Climate is a subject of science -- we understand and conceptualize climate via science. Our individual experiences are of WEATHER not climate.
Science is ALL about quantification. So far there is precious little quantification that holds up in the area of Global Warming. I'm not saying there are not numbers, the question is how to interpret these numbers. At one time we are told that our temperatures today are unpredented in the modern geological epoch (hockey stick graph) then at a later time we are told -- by the leader of the East Anglia University climate research center that has been the main champion of the anthopomorphic climate warming theory -- that it could very likely have been as hot or hotter during the medieval warming epoch (1000-1200). Talk about an "inconvenient truth!" We have people point to the receding snows on Mount Kilimanjaro and say "See with your eyes -- global warming!" but then do not take into account that annual rainfall has been reduced on the top of Mount Kilimanjaro. You have a single Ph'D in India, not a climate specialist mind you, saying that glaciers in the Himalaya are receding and at present rates all will be gone in 30 years. Then this "fact" gets into a key UN climate study group report, even though true glacier scientists have identified the inaccuracy of this information in advance of this publication. You have a study that purports to show that increased measured temperatures are NOT the result of urban sprawl (that is, temperature stations at first located in a cool green field later are surrounded by a hot concrete jungle) . . . turn out to have no valid data because the temperature stations have been moved as much as 40 kilometers and these random movements have not been reliably recorded or taken into account!!!! That is NOT science, folks. Let me repeat for the dense. That is NOT science, folks.
So, the statement that human beings impact their environment doesn't tell us much until we can quantify the impact. I peed behind a tree while I was out hunting. That effected the environment: before I peed the ground was dry; after I peed the ground was wet.
There are many unknowns. We know that climate has changed in the historic past -- little ice age 1225-1825, medieval warming epoch 1000-1200 -- but we don't know WHY. We have reason to assume that human beings were not involved. We are finding new climate drivers all the time. I remember that El Nino and El Nano have not always been known. It seems I have recently heard of research that has identified a long time period ocean current behavior that significantly impacts climate. I have read of recent discoveries that the American southwest has experienced mega-droughts in the past: droughts that have lasted ~125 years. To be concise -- climate science is immature.
Some would say the best action, in such an uncertain circumstance, is to play it safe. I don't see the logic there. To play is safe in an uncertain environment I ought to stay in bed. I might step on a bar of soap in the shower and experience a crippling injury. I should not drive to work: I may be killed in an automobile accident. The logical failing in "best to play it safe" is that the negative consequences are not taken into account.
Let's play it safe: let's dial back our CO2 emissions to 1990 levels. What is not taken into account is the impact such action would have on our economies, our standard of livings, and particular the future prospects for our children. It would NOT be pretty, no matter what the Sierra Club wants you to believe. Speaking for myself, I'm not going to dramatically injure my standard of living for a highly uncertain and dubious prospect.
The climate science is not mature. Often times complicated systems have feedback systems that tend to adapt parameters to maintain a set point of the system. It is entirely possible that such a feedback system is part and parcel of our climate and that offsetting compensation adapts to increased levels of CO2. Or methane.
So, let Brian Williams say what he wants -- he can say that from his perspective the earth is flat for all I care -- but linking a single tornado outbreak to global warming is not science and to my view appears much like the superstitious cast of mind that prevailed during the middle ages and saw in a left handed person an indication of an evil nature.
Bear in mind with reference to older tornado damage reports that populations were more dispersed. To some extent more lives would tend to be lost because of an inadequate warning system; but to another extent loss of life would tend to be reduced because of the greater dispersal of populations.
Last edited by Alsatian; 04-30-2011 at 09:31 AM.
|
