00:26:54 +0000

Thanks, Y, I feel much better now.

By: Ellie

Ellie — Fri, 14 Dec 2007 00:25:20 +0000

To me “Attitude adjustment” means Happy Hour: Skol!

But Book I’m totally with you. I want a tech energy solution so we can say to the oil rich despots “let them eat sand.”

By: ymarsakar

ymarsakar — Fri, 14 Dec 2007 00:22:57 +0000

So if our actions to halt global warming actually have an effect — which I doubt — but if they do, they will most likely make the next ice age even colder.

So long as Al Gore can burn up several tons of wood for warmth each day, it is all good, man.