Log in

No account? Create an account
bear by san

March 2017



Powered by LiveJournal.com
bear by san

link salad

Think we can get them to name it Yuggoth? (via kelliem)

This whole global climate change thing is really quite simple, when it comes right down to it.


Actually, there's an alternative climate change theory out there that I think isn't getting enough media attention.

Pirates Vs. Temperature

If you study the data, there appears to be a direct correlation between increasing global temperatures and the declining world population of pirates.
People always seem to have a lot of resistance to anything which either threatens their special standing in the universe or tells them that something they are doing is actually very bad -- regardless of how much evidence is presented that it is true. Funny, huh?
Clearly the Earth is getting warmer. So are Mars, Jupiter, and the Sun itself — just to mention three bodies on which I've seen reports of recent data. The correlation between temperatures on Earth and solar activity is exceptionally high; that between temperatures and CO2 emissions, much less so. Which has long since led me to the conclusion that no human action, political or technological, can have very much effect on this change, unless we figure out a way to turn off the Sun.

As Bjorn Lomborg has pointed out (and backed his assertions meticulously), even if the most extreme proponents of the anthropogenic-warming hypothesis are correct, it will still cost more to implement Kyoto than it would cost to adapt to the warmer climate — and Kyoto will, at best, reduce the warming by six percent. If in fact the warming is largely caused by solar activity, we'll have to adapt anyway. What price Kyoto if it won't even help?
Having done just a small bit of research on this (something like two years worth of reading) I'd like to see your sources cited, please.
To go into great detail would be both extremely time-consuming and, I expect, unproductive; but I can easily offer a few sources on some of the more obscure points. Here are the sources that tipped me off on Mars and Jupiter. The body of work on solar effects is frankly too large for anyone to read unless paid to do it, and nobody is paying me anything; I have generally only had access to abstracts; but this one looks significant to my unpractised eye:

Pang, K.D. and Yau, K.K. 2002. Ancient observations link changes in sun’s brightness and earth’s climate. EOS, Transactions, American Geophysical Union 83: 481, 489-490.

I shan’t give references to Lomborg, as it is scarcely possible to read anything about climate science without tripping over his name repeatedly.

My own view of the subject, which you (and many others) appear to regard as idiotic, perverse, and/or threatening, is that (a) we cannot blithely assume that climate change is anthropogenic, and there is much evidence that the preponderance of it is not; and (b) our actions should be based on what will actually do the most good, not on what will win applause in the press and make us feel righteous about ‘saving the planet’.

In this connexion, I take considerable interest in a statement by James Hansen: ‘It is possible to achieve such a climatically brighter path with actions that are not “economically wrenching,” indeed, actions that make economic sense independent of global warming.’ He points out (but I neither have access to his data nor the qualifications to check his results) that the current radiative forcing of black soot and tropospheric ozone combined roughly equal the forcing of excess CO2. He therefore suggests that the most effective way to inhibit the anthropogenic component of global warming is to take strong action to reduce ordinary air pollution, with particular emphasis on particulates and ozone emissions. If his calculations are correct, this will have a much greater effect than the 6 percent reduction predicted for full implementation of the Kyoto protocol. And it will save lives, and help the environment whether the warming models are correct or not. The present fixation of policymakers on CO2 emissions, I believe, is doing us and the earth a disservice.
And frankly, at this point, we have no choice but to adapt. Continued denial that there's even a problem isn't helpful to that process, however.
If you’re accusing me of denial, I’d like to know your grounds.
No need to be defensive. I don't believe I said anything directed at you personally other than a request for links. For which I thank you. (And no need to assume that I think you're naive or idiotic, as I don't believe I made either suggestion.)
My bad: so many of the arguments on this topic that I have either observed or participated in have turned blindingly acrimonious, I have come to take acrimony as given. As you point out, I’m being defensive, and I shouldn’t be. I sometimes forget that I’m not dealing with Usenet anymore.

Please accept my apology.
*g* des nada.