First off
Ayiekie
Thanks for the sites.
I have some disagreement about your claim that their is only one major group against global warming.
However even if thier is a majority, scientist are as susceptable to following fads, especially political ones as anyone else and there have been enough examples from the past Liberal and Conservative or Republican and Democrat to make me distrustful of advocate groups with a consensus.
I'm willing to say that when a majority believe something they have a slightly higher chance of being right, but in the Global Warming issue I think I see problems at the foundation that make me unwilling to accept what you say the majority of scientist have accepted.
I try to make my own decisions and I think I have very good reasons for doubting the predictions about a Global warming runaway greenhouse effect or the effectiveness of the Kyoto accords.
I'm not against the ideas the Earth is Warming up and man is changing the enviroment, what I'm against is the idea that the Kyoto accords will be a solution to a problem that might not exist in 10 years.
Don't forget about 30 years ago many, probably a near majority were convinced we were headed for an ice age.
What if we had went to doing what was advocated by some then and started putting out the green house gases.
I feel the biosphere scientist are far to confident in what they think they know and in the models they have created of the biosphere.
These biosphere models are built on a very complex and growing stack of assumptions and best guesses and estimates trying to model a very complex system with unknown or unimagined feedback mechanism and external influences.
These models are fed a patchwork starvation diet of initial values and then are asked to predict conditions in 30 to 100 years for the planet.
I don't think I'd trust the results at least not enough to sink billions of dollars into trying to fix what the predictions say are going to happen. Especially when other nations like China, India and Russia are getting loop holes that leaves us and Europe footing the bill.
Both from my farming and my degree in engineering I know what an economic gold mine I'd have if I could produce a weather modeling program that accurately year by year predicted how much heating fuel would be needed by the United States the following year.
Global Warming advocates are trusting and using biosphere models supposedly looking 30 to 100 years into the future and predicting a Global warming and yet none of these models can reliably look even a year into the future and let you safely speculate by buying low and selling high.
Weather is a chaotic system the further you go from the initinial inputs the less the model will match the actual events. If your model is accurate enough at 30 years to make a generic global prediction for the entire planet then at the one year mark it should be very accurate at a state or county level.
Below in Fnord's portion I mention a analog model of a city's water system once used to predict how the system would react to changes. Today a city can buy a computer program and model thier water and sewer systems and predict cost as it ages and grows in the coming years. Barring unpredictable events like Earthquakes, floods or Gold rush the program is accurate enough for a city to set long term budget plans and produce accurate estimate of the long term maintenance/expansion cost.
Second off
MFnord
You seem to not understand what a analog model or computer is.
A analog model does not have to resemble or match what your modeling.
For example water flowing in pipes in some ways can be used as an analog of electricity and electricy can be used to model water yet neither have much resemblance.
I remember a electrical analog computer used to predict the flow of water in a city's water lines and sewer systems.
This collection of wires, resistors, capacitors and batteries could accurately model changes made to the water system and the effects those changes would have on the water system.
Yet that collection of resistors, Capacitors, wires and batteries looked nothing like the system of pipes and flowing water it was modeling.
Again I say that just because mars is very different from Earth isn't an argument against using it as a partial check on our Earth biosphere models especially to look for influences external to both worlds.
MFNORD
I did not say the Ice melted completely off the South Pole, you said that and then argued against that.
The computer models when run backwards show a chaotic system with occasional periods like todays conditions around the South Pole continent when the ice is broken or clearing enough to allow ships to approach and observe that there is a continent present not just a few Islands and ice.
I never mentioned that rather infamous Map, you did and then proceded to argue against it. Which I agree it isn't a Map of the South Pole continent.
What I was thinking of was the fairly consistent world wide legends or sailor folk lore of the South Pole having a ice covered continent 100's or possibly 1000's of years before it was officially discovered.
I also only gave it a "minor" level of validity putting it in roughly the same catagory as the persistant and "minor" legends and tales of European or Asian sailors discovering North and South America hundreds or 1000's of years before columbus.
Ancient sailor folk lore has been fairly consistant in saying that the North Pole didn't have a full land mass blocking it under the Ice and that the South Pole did have a large land mass under the Ice.
This tends, however slightly to support the idea that the Earth has had warm periods.
howard melton
God bless
Ayiekie
Thanks for the sites.
I have some disagreement about your claim that their is only one major group against global warming.
However even if thier is a majority, scientist are as susceptable to following fads, especially political ones as anyone else and there have been enough examples from the past Liberal and Conservative or Republican and Democrat to make me distrustful of advocate groups with a consensus.
I'm willing to say that when a majority believe something they have a slightly higher chance of being right, but in the Global Warming issue I think I see problems at the foundation that make me unwilling to accept what you say the majority of scientist have accepted.
I try to make my own decisions and I think I have very good reasons for doubting the predictions about a Global warming runaway greenhouse effect or the effectiveness of the Kyoto accords.
I'm not against the ideas the Earth is Warming up and man is changing the enviroment, what I'm against is the idea that the Kyoto accords will be a solution to a problem that might not exist in 10 years.
Don't forget about 30 years ago many, probably a near majority were convinced we were headed for an ice age.
What if we had went to doing what was advocated by some then and started putting out the green house gases.
I feel the biosphere scientist are far to confident in what they think they know and in the models they have created of the biosphere.
These biosphere models are built on a very complex and growing stack of assumptions and best guesses and estimates trying to model a very complex system with unknown or unimagined feedback mechanism and external influences.
These models are fed a patchwork starvation diet of initial values and then are asked to predict conditions in 30 to 100 years for the planet.
I don't think I'd trust the results at least not enough to sink billions of dollars into trying to fix what the predictions say are going to happen. Especially when other nations like China, India and Russia are getting loop holes that leaves us and Europe footing the bill.
Both from my farming and my degree in engineering I know what an economic gold mine I'd have if I could produce a weather modeling program that accurately year by year predicted how much heating fuel would be needed by the United States the following year.
Global Warming advocates are trusting and using biosphere models supposedly looking 30 to 100 years into the future and predicting a Global warming and yet none of these models can reliably look even a year into the future and let you safely speculate by buying low and selling high.
Weather is a chaotic system the further you go from the initinial inputs the less the model will match the actual events. If your model is accurate enough at 30 years to make a generic global prediction for the entire planet then at the one year mark it should be very accurate at a state or county level.
Below in Fnord's portion I mention a analog model of a city's water system once used to predict how the system would react to changes. Today a city can buy a computer program and model thier water and sewer systems and predict cost as it ages and grows in the coming years. Barring unpredictable events like Earthquakes, floods or Gold rush the program is accurate enough for a city to set long term budget plans and produce accurate estimate of the long term maintenance/expansion cost.
Second off
MFnord
You seem to not understand what a analog model or computer is.
A analog model does not have to resemble or match what your modeling.
For example water flowing in pipes in some ways can be used as an analog of electricity and electricy can be used to model water yet neither have much resemblance.
I remember a electrical analog computer used to predict the flow of water in a city's water lines and sewer systems.
This collection of wires, resistors, capacitors and batteries could accurately model changes made to the water system and the effects those changes would have on the water system.
Yet that collection of resistors, Capacitors, wires and batteries looked nothing like the system of pipes and flowing water it was modeling.
Again I say that just because mars is very different from Earth isn't an argument against using it as a partial check on our Earth biosphere models especially to look for influences external to both worlds.
MFNORD
I did not say the Ice melted completely off the South Pole, you said that and then argued against that.
The computer models when run backwards show a chaotic system with occasional periods like todays conditions around the South Pole continent when the ice is broken or clearing enough to allow ships to approach and observe that there is a continent present not just a few Islands and ice.
I never mentioned that rather infamous Map, you did and then proceded to argue against it. Which I agree it isn't a Map of the South Pole continent.
What I was thinking of was the fairly consistent world wide legends or sailor folk lore of the South Pole having a ice covered continent 100's or possibly 1000's of years before it was officially discovered.
I also only gave it a "minor" level of validity putting it in roughly the same catagory as the persistant and "minor" legends and tales of European or Asian sailors discovering North and South America hundreds or 1000's of years before columbus.
Ancient sailor folk lore has been fairly consistant in saying that the North Pole didn't have a full land mass blocking it under the Ice and that the South Pole did have a large land mass under the Ice.
This tends, however slightly to support the idea that the Earth has had warm periods.
howard melton
God bless