What About Global Warming?

https://www.techrepublic.com.com/5208-6230-0.html?forumID=102&threadID=207065&messageID=2214926

It took me some time to find this, too. Maybe I'll save threads of interest in my Workspace for easy searching, even after unsubscribing from them.

1) Feel badly;
2) Look badly; or,
3) Are you just plain bragging?

As for "[i]there is a dogged effort by the more left leaning among us to convince us ...[/i]" and "[i]It's clearly a political power grab[/i]," it is necessary that you make the distinction between the message & the messenger.

That you may disagree with one's political bent does not perforce either invalidate that which he says or necessitate a political motive for the saying.

"[i]Basically, we don't trust you, or your motives[/i]"

I would have thought that by now you would understand that [i]my[/i] motives are [b]apolitical[/b].

"[i]and since we are in the cat-bird seat ...[/i]"

Now, please don't shoot the messenger, but I've some breaking news for you - you're no longer in the driver's seat. During the time that this and the related TR discussions have been taking place, opinions from all quarters have rapidly changed, far more rapidly than I had either expected or even believed possible.

Even though I find the data re. GW to be compelling, I am also concerned that the rush for counter-measures may lead to choices that are ill advised, poorly planned or badly executed, with the Law of Unintended Consequences demanding its due.

How would that solve the problem re. searching the text of the [i]Bodies[/i] of posts? TR's Link function merely bookmarks the URL of the Article, Discussion, etc., so that only the [i]Titles[/i] of posts are amenable to being found via a .

Have you found a way to save the [i]Print version[/i] of a Discussion to your Workspace? Now that would be very useful.

1) The underlying data are [b]estimates[/b].

2) Said estimates are for a [b]sub-set[/b] of all sources of "manmade" CO2, both direct and indirect.

3) CO2 is itself a [i]sub-set[/b] of all greenhouse gases; others include CH4, N2O & H2O. For a more complete list, see
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/IPCC_list_of_greenhouse_gases .

Therefore, the value of said graph lies not in the (limited) data for individual years, but rather in the trend of such.

What makes the so-called Keeling curve, based on the Mauna Loa data, so valuable is that it represents a continuous physical sampling of gases in the troposphere.

But, at least I'd have the thread saved, possibly categorized, and not have to try to use TR's sub-par search algorithm. It apparently only searches titles, not content, as I do recall vaguely an exchange you had with maxwell about his relative writing quality, yet using the words "maxwell edison among better writers" yielded nothing applicable to that current argument.

just explaining why the message was so short.

I try to look at the message and not the messenger. But some messengers resist not being looked at. I would give AL Gore more credence, for example, if he were riding a bicycle across the country giving his message than I do since he is flying in a jet and being picked up by limos.

And again, perhaps I am "too human", but when someone says "All reputable scientists say...", I know they are lying, so I am cautious when examining their claims. ("The Little Boy who Cried Wolf", and all that.)

I am but a juror, and the credibility of the witnesses IS an important issue.

[i]Even though I find the data re. GW to be compelling, I am also concerned that the rush for counter-measures may lead to choices that are ill advised, poorly planned or badly executed, with the Law of Unintended Consequences demanding its due.[/i]

Even though I find it less compelling than you do, my concerns are that the countermeasures will hurt far more people than it helps.

[added: clarification: Who is going to be hurt worst by the carbon credits? Certainly not the targetted corporations ... they will simply pass along the costs to the consumers. Now, which of those consumers will be hurt worst? $hit flows downhill!]

Here are the search results for the word "amish."

http://search.techrepublic.com.com/index.php?q=amish&c=1

For each of the 5 hits, the keyword "amish" is located as follows:

1) In both "Title" & "Tags" of "Discussion."
2) In "Title" of "Download."
3) Same as item 1.
4) In "Body" of [u]Root Post[/u] of "Discussion."
5) In "Alias" of "Respondent" [u]amishvyas@...[/u] to [u]Root[/u] of Discussion.

From my participation in at least one of the Discussions re. the Amish, I can attest to the fact the keyword appeared in multiple posts, yet fail to be located by this search.

Thus, it appears that TR's "Search" looks only at the "Title" of a Discussion, Question, Download, Article or Blog, the "Body" of the "Root" entry there, & the "Aliases" fo those who were "Respondents" to the Root. I.e., it looks [u]only[/u] at records at the [u]Root level[/u].

Upon awakening this morning, it occurred to me that I failed to mention a very important aspect of said data, no doubt owing to the fact that, as it was so obvious to me, I without thought assumed it to be obvious to all. However, in recalling your puzzlement re. the fall in CO2 "levels" during the period of the Great Depression, it seems that assumption may have been in error.

The CDIAC data represent [u][b]not[/b] atmospheric CO2[/u] levels, [u]but[/u] rather terrestrial emissions, i.e. [u]additions to atmospheric[/u] levels. To gauge atmospheric levels from the CDIAC data, one must accumulate the annual emissions.

Thus, it is not the case that atmospheric levels decreased during the Depression, but that they increased more slowly than was the case in the years immediately preceeding & succeeding said time period.

remains unanswered.

"Best" is a superlative, used when comparing [u]3 or more[/u] items. Therefore, "beat honey" implies 3 or more honeys.

Time to 'fess up; how many honeys do you have?

Emissions went down but atmospheric levels continued to rise. Of course, it's all estimates, as they didn't have the instrumentation to measure it at the time.... I'll find the original article again...

Including my daughter and granddaughter, several nieces, great-neices and nephews, and a spaterring of neighborhood kids, but the particular one I was referring to was my wife :)

The way you got out of that sticky situation re. "Honeys," that is.

CO2 levels.

That atmospheric CO2 levels continued to climb despite a decrease in the level of CO2 emissions simply means that, even at said reduced levels, CO2 was still being added to the atmosphere at a rate faster than Nature could remove it.

Now, consider the magnitudes of today's emissions levels as compared to those of 70 years ago. Even with emissions roughly only 10% of today's, those of 70 years ago already exceeded that of Nature's ability to cope! Thus, even if emissions were immediately reduced to zero, it would be a very long time before atmospheric levels returned to those of pre-WWII.

for more than one of THAT kind of honey for quite awhile :)

I know that neither energy use nor emissions are going to drop. We have nearly three times as many humans as we had back then and that trend is likely to continue. But the answer is not going to be political [added: When have politicians ever done anything to promote efficiency? And why would we think they're suddenly going to start now?]. It will either be technological or natural (remember the sharks and fish simulation?).

Or, too well satisfied with your present relationship?

Hopefully it's the latter.

As re. CO2, and the continued rise in atmospheric levels while emissions were falling, you do now see that there is no inherent contradiction in such?

The website link "The Other Side of the Global Warming Debate" in Maxwell Edison's article has recently moved from http://personals.galaxyinternet.net/tunga/OSGWD.htm to http://www.breadandbutterscience.com/OSGWD.htm

Global warming is the increase of the greenhouse gases (carbon dioxide and many more ) in the air which mainly comes from industries, cars and etc. The increase of this gas causes the temperature to increase too. That?s why you will find that the summers are hotter than they are in the past. The increased temperature melts the ice at the north and the south poles, leading to a rise in the oceans and seas around the world. In time to come, these water will tend to flood low-lying areas.
http://www.globalwarmingsurvivalcenter.com