Thanks for voicing an informed opinion, in a way that will help to moderate the polarised positions that so many take on such a matter.

We need to learn the difference between computer simulaitons and the real world, and to think about the implications of that lack of deep understanding on the unintended consequences of policy action triggered sand sustained by ill-considered policy and emotional manipulation of the even more ill-informed public.

GEM of TKI

Dave – this is something with which I strongly agree. I’m an atmospheric scientist, not a climatologist, but in my opinion, based on my experience, the atmosphere cannot…*CANNOT*…be modeled decades in the future, even in the most general sense (general circulation on a global scale). The atmosphere is just too complex.

It is my experience from working with numerical weather prediction (NWP) models (more sophisticated versions of the general circulation climate models (GCM) used in global warming predictions) that they generally have no skill at +7 days. Expecting GCM models to exhibit any skill whatsoever decades in the future is a very big leap in my opinion.

I don’t believe CO2 is the main driver of climate change like it’s made out to be. The evidence points to albedo change (the earth is slightly darker). Two main factors appear to be behind that, only one of which is anthropogenic. Black carbon (soot from various sources – burning of wood, coal, and diesel are the biggies) is darkening the surface up to thousands of kilometers from its sources and it tends to have the greatest effect on permanent snowfields where it is concentrated on the surface during partial melts. The other factor is cosmic ray flux which moderates cloud formation. Less intense cosmic rays mean less clouds reflecting sunlight back into space. The flux varies according to intensity of sources outside the solar system (exploding stars and part of the galaxy the sun is traversing) and according to the intensity of the sun’s magnetic field which blocks a variable amount of cosmic rays.

There’s nothing we can do about cosmic rays but my position is we should encourage the primary sources of soot (Europe and Asia) to clean the particulates out of their chimneys, smokestacks, and exhaust pipes and not use fire to clear land for agricultural purposes. Soot is generally bad because one it’s a carcinogen and two it preferentially melts glaciers which causes unwanted spring flooding instead of a slower melt that provides water later in the year for agriculture. CO2 on the other hand whether it’s contributing much to warming or not, is not a health hazard, is beneficial to plant growth and plant water efficiency, will take a long time and cost a lot of money to reduce, and even if it is reduced any effect from the reduction won’t be seen for at least several decades if at all. Reducing soot emissions has an almost immediate effect in comparison because one it’s quick, easy, and relatively inexpensive to filter particulates out of smoke and ban clear-burning and two soot gets washed away from the surface where it causes harm after a few years exposure to the weather.

knowingly enchanted by the tall tales of sweet whiskey drinkers.

When I bartended eons ago, paying for college tuition, an old timber farmer would come in oncst a year with large wads of cash in hand, dripping from his pockets, bellowing to all the staff, girls and any city slicker around who came to the country college town, waving his chopped off nubs of his right hand high holding the massive wads of hundred dollar bills. He’d buy rounds of drinks for all, whoop and holla as if at his own personal anual dancing tree ball.

He asked, What’s college got to do with this? Cash gripped in grubby hands, tightfisted, high with might of conquered lands. Absolutely nothing, he exclaimed with glee… Set up another round of shots; he said, for all who gathered round to look upon his weathered face, mostly locals who known him long time, heard his stories from year to year.

Plant trees my boyzzz, plant treez, he said. Bountiful green! Every year he came in and made the same seen…, or so I’m told.

Quite a character looking back, although he was hard to handle, thrown out by management once I hear.

Who’d thunk he’d make common sense today after so many years?

I was saying to a friend a couple months ago that I thought it would be fun to make a brand of T-Shirts that are “Pro-Global Warming”. The thing that I was thinking, was that warmer earth meant more useable land (imagine Siberia as a new bread basket, or Antarctica as a new livable frontier). My comment was.. we loose parts of Florida (hpothetically)..but gain much more in Alaska or the Antarctica.

Not long after I suggested this… this article came out [actually it was one from AP on Yahoo news - which is now errored out]… it was ironic and funny:
http://www.iht.com/articles/ap.....onanza.php