Originally Posted by the4thseal  ok....i am an engineer.... and i love data.....lots of data....never too much data :-)..i am thinking that the ability to measure the earth's temperature is a current ability using satellites ect. that leads me think the temperature assessments that predate the satellite are suspect. or should i say that they lack fidelity????? i know when i am trying to make a design if i do not have good data than i am screwed. am i alone here in thinking that there is not great data on this topic?. we have had global heating and cooling cycles in that past that exceed what we have now or likely to see , right?
i am getting the feeling that this is just pissing in the wind....or maybe a global warming hurricane....oops they were wrong, there were far fewer hurricanes than predicted. O buy the way ,does anyone know if the global warming models are more accurate than the climate models for hurricane prediction? i am getting the feeling that our understanding is way light to make any serious analysis possible. Or are we all just picking a position thats suits our personal points of view? thoughts? |
Hi,
I think that's exactly what we're doing, picking a position thats suits our personal points of view. I know I am a dyed in the wool unapologetic liberal and am going to argue that perspective. I agree with you that the historic records are suspect. I don't think we had a major melting of the ice caps 6,000 years ago during the Climatic Optimum that Geof referred to. I just allowed his assumptions for the sake of argument.
Sure, we've had these cycles before, but the earth was a lot less populous then. If we go into a sustained warming trend now a lot of people are going to die. The CSP (concentrated solar power) technology that I told Geof about is competitive with $60 a barrel oil. Where is the downside?
I can think of much better uses for oil than sticking it into the atmosphere.
Donna