<br><br><div class="gmail_quote">On Wed, Dec 2, 2009 at 8:50 AM, david w. millians <span dir="ltr"><<a href="mailto:millia@panix.com">millia@panix.com</a>></span> wrote:<br><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="border-left: 1px solid rgb(204, 204, 204); margin: 0pt 0pt 0pt 0.8ex; padding-left: 1ex;">
<div class="im"><br>
Jim Kinney wrote:<br>
> As far as I can tell the only consensus in the field is that CO2 and<br>
> methane are "greenhouse gasses" and that an accumulation of them will<br>
> cause a change in global average temperature. What is under hot debate,<br>
> often with political and economic overtones and undercurrents, is how<br>
> much change and how fast. It is well understood from analysis of Venus<br>
> that a high CO2 atmosphere will act like a thermal blanket.<br>
<br>
</div>Seems obvious, but is it? I don't know. And that's the best way to<br>
approach science. I am concerned with some of the lockstep behavior in<br>
all of this; I *think* maybe we have started to affect things- goodness<br>
knows we don't get weather like we used to in Athens, but that could<br>
just be part of a cycle. There's just not enough data...<br></blockquote><div><br>Actually there is enough data to support a very generalized conclusion that anthropogenic CO2 will have a impact on a global, not local, climate with an effect of raising the average surface temperature over time. Due to politics and economics, the tremendous amounts of data needed to reasonable accurately predict the rate of change in that surface temperature is not currently being collected. To do so will require a global effort scaled up from something similar to the Manhattan Project but scaled for global deployment. Most developed countries don't want the data at the political level. Knowledge of the impact to their economic system of what they will have to do to mitigate their impact is too great of a change from business as usual.<br>
<br>Weather changes noticeable at the local level are in the normal fluctuation zones for short-scale observations. A warmer or colder winter in a particular region is neither proof nor refutation of global climate change. "My marble is red therefore all marbles are red" is a logical fallacy and similar to the arguments espoused by proponents and opponents alike when using a local data set to justify their particular viewpoint.<br>
</div><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="border-left: 1px solid rgb(204, 204, 204); margin: 0pt 0pt 0pt 0.8ex; padding-left: 1ex;">
<div class="im"><br>
> Professor Lindzen is a very reasonable voice of opposition in some of<br>
> the conclusions presented by committees of climate science paper<br>
> reviewers.<br>
<br>
</div>And we need more voices like his...<br>
<div class="im"><br>
> He also is an opponent of linking smoking to lung cancer<br>
> (he's a smoker).<br>
<br>
</div>...except for the fact that he's a gold-plated idiot. Sheesh. You want<br>
to be an idiot, that's fine*, but please don't muddy the waters for<br>
people who aren't smart enough to know better. Correlation is causation<br>
here. Not everybody who gets lung cancer smokes- but it's a 4:1 ratio.<br>
<br>
*not near me, please.<br>
<div><div></div><div class="h5">_______________________________________________<br>
Ale mailing list<br>
<a href="mailto:Ale@ale.org">Ale@ale.org</a><br>
<a href="http://mail.ale.org/mailman/listinfo/ale" target="_blank">http://mail.ale.org/mailman/listinfo/ale</a><br>
See JOBS, ANNOUNCE and SCHOOLS lists at<br>
<a href="http://mail.ale.org/mailman/listinfo" target="_blank">http://mail.ale.org/mailman/listinfo</a><br>
</div></div></blockquote></div><br><br clear="all"><br>-- <br>-- <br>James P. Kinney III<br>Actively in pursuit of Life, Liberty and Happiness <br><br>