Liquid Natural Gas and Propane prices

[dave1949]

So what would happen if the current trend was: Coming Ice Age (like it was a decade or so ago)? You don't think that drying and desertification would happen as trillions upon trillions of gallons of water were increasingly locked up in the ice caps? How do you know that 99% of the time between ice ages the West Coast isn't so dry it can't support any life? That we have been living in the 1% 'super-wet fantasy land' where life can actually exist there? I am shocked and amazed that people are shocked and amazed that the environment will change... didn't we all learn that not too long ago (geologically speaking) the planet was hot, moist and supported massive plant and animal life(dinosaurs)? Does that sound the same as today's environment? Does evolution, both of the planet and the animals on it, stop when we reach a 'comfortable spot'?

Why do people assume more heat means drying/desertification? Rising oceans mean more surface area for evaporation. Rising ocean temperatures mean more evaporation. Higher air temperatures mean more 'carrying capacity' for humidity. Sounds like a recipe for rain, not deserts to me.

What would we 'do' in the case of coming Ice Age? Start running pre-mix in our cars and trucks to create as many green house gasses as possible? Burn everything in sight and fly the ashes to the poles to blacken them and try to melt them?

Our time span of 'recorded history' is so short it's laughable to think we know what is coming or that we have or can have any effect on it. Personally I would welcome global warming over a new ice age because food doesn't grow in ice.

There is no validity in comparing conditions 65 million years ago to today. It is interesting geology and so forth, but has nothing to do with the present climate. The changes in the fauna and flora alone would make comparisons invalid.

Obviously any man-made climate changes will interact with whatever natural cycle is occuring. The last thing I read on that topic was given the earth's current tilt and variation in orbit, it should be cooling, not warming.

We do know the Southwest has experienced dry and drier periods in the past two to three thousand years. We know this through the study of Native American living sites. I believe even within historical times (times of which there is a written record) that the Southwest was able to support grazing grass lands. Some say it was ecologically altered by over grazing of non-native cattle, others say the weather changed.

While it may be fun to speculate on various theories or even hatch your own, it is meaningless unless you are willing to put them to the test - that is how science works. Assuming you aren't doing your own basic research, you have no reason to disbelieve those who are. Except you just don't want to.

Dave.

 

[charlz]

While it may be fun to speculate on various theories or even hatch your own, it is meaningless unless you are willing to put them to the test - that is how science works. Assuming you aren't doing your own basic research, you have no reason to disbelieve those who are. Except you just don't want to.

Well, as I would assume of everyone posting on this thread, I don't have access to a super computer to run my own climate models. I am, however, a computer scientist of sorts and as such I think I have a very good understanding of computer modeling... and its limitations. We have a saying that has been around for quite a while "garbage in, garbage out". As for:

you have no reason to disbelieve those who are. Except you just don't want to.

What of the climatologists that say Man Made Global Warming is bunk... what reason do you have to not believe them over climatologists that say it's real?

My scientific mind remains skeptical that man is the cause.

 

[firedog]

Oh! Wait!.........My bad..........left the stove on.

Sorry about that. You can expect a cooler winter now.

 

[roadhawk]

Why are you heating hot water?

So I can get it scalding?

I suppose I'll go back to just heating regular ol' normal temp water now though!

 

[dave1949]

Well, as I would assume of everyone posting on this thread, I don't have access to a super computer to run my own climate models. I am, however, a computer scientist of sorts and as such I think I have a very good understanding of computer modeling... and its limitations. We have a saying that has been around for quite a while "garbage in, garbage out".

Well, I've had some garbage-in, garbage-out experiences of my own. Doesn't mean all my programs or designs were garbage, nor does it mean I didn't fix the rotten ones. A hammer has limitations, but we still drive nails with one. That computer models have limitations does not invalidate their use. When multiple models created by multiple teams come up with comparable results, that looks like a trend to me.

What of the climatologists that say Man Made Global Warming is bunk... what reason do you have to not believe them over climatologists that say it's real?

I try to evaluate, to my ability, the credentials of the people involved. What other works has that person published, do they have a solid peer review of their work? Have they published mainstream books that are favorably reviewed by others in their field? Have they held a significant academic position in their field?

Some climatologists/scientists who have taken part in this debate don't stack up very well in the credentials area. Others are graduates of theologically oriented schools that teach their own brand of pseudo-science. Some are just plain old 'science cranks' who get headlines by going against the tide. Some are what I call 'science ******' who will testify for or against almost anything for a paycheck.

Beyond comparing credentials, the empirical data supports man-made global climate change more than it does not.

My scientific mind remains skeptical that man is the cause.

Nothing wrong with skepticism, what sort of scientist would one be without skepticism? One needs to be just as skeptical about one believes as what is not believed.

Dave.

 

[charlz]

Well, I've had some garbage-in, garbage-out experiences of my own. Doesn't mean all my programs or designs were garbage, nor does it mean I didn't fix the rotten ones. A hammer has limitations, but we still drive nails with one. That computer models have limitations does not invalidate their use. When multiple models created by multiple teams come up with comparable results, that looks like a trend to me.

That they are all using the same assumptions? e.g. the role and relationship of co2 and temperature?

What of the climatologists that say Man Made Global Warming is bunk... what reason do you have to not believe them over climatologists that say it's real?

I try to evaluate, to my ability, the credentials of the people involved. What other works has that person published, do they have a solid peer review of their work? Have they published mainstream books that are favorably reviewed by others in their field? Have they held a significant academic position in their field?

Some climatologists/scientists who have taken part in this debate don't stack up very well in the credentials area. Others are graduates of theologically oriented schools that teach their own brand of pseudo-science. Some are just plain old 'science cranks' who get headlines by going against the tide. Some are what I call 'science ******' who will testify for or against almost anything for a paycheck.

Well there's 31,478 American scientists over here: Global Warming Petition Project that say man made global warming is bunk. Should keep you busy for a while figuring out if any of them are qualified to make such a statement

Beyond comparing credentials, the empirical data supports man-made global climate change more than it does not.

That's just it... there is _no empirical data_ (by definition: capable of being verified or disproved by observation or experiment) that proves _man_ is or is not the cause of global warming. There are a huge amount of variables that can affect global temperatures. To grab onto just one, man, and hold it up as the sole cause to the exclusion of all others is simply flawed scientific method.

We already know from the data that the Earth has been much warmer and somewhat cooler than 'today' during this Holocene period. Offsets as much as 6C, much larger than the 0.786C registered in 1998 which has everyone panicking. Man wasn't around much going back to 10,000 or so years ago. What caused those cycles? Why is the current cycle assumed to be different than previous cycles?

 

[dave1949]

Well there's 31,478 American scientists over here: Global Warming Petition Project that say man made global warming is bunk. Should keep you busy for a while figuring out if any of them are qualified to make such a statement

I checked it out. The home page shows the signature of Edward Teller, dead for 6 years now. No doubt brilliant in his field - physics. If he is their 'star' signatory - I don't need to check the other 31K.

This is nuts.
Dave.