Re: Actual Climate Change Thread

[Martin Tomasek <tomasek () ufe cz>]

chris () blask org napsal(a):
> Since you can run, but you can't hide, we can let this ranting thread be for actual CC debate.
>   

Ok. I have to repeat here that I am sceptical to climate change and to 
climate science itself. I am not climatologist, I have background in 
cybernetics and measurement, which means I can build and verify complex 
models. I am interested in ecology and climatology, because some 
politicians want either to take my money or to hurt the nature by insane 
'ecological' laws.

> --- On Fri, 11/27/09, Martin Tomasek <tomasek () ufe cz> wrote:
>
>   
> > Climawhores do averaging of averages of averages (...) of
> > weather. They call it science, I call it chutzpah.
> >     
>
> Following my own advice I have to first ask: Do you think it is possible or impossible for mankind to have any impact 
> whatsoever on climate?
>   

It is possible if we exclude 'global climate'.

Example: American farmers etc. eliminated large forested areas. Forest 
is natural enemy :-) of hurricane. So hurricanes can safely travel deep 
inside continent now. Americans changed climate in certain areas for sure.

Example: One country in north-west of Africa started forrest plantation. 
Forest is natural transport for water, so they now have more humid climate.

Or you you can break water transport by wind (convection) by building 
wind plants on sea coast - which will result in more dry continental 
climate.

But, speaking of 'greenhouse gases', human impact is minimal. I talked 
on this with geologist and with ecologist. CO2 produced by nature 
(mostly by volcanos) is about two ordes of magnitude higher than 
quantity produced by human. So, if anyone want to impact levels of CO2, 
he should ban volcanos. :-) And situation on methane is similar.

Human can influence nature by radioactivity. But one study of life in 
Chernobyl talked about life returning to the area. Mammals adapted to 
higher radiation in tens of generations. Humans can adapt too, there are 
areas of high radioactivity on earth where people live for thousands of 
years without any health problems.

The only thing affecting climates in global I am aware of is damage done 
to ozone layer.

> -chris
>
> PS - there certainly is a global climate.  Ask anyone alive 12,000 years ago if they had problems with heat stroke...
>
>   

There are sporadically happening events that cause change of climates 
globally. But I think this is not standard situation.

I don't have temperature maps for 12000 years ago, but I am quite sure 
there were warm areas where the problem with hearth stroke can occur. :-)

You know, climate on whole earth is made of many local climates. They 
are difficult to quantify. Climate is often characterized in qualitative 
terms, such as continental climate, atlantic climate, boreal climate 
etc.. They have different properties in terms of precipitation (nice 
map: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Precipitation_(meteorology) 
<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Precipitation_%28meteorology%29>), 
temperature range etc.. Each of these climates create environment for 
different type of plants. And different types of plants works with water 
and CO2 in a different way. (btw this has severe impact on radiocarbon 
dating method).

So you can measure global area represented by different climates, but 
averaging temperature over the areas (or globally) is quackery. Average 
global temperature has no meaning. I assume it has some importance in 
politics, such as environmentalism,  because it is scalar and can be 
presented in scary graphs.

--
Martin Tomasek

_______________________________________________
Fun and Misc security discussion for OT posts.
https://linuxbox.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/funsec
Note: funsec is a public and open mailing list.