I don't know if CO2 is the reason for the climate change. If not, the
current global CO2 reduction program is just a joke. Ok, I know US seems
never agree to reduce its consumption :-)
The price of gas or other resources does not reflect if they are scarce or
not. It is priced according to the market, if other energies are cheaper
then gas cannot sell too high. As long as the extraction cost+profit is
lower than the market price people will be willing to run the business. It
is selling of earth non recoverable resources without considering the actual
cost.
I never have real worry about the rise of temperature, it will not have big
influence to me. Except the winter here is shorter than 20 years ago hence I
have to pay higher electricity bill for running the air conditioner.
I also not worry about the energy supply, sun is a big energy source, the
scientist will find ways to make use of this resource more efficiently in
the future. Wind and hydropower are also good sources and running at a big
scale in China. I just don't like nuclear power but it seems necessary to
keep the total energy cost down in order to make the country more
competitive when coal are run out (or cost is too high to extract them from
earth).
C.H.Ling
----- Original Message -----
From: "Chuck Norcutt" <chucknorcutt@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
> As I said, the only thing that says there is a future climate problem
> are the 20 or so major climate models. If your friends are experts in
> climate modeling and can convince me: 1) that climate is not a chaotic
> system and 2) why the climate models are correct... then and only then
> can I be convinced. My strong suspicion is that they know little about
> either question since few scientists do.
>
> The vast majority of people involved in climate related research are
> measuring something temperature related or prognosticating about what
> will happen (in their particular field) if the temperature rises as
> predicted. Most researchers know little or nothing about the root
> causes of temperature rise other than that CO2 is the villain. In a
> climate model CO2 actually plays a rather small part. It is what forms
> the core of a snowball rolling down a hill picking up more and more snow
> as it goes. But the additional snow is only partly CO2. It's water
> vapor from additional evaporation as temperatures rise, methane from
> permafrost melt, etc, etc for perhaps hundreds of terms. Temperature
> has a non-linear response to rising CO2 concentrations and it requires
> many more factors to roll onward toward a disastrous temperature rise.
> Strangely, climate models seem to be all about positive feedback
> mechanisms with no negative feedbacks (that I'm aware of). Yet, despite
> billions of years of higher and lower temperatures and higher and lower
> CO2 concentrations than the present, the earth has maintained itself
> within a life supporting temperature range. That can only happen if
> there are negative feedbacks as well as positive. But since climate is
> a chaotic system I don't worry about those results any more than I worry
> about someone who supposes to predict the stock market 50 or 100 years
> hence.
>
> But you have mentioned one of the things I haven't mentally put to bed
> yet which is ocean acidification. I've just started to study this which
> will take me a long, long time I'm sure. But here is the skeptic's
> position: You start here with a description of the acidification
> database which is quite extensive
> <http://www.co2science.org/data/acidification/acidification.php>
> and end here with a graphical summary of the available data
> <http://www.co2science.org/data/acidification/results.php>
> All of the data in this database is from peer reviewed papers. I'm not
> aware of any other such compendium of the data. Make of it what you will.
>
> No, I don't believe in wasting scarce resources. But if the US has 100+
> years of natural gas supply is it scarce? If I were a Malthusian I
> should probably say yes. I am not a neo-Malthusian and the price
> applied by the market says no, it's not scarce. I believe it acceptable
> for me (and others) to behave according to our own economic advantage
> subject to our own cultural norms. Do whatever works for your own
> pocketbook and conscience.
>
> As I said, I've been studying this problem for 1-2 hours/day for the
> past several years exactly because I was concerned. Most of it was
> learning to wade through the chaff to get to the heart of the matter
> which I ultimately concluded was: 1) The veracity of the hockey stick
> curve and its indication of unprecedented warming and 2) The veracity of
> climate models. As far as I am concerned, climate alarmism has failed
> on both points. I've put in a very large effort to get to this point
> and feel well justified in my position. The emperor has no clothes.
>
> Chuck Norcutt
--
_________________________________________________________________
Options: http://lists.thomasclausen.net/mailman/listinfo/olympus
Archives: http://lists.thomasclausen.net/mailman/private/olympus/
Themed Olympus Photo Exhibition: http://www.tope.nl/
|