it isnt often that we have a chance to say thank you

[davebodner]

The climate is warming. We're likely the main cause of it. One snowstorm is evidence of...nothing. The facts about worldwide temperature changes that are going on right now are out there for those who want to look them up.

[dusty]

The climate is warming. We're likely the main cause of it. One snowstorm is evidence of...nothing. The facts about worldwide temperature changes that are going on right now are out there for those who want to look them up.

If you don't believe that, just ask Gore. Don't ask my brother. He is busy shoveling snow in Montana in September.

[everettdavis]

I normally don’t weigh in on these types of discussions but it was a quiet Sunday afternoon.

I understand the diverse thoughts and comments and agree the climate changes.

The entire premise of computer climate models making projections in climate are based cyclically on a Pre-acceptance of a dating means.

This comes both from archeology and scientific sampling presumably having an exact fixed time interval that defines how long the climate cycle repeats itself.

The earth itself has diverse geological and climatological processes that exacerbate measurement.

As a programmer and certified IT Professional for over 30 years I recognize that single time variable within the computer models will have dramatic effect on what the models predict at a point in time.

One example I can relate relative to carbon dating came from the examination of a primary tooth from a child submitted the parent for subsequent carbon dating.

The parent is alive, the child obviously alive, and the pristine preserved tooth came back in excess of 10,000 years.

It repeatedly came back with similar results. Some unknown factor existed causing such disparities to produce those results. What does it say then? We don’t know.

There are many things we don’t know. We hypothesize.

This is but one example of the inexact science of dating physical materials with scientific processes.

If it were a tree ring from a living tree, we could estimate its age by counting tree rings.

If it were submerged in soil for 200 years after it fell, it could be compared to other samples of same tree species that was part of a 200 year old building whose construction date was verified.

If the growth rings of both grown in the same climate were the same characteristics of growth pattern, an approximate date could be extrapolated.

If however that tree was the main mast of a schooner that came from another part of the world in a different time, great speculation would exist if we even knew the origin.

The computer models are subject to the variables in the equation and the skill of the programmer in crafting the algorithm.

If the time reference is off the position in the cycle being analyzed is going to be off significantly.

There are very intensely watched computer models today projecting in real time, with relatively accurate measurements the path of hurricanes.

How well do we do with these real time projections with measurable observable data?

There are those who take even these sets of incomplete cyclical data and try to model the meaning into something resembling a specific data point in climate change. They too are subject to the same time point variances and time base.

Now take those projections 300, 3,000 30,000 years backwards, with no real time base and tell anyone you trust the models and want to change the dynamic of the human race on the earth today to effectively change the climate on those projections because they are scientific proofs.

Ones colleagues in Academia may be reluctant to speak out in these matters due to a host of influences not the least of which involves risking ridicule or loss of funding for their research.

We generally agree climate change occurs cyclically but the clear definition of the cycles remains nebulous despite our best efforts.

We don’t all agree that mankind’s causality can be assigned a weight in the overall changes, and agree that cycles of change occurred before man’s known presence on the earth

Should we not be most focused in trying to insure our survival during the change, more than trying to stop the changes that happened before on a timeline we cannot prove with any degree of accuracy? That’s my question.

Of course we need to find solutions to pollutions created and focus the best minds on producing the things we make, capturing and repurposing the pollution for something beneficial opposed to shutting down an industry.

It does nothing to save the planet by moving production to other countries who use the offensive processes to just build it somewhere else on the same planet.

We seem at times oblivious to that happening.

Worse it reduces our economic growth that are necessary to fund the research grants to solve those problems. We should be in essential agreement, but we are not.

I feel that has some base in that we have American corporations whose stockholders are increasingly foreign investors and have no skin in the game here other that profits that drive corporate policy.

We need a robust thriving economy so the lions share of stockholders are domestic stockholders. That’s going to take time to rebuild.

Without a strong growing economy, it will become far more elusive for us to control.

As to trees... the more the better.

I love their beauty and the habitats formed that forests comprise for other creatures in nature.

They take carbon dioxide, consume it and produce oxygen for living creatures to breathe through photosynthesis.

Science cannot replicate photosynthesis.

It would be helpful if we could unless it too produced harmful byproducts.

Some researchers have created promising mechanisms to help clean the air and much work needs to be done.

When a tree is taken due to disease, damage or overgrowth, even harvested for timber industry, repopulating this renewable resource is essential.

I can use trees to responsibly make things with my Shopsmith as can you.

Those are my thoughts.

Everett

[jsburger]

I normally don’t weigh in on these types of discussions but it was a quiet Sunday afternoon.

I understand the diverse thoughts and comments and agree the climate changes.

The entire premise of computer climate models making projections in climate are based cyclically on a Pre-acceptance of a dating means.

This comes both from archeology and scientific sampling presumably having an exact fixed time interval that defines how long the climate cycle repeats itself.

The earth itself has diverse geological and climatological processes that exacerbate measurement.

As a programmer and certified IT Professional for over 30 years I recognize that single time variable within the computer models will have dramatic effect on what the models predict at a point in time.

One example I can relate relative to carbon dating came from the examination of a primary tooth from a child submitted the parent for subsequent carbon dating.

The parent is alive, the child obviously alive, and the pristine preserved tooth came back in excess of 10,000 years.

It repeatedly came back with similar results. Some unknown factor existed causing such disparities to produce those results. What does it say then? We don’t know.

There are many things we don’t know. We hypothesize.

This is but one example of the inexact science of dating physical materials with scientific processes.

If it were a tree ring from a living tree, we could estimate its age by counting tree rings.

If it were submerged in soil for 200 years after it fell, it could be compared to other samples of same tree species that was part of a 200 year old building whose construction date was verified.

If the growth rings of both grown in the same climate were the same characteristics of growth pattern, an approximate date could be extrapolated.

If however that tree was the main mast of a schooner that came from another part of the world in a different time, great speculation would exist if we even knew the origin.

The computer models are subject to the variables in the equation and the skill of the programmer in crafting the algorithm.

If the time reference is off the position in the cycle being analyzed is going to be off significantly.

There are very intensely watched computer models today projecting in real time, with relatively accurate measurements the path of hurricanes.

How well do we do with these real time projections with measurable observable data?

There are those who take even these sets of incomplete cyclical data and try to model the meaning into something resembling a specific data point in climate change. They too are subject to the same time point variances and time base.

Now take those projections 300, 3,000 30,000 years backwards, with no real time base and tell anyone you trust the models and want to change the dynamic of the human race on the earth today to effectively change the climate on those projections because they are scientific proofs.

Ones colleagues in Academia may be reluctant to speak out in these matters due to a host of influences not the least of which involves risking ridicule or loss of funding for their research.

We generally agree climate change occurs cyclically but the clear definition of the cycles remains nebulous despite our best efforts.

We don’t all agree that mankind’s causality can be assigned a weight in the overall changes, and agree that cycles of change occurred before man’s known presence on the earth

Should we not be most focused in trying to insure our survival during the change, more than trying to stop the changes that happened before on a timeline we cannot prove with any degree of accuracy? That’s my question.

Of course we need to find solutions to pollutions created and focus the best minds on producing the things we make, capturing and repurposing the pollution for something beneficial opposed to shutting down an industry.

It does nothing to save the planet by moving production to other countries who use the offensive processes to just build it somewhere else on the same planet.

We seem at times oblivious to that happening.

Worse it reduces our economic growth that are necessary to fund the research grants to solve those problems. We should be in essential agreement, but we are not.

I feel that has some base in that we have American corporations whose stockholders are increasingly foreign investors and have no skin in the game here other that profits that drive corporate policy.

We need a robust thriving economy so the lions share of stockholders are domestic stockholders. That’s going to take time to rebuild.

Without a strong growing economy, it will become far more elusive for us to control.

As to trees... the more the better.

I love their beauty and the habitats formed that forests comprise for other creatures in nature.

They take carbon dioxide, consume it and produce oxygen for living creatures to breathe through photosynthesis.

Science cannot replicate photosynthesis.

It would be helpful if we could unless it too produced harmful byproducts.

Some researchers have created promising mechanisms to help clean the air and much work needs to be done.

When a tree is taken due to disease, damage or overgrowth, even harvested for timber industry, repopulating this renewable resource is essential.

I can use trees to responsibly make things with my Shopsmith as can you.

Those are my thoughts.

Everett

An absolute perfect post about what is going on.

[Gene Howe]

Ditto, John. Great post Everett.

[Hobbyman2]

+1 from me to

Should we not be most focused in trying to insure our survival during the change, more than trying to stop the changes that happened before on a timeline we cannot prove with any degree of accuracy? That’s my question.
======

My answer may be out in left field,,wouldn't be the first time and won't be the last ,so here goes my thoughts , the earth changes its mass 24-7, oceans change their size,ice melts water freezes , continental drift , earth quakes ,floods , erosion , humans didnt create it and cant stop it, our earth lives, it is not like other planets and asteroids made of iron and what ever ,it is not suppose to remain the way it is ,, understanding what and where or how it will change and when it will change in my opinion is impossible ,using some technology we can predict some things just before they happen but predicting them down to the minute 10 years out , imo is not going to happen. Again I may be wrong. the poles changed years ago ,they were not all ways covered in ice,, my home here in Ohio sits where a glacier use to be long before we humans used one drop of oil,that glacier is now far north of us , if they had not melted the salmon would not have run up those pristine rivers in the north, natural springs would not run ,if it is oil /co2 we are talking about , using oil can be carbon neutral as long as there are enough trees to consume the co2 .no matter what happens and who is right or wrong IMO, We need more trees because trees support global life .

[davebodner]

I don't think we can "tree" our way out of global warming. We've been taking massive amounts of carbon that have been sequestered for hundreds of millions of years and injecting it into the environment. Growing more trees will somewhat mitigate that, but I don't think it comes anywhere near close enough. We also have to think about how long trees sequester carbon. Trees die and turn back into CO2, whether they burn or if they merely decay.

Perhaps the most environmentally helpful thing you can do with a tree is to turn it into a masterpiece of woodwork that future generations will want to preserve for generations to come. I don't think any of my work will reach that standard.

[Gene Howe]

Perhaps the most environmentally helpful thing you can do with a tree is to turn it into a masterpiece of woodwork that future generations will want to preserve for generations to come. I don't think any of my work will reach that standard.[/quote]

But we keep trying, right?

[dusty]

I read "somewhere on the internet" that: At the current rate of thawing it will take over 14,000 years to completely melt the sea ice sheet in the Arctic.

At that rate I don't believe that my kids or theirs need to worry for a few generations.

I guess Gore was "right" but he was also an alarmist.

[davebodner]

But we keep trying, right?

Yeah. I guess if we succeeded easily on the first try, it wouldn't be rewarding.