Today's theories on "global warming, climate change, . . ." Is like someone predicting the
stock market based on one weeks performance.
stock market based on one weeks performance.
Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
You ask very good questions. I'm not being a smart ass when I say that, but I know well enough when to say: "I don't the answer to this." I think we need to listen to people who do know, and you and I both know that's been a problem for years.Originally posted by lawpoke87:
Ray Stantz posted on 5/14/2014...
The argument is, it costs too much to do anything, so f-it? That's not good enough IMO. Some things don't have to financially viable to be worthy of attention. There's a lot this country has done over the years that were so clearly not viable financially. Too many to count in fact.Originally posted by lawpoke87:
Just read the latest synopsis from the feds. I still see no cost-benefit analysis. For that matter I see very little information on what steps the U.S. can take and how much said steps will reduce the amount of global CO2 emissions being released and the expected results thereof.
I ask again...isn't this analysis the most important issue to be addressed if one believes in global warming and man's responsibility in the same?
_______________________________________________
I'm not arguing that it cost to much so F it. My question is what are the proposed "solutions", what are the costs, and what effect will they have if implemented by the U.S. on total global carbon emissions going forward and in turn what effect will it have on global warming?
I see all the arguments about global warming and the causes of the same but not a word as to proposed solutions and more importantly their effect on said warming. Isn't this THE most important question to be resolved? We live in reality. We do in fact have finite resources (money). Where said resources should be spent to ensure the least amount of disruption to our people and possibly even our survival is a vital question which must be asked. Yet, I'm the only one asking.
The key questions as I see them:
1) What measures should the U.S. implement?
2) What are the cost of these measures?
3) Where is the money coming from?
4) What net effect on total global CO2 emission will these measures have?
5) How much will said measures if instituted by the U.S. reduce global warming and over what period of time?
This post was edited on 5/16 11:29 AM by lawpoke87
IPCC's 2014 working group 3 report: "Mitigation of Climate Change" provides a good summary of the research in these areas. The 6th chapter on "Assessing Transformation Pathways" addresses most of your specific questions with references to recent relevant research.Originally posted by lawpoke87:
I'm all ears. My problem is that I haven't seen any studies or articles from those who should know addressing any of these questions. Do you have a link to anything?
The article answers your question.Originally posted by rabidTU:
http://www.foxnews.com/science/2013/08/13/weather-station-closures-flaws-in-temperature-record/
So why are the climate radicals closing "selected" data gathering stations? Do we need fewer or more of them?
So your position is that we need fewer stations overall and the stations "they" select for closure are not selected because they might contradict GW? I see. And they just so happen to be those stations that "cool" the data. Hmmm!Originally posted by voetvoet:
The article answers your question.Originally posted by rabidTU:
http://www.foxnews.com/science/2013/08/13/weather-station-closures-flaws-in-temperature-record/
So why are the climate radicals closing "selected" data gathering stations? Do we need fewer or more of them?
"the agency considered several factors in shuttering stations, including whether their data was redundant, whether urban growth had rendered data invalid and if sites were transmitting reliable data."
The problem is that the stations are being closed down in the first place. Wouldn't more data be better than less - redundant or not? And as far as spending is concerned, we are already spending billions, mostly going to "friendly" climatologists whos jobs are tied to GW and who aren't even questioning the reason for the research to begin with. A little expenditure for "repairing" those data stations rather than eliminating them altogether seems more relevant and revealing. The more info the better IMO. Then we can sort out the details of what is found from it.Originally posted by voetvoet:
No, my position is that we shouldn't pay to keep stations open that are providing redundant or otherwise flawed data.
There are algorithms that correct for abnormalities, but they're more complex than I can understand. I know there's an aspect of comparing nearby references and there's some component that uses satellite temperature data to help correct as well.Originally posted by lawpoke87:
Voetvoet,
Do you know how NOAA is adjusting it's temperature data to account for the effects of urban sprawl near many of it's weather reporting stations? Wouldn't weather data from rural stations which isn't effected by man-made surroundings provide a much more accurate representation of historic weather trends?
The last I checked, the USHCN had a $3.7 million budget for these measurement sites. So, saving money where they can is still a priority.Originally posted by rabidTU:
The problem is that the stations are being closed down in the first place. Wouldn't more data be better than less - redundant or not? And as far as spending is concerned, we are already spending billions, mostly going to "friendly" climatologists whos jobs are tied to GW and who aren't even questioning the reason for the research to begin with. A little expenditure for "repairing" those data stations rather than eliminating them altogether seems more relevant and revealing. The more info the better IMO. Then we can sort out the details of what is found from it.Originally posted by voetvoet:
No, my position is that we shouldn't pay to keep stations open that are providing redundant or otherwise flawed data.
IMO
So the point is that the stations are being cut back because of budgetary concerns? The FGt is currently spending billions on GW. Cutting back on the very data this discussion is based on is obviously another example of the poor job the FG does with this sort of thing to begin with.Originally posted by voetvoet:
The last I checked, the USHCN had a $3.7 million budget for these measurement sites. So, saving money where they can is still a priority.Originally posted by rabidTU:
The problem is that the stations are being closed down in the first place. Wouldn't more data be better than less - redundant or not? And as far as spending is concerned, we are already spending billions, mostly going to "friendly" climatologists whos jobs are tied to GW and who aren't even questioning the reason for the research to begin with. A little expenditure for "repairing" those data stations rather than eliminating them altogether seems more relevant and revealing. The more info the better IMO. Then we can sort out the details of what is found from it.Originally posted by voetvoet:
No, my position is that we shouldn't pay to keep stations open that are providing redundant or otherwise flawed data.
IMO
No actually my point is that the money would be better spent on compiling the data (not alternatives as you say because that pre-supposes MCGW is settled science - its not) and because legitimately arrived at data is the only way to prove the global alarmists wrong. If the data was arrived at fairly and impartially by those who have absolutely nothing to gain from the results then the tree spikers would have some semblence of a legitimate argument. But the scrutiny has to be absolutely fair.Originally posted by voetvoet:
No, my point was that there are not billions being spent, but I'm surprised to hear you're in favor of increased funding. Personally, I think that money would be better spent on alternative energy research.