Gobal Warming: nonsense?

[_asbestosman]

I don't know about AGW, but I'd like Coggins' comments on my thread here.

It is also mathematical in nature.

While I didn't follow Wade's figures, I do tend to believe that SUV's don't account for much in the way of actual CO2 production percentage wise. I think SUVs are have just become the whipping-boy or symbol of wasteful extravogance. I find that unfortunate especially since some zealots have taken to slashing tires or worse--blowing them up.

On the other hand, while Wade's figures may be correct for linear systems, I am certain that climate is non-linear with all sorts of positive-feedback dependancies. There is a famous example of a chaotic system called the Lorenz attractor which demonstrates that linear math just won't cut it for the weather.

The short end of this is that I just can't tell who's right about AGW. But after seeing the videos in that other post I linked to, I kinda figure that i don't need to know.

By the way Coggins, I hate government regulation, so I am definately not itching for government to outlaw SUVs. I'm not exactly an Earth worshiper either--I would prefer we solve the energy problem with Nuclear power although it would need to be stored in another form (perhaps hydrogen or maybe just gasoline) for automobiles.

[_wenglund]

AAARRGHHH! I spent over an hour typing up two posts which I lost when I tried to submit them. I do have the second one saved on my work computer, and I'll get back there tomorrow. Shades, why do I have to login a second time when I post, and why do I consequently lose my post? I'm probably doing something wrong, but it would be nice to avoid it.

Anyway, I don't have time now except to say that I got stuck on Wade's #2 statements. I'll come back and clarify that when I can. Right now, I've got to take my wife a shoppin'.

cacheman

I look forwrd to reading whatever you have to post.

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

[_wenglund]

I don't know about AGW, but I'd like Coggins' comments on my thread here.

It is also mathematical in nature.

While I didn't follow Wade's figures, I do tend to believe that SUV's don't account for much in the way of actual CO2 production percentage wise. I think SUVs are have just become the whipping-boy or symbol of wasteful extravogance. I find that unfortunate especially since some zealots have taken to slashing tires or worse--blowing them up.

On the other hand, while Wade's figures may be correct for linear systems, I am certain that climate is non-linear with all sorts of positive-feedback dependancies. There is a famous example of a chaotic system called the Lorenz attractor which demonstrates that linear math just won't cut it for the weather.

The short end of this is that I just can't tell who's right about AGW. But after seeing the videos in that other post I linked to, I kinda figure that I don't need to know.

By the way Coggins, I hate government regulation, so I am definately not itching for government to outlaw SUVs. I'm not exactly an Earth worshiper either--I would prefer we solve the energy problem with Nuclear power although it would need to be stored in another form (perhaps hydrogen or maybe just gasoline) for automobiles.

You are right about climates being non-linear and having feed-back dependancies. That is why I am guessing that the supposed 25% increase in carbon dioxide over the last 150 years has supposedly only seen a .625% increase in the earth's temparature. If I recall correctly from the material I recently read, changes in the level of greenhouse gases in the stratosphere can inversely affect levels of greenhouse gases in the troposhere (and vice versa), thus off-setting to some degree the greenhouse affect caused by both layers of atmosphere. And, loss of shoreline for portions of certain glaciers may be off-set by increased density or shorelines of the glaciers elsewhere. And, so on and so forth.

I think that is why this complex issue generates such a broad range of opinions, and why I believe dogmatism and fear mongering is unwarranted. It's like with the over-population scare of the mid twentieth century that has yet to materialized as "scientifically" professied. Cooler heads should prevail. And, if my use of linear math on this non-linear issue moves us towards that end, then I am fine with that. ;-)

This does not mean I am against mankind, even through some public/private interventions, working to preserve and improve environmental conditions. I kind of like the approach taken by Dr. Peter Rogers in his collabrative work on sustainable development (I first heard of it several days ago on a PBS interview of Rogers, and thought it made a lot of sense). One does not need a highly debatable doomday scenario to find good cause to help clean and beautify the earth, both for ourselves today and for our posterity in the distant future.

Thanks, -Wade Englund-