BigJon@Work wrote:BTW, OT, ask you wife about science by consensus. She seems to have a handle on it.
This article is not science by consensus, sorry BigJon.
Its one possible interpretation of the data gathered. From what I've read (its not extensive) on the subject, there is little doubt that temperatures are up. The discussion, and the focus of additional scientific research, is on quantifying the rise, and figuring out if it is part of a recurring pattern, and the cause of the rise. Global warming is part of a healthy scientific debate. My problem with the guys in charge right now is that they categorically deny it (as you seem to be doing), rather than acknowledging it as a possibility. That puts them on par with the guy in africa who denies HIV causes AIDS.
A whole lot of folks in France (and much of the world) decided to ignore the possibility - not yet proven, but being researched - that AIDS could be transmitted thru blood transfusions. They didnt present counter data, they didnt discuss. They ignored, because not ignoring it was going to cost them money. Turns out, ignoring it cost them a lot more money. Most of the French at high levels in the Bloodbanking industry (and gov't related to it) went to jail. The French Gov't is now one of the first to implement every new bloodscreening test that comes across their radar screen. Net costs much higher than taking the data into account and accting conservatively, 'just in case'.
Global warming falls into that category, IMO.
Taking a conservative approach often reaps unexpected/unpredicted benefits.
An example - coaltar dyes.
In the '50s, it was discovered coaltar dyes cause cancer. Gov't banned their use in lipstick etc. Mucho outcry from cosmetic manufacturers ...Oh No Mr Bill! What will we use???:???
The replacement dyes are many, varied, and the overall resulting textures and colors of lipsticks are far better than they were in the '50s, as well as far safer. Necessity is a mother, as they say.
So I expect it will be when reduced emissions become mandated again. The various and sundry factories will find ways to increase their output on less power, in order to reduce overall emissions. This will in turn reduce their costs. Unmeasurable side benefits will be improved health in their worker populations, lowering corporate health insurance costs, or reducing work lost to sicktime (paid or unpaid). Other benefits will arise, tho I cant guess what they will be.
Interesting possible contributer to global warming: cities. The mean air temp over cities is higher than over the neighboring countrysides. One current hypothesis is that this is caused by the dark surfaces of streets, roofs etc (why isnt it rooves?). What could be done to counter act?
Perhaps more greenery - ground cover and trees. Side effects so far: the water that hits the storm drains is cleaner (a bit), which means the ocean is cleaner. Plus, this lowers cooling costs. When I park under a tree all day, I dont need to run the AC on the drive home, thus I burn less fuel, creating fewer emissions, and slowing the feedback cycle.
Global warming, if sufficient, may one day make Siberia the most desirable real-estate in the world, as it has an amazing variety of natural resources, but that damn snow gets in the way.
Altoid - curiously strong.