Vikram PracLabs
Sean Clark ---> I love this place!!!
Me ------> I definitely love this place!!!
"Half of the science is to ask question"
SCJA
When I die, I want people to look at me and say "Yeah, he might have been crazy, but that was one zarkin frood that knew where his towel was."
Vikram PracLabs
Sridhar Gudipalli|SCJP 6.0
SCWCD objectives
Sridhar Gudipalli wrote:I am from Hyderabad, India, where it is around 40-45C (112F to 122F) in summer.
Its been around 2 years in US and habituated to this weather.. Now its around 90F-95F (29C-32C) here in KY.
Oh my God!! feeling hot. I am surprised.. how I spent in India......
SCJA
When I die, I want people to look at me and say "Yeah, he might have been crazy, but that was one zarkin frood that knew where his towel was."
My understanding is that there definitely is global warming right now, but it's only a theory (but a plausible one) that is being caused by man-made CO2, with many scientists neglecting to examine the theory skeptically because reducing pollution and the burning of non-renewable fossil fuels is a good thing to do regardless.Tim McGuire wrote:I hope that the alternatives come on line soon, but my understanding is that the carbon needed to ruin the climate is already in the air. Once a molecule of C02 is in the atmosphere, it stays there for more than 100 years. So what we are putting up there today will continue to affect things into the year 2110. Even if we stopped _increasing_ our carbon output today, the earth would continue to change. But we can't even stop increasing the carbon we output every year. Heck, we can't even reduce the _rate_ of increase.
Of course, I'm just repeating what the scientists say. My neighbors here seem to have some instinctual knowledge of earth systems because they say this is all hogwash. Since everyone is equal here, their opinions count just as much as those who have spent their entire lives studying the climate.
Frank Silbermann wrote:
My understanding is that there definitely is global warming right now, but it's only a theory (but a plausible one) that is being caused by man-made CO2, with many scientists neglecting to examine the theory skeptically because reducing pollution and the burning of non-renewable fossil fuels is a good thing to do regardless.Tim McGuire wrote:I hope that the alternatives come on line soon, but my understanding is that the carbon needed to ruin the climate is already in the air. Once a molecule of C02 is in the atmosphere, it stays there for more than 100 years. So what we are putting up there today will continue to affect things into the year 2110. Even if we stopped _increasing_ our carbon output today, the earth would continue to change. But we can't even stop increasing the carbon we output every year. Heck, we can't even reduce the _rate_ of increase.
Of course, I'm just repeating what the scientists say. My neighbors here seem to have some instinctual knowledge of earth systems because they say this is all hogwash. Since everyone is equal here, their opinions count just as much as those who have spent their entire lives studying the climate.
I am skeptical of your claim that "all the data lines up solidly behind it and the underlying physics are solid" -- given that our physical understanding of the weather in general normally doesn't allow us to forecast beyond a week or so. What are your qualifications as a physicist, that you could know this (rather than merely having heard some other layman claim it), to distinguish the situation from my description (of the scientists feeling that cutting down on burning of fossil fuels is a good idea even if the theory isn't true so they might as well support it)?Tim McGuire wrote: So saying "only a theory" is misleading here. and saying "not the only one " is misleading as well, because the scientific community supports the theory. This is because all the data lines up solidly behind it and the underlying physics are solid.
Sumit Bisht wrote:Let's hope el nino doesn't wrecks up havoc this time round
[LEARNING bLOG] | [Freelance Web Designer] | [and "Rohan" is part of my surname]
Frank Silbermann wrote:
I am skeptical of your claim that "all the data lines up solidly behind it and the underlying physics are solid" -- given that our physical understanding of the weather in general normally doesn't allow us to forecast beyond a week or so. What are your qualifications as a physicist, that you could know this (rather than merely having heard some other layman claim it), to distinguish the situation from my description (of the scientists feeling that cutting down on burning of fossil fuels is a good idea even if the theory isn't true so they might as well support it)?Tim McGuire wrote: So saying "only a theory" is misleading here. and saying "not the only one " is misleading as well, because the scientific community supports the theory. This is because all the data lines up solidly behind it and the underlying physics are solid.
Frank Silbermann wrote:What are your qualifications as a physicist
Frank Silbermann wrote:that cutting down on burning of fossil fuels is a good idea even if the theory isn't true so they might as well support it
I suspect that the solidity of the various climate models fall between conventional physical models and, say, the correlation models used in economics. And though I agree that the evidence for man-made global warming is building, I suspect much of the marginalization of alternative views is due to social and political peer pressure among scientists as much as due to the results of technical research.Jules Bach wrote:
'weather' and 'climate' are very different things. They are also different when it comes to our ability to make predictions. While it is true that climate models vary in terms of exact effect, and it is also true that weather forecasts can be wrong, all climate models predict warming. There is a consensus that warming is occurring outside the 'natural cycle' at that humans are causing it. The alternatives to this consensus, whilst perhaps valid in a historical context are becoming increasingly marginalized.
Even the most conservative climate models ones paint a pretty gloomy picture if we continue with 'business as usual'.
It's dark and gloomy here in Cambridge.
Grow your own food... or this tiny ad:
a bit of art, as a gift, that will fit in a stocking
https://gardener-gift.com
|