Here’s a good write-up of global temperature measurement and forecasting. The author does a decent job of dumbing it down for the general reader, while still maintaining most of the key details. Nothing new or unusual here, just a good discussion of the topic.
On a side note, U.S. installation of wind power exploded in 2008. We surpassed Germany to take the #1 slot in the world for installed capacity. Oddly enough, China is poised to pass us in a few years.
so when you cut through the mumbo jumbo… 2008 was cooler than 2005 which was also cooler than 1998. And we actually have not had a year warmer than 1998 in the past decade. So despite all the recent hysteria we seem to be doing just fine. Perhaps Al Gore and Leonardo Dicaprio can go crawl under a rock now.
so when you cut through the mumbo jumbo… 2008 was cooler than 2005 which was also cooler than 1998. And we actually have not had a year warmer than 1998 in the past decade. So despite all the recent hysteria we seem to be doing just fine. Perhaps Al Gore and Leonardo Dicaprio can go crawl under a rock now.
Wow, the author had you pegged.
**A question that is often asked by the naive or disingenuous is: “If the buildup of greenhouse gases is causing global warming, then why isn’t each year hotter than the previous?” **
I read the article… fact remains that the world as measured in annual terms for 2008 was cooler than it was a decade earlier. Explain that to Joe sixpack and the rest just becomes scientific mumbo jumbo…
Explain that to Joe sixpack and the rest just becomes scientific mumbo jumbo…
If Joe sixpack is so ignorant as to not understand simple math…well our educational system has failed. It’s really quite simple. You have a couple major factors that individually can override the minor factor of global warming. If you account for those major factors, which we can and the author has, remove them, what you have left is the effect of global warming. Now you can disagree with the effect of the factors, but of course I think that IS actually out of the realm of “Joe Six Pack”. The rest is simple math. Well not “Simple”, maybe 7-8th grade math, fractions and stuff.
not so fast smart guy. Joe six pack, thinks much simpler than that, he is going to see his electric bill go up 50%+ as the country force feeds us all of this non economic wind and solar projects despite natural gas being a super value on an mmbtu perspective. Furthermore he is going to get frustrated as we sit on our coal reserves (one of the US largest natural resources) as the greens keep saying we need more renewables and less carbon. Joe six pack does not think in terms of multi variable scientific models that the experts keep flaunting. To him its a matter of “heck this summer was no worse than last summer”, “damn my electric bill is high”, etc… I expect a huge anti environmental backlash once the dems in congress start pushing thier green agenda and people start understanding the true impact.
Ah, I see what you’re saying now. You’re not dismissing global warming and our share of it, you’re talking about how you can sell your side of the story better because you think average people are too simple-minded and your message works better when people are idiots.
Thats why we have the stimulus bill,to give more money to education…more money equals smarter students,that goes for joe sixpack too! At least thats what the teachers union in Ca tells me!
Hmmm…how did simple math get morphed into higher electric bills?
Don’t think I mentioned anything about policy, merely the likely reality of global warming which you claim “Joe six pack” can’t understand.
Quite to the contrary I think if “Joe six pack” can understand the complexity of policy on his electric bill he should be able to understand an 8th grade math problem with 3-4 variables.
Of course if “Joe six pack” is more worried about bitching than understanding the simple issues, then that explains the real problem.
Just out of curiosity, do you ever stop and think, “You know, I’m not very smart. Maybe I shouldn’t trust my own instincts on complex issues. Maybe I shouldn’t write down my opinions on a matter that I’m too stupid to understand on a forum full of educated people.”
fatmouse, I’m not sure what i beleive about global warming, nor do i have a set position on if we can change the trend even if it is occuring.
As far as the average person being an idiot, yes i really believe that is the case. Ask 1000 random Americans if they can: Name the head of the FED, list 5 Supreme Court Justices, locate Afghanistan on a map, define what a trade imbalance is, name the folks that Israel is arguing with, etc. etc. etc they can not do it. Now they do know who Jerry Springer is, can list the starting players of their favorite sports team and love drinking budweiser out of a can. So you expect these people to understand complex matters like global warming and the economy. For many people its binary: Is it hot? Do I have a job? etc.
but how are we going to get the cows from farting and burping…no way to deal with GW until we do. Then when you consider sheeps and goats we are doomed. So many scientist have said these animals emissions are 20 times the problem of carbon dioxide. Methane is dangerous.
I’ve heard that from some various people and have also heard the argument that water vapor is a more dangerous greenhouse gas by 1000X than is CO2.
I’m not sure about Methane but I think the answer is something along the lines of turnover rate. (Have no idea what the scientific term is but it’s the cycle from release into the atmosphere to being naturally sequester). Water vapor is pretty short, days or weeks or something like that and thus regulates itself very quickly. Methane is slightly longer, years or decades. CO2 is something like centuries or millennium.
So methane is an issue but it more easily resolved due to the turn over rate were as CO2 builds up more over a longer period and takes longer to “NAturally” remove.
In short, yes methane is an issue, but I think A) not as big of an issue “Volume” wise and B) not as big of an issue longer term.
A molecule of methane is 17 times more potent as a greenhouse gas.
Methane released by human activities (cattle and such) accounts for about 1% of ghg emissions. So, while methane is more potent individually, it comprises a much smaller amount of ghg released by human activities.
I think what BarryP means by “Educated” is that we can read an article like was OP’d and understand the simple concepts that is shown with in.
If “Joe Six Pack” can’t or won’t do the same he is either ignorant, uneducated or just likes to bitch.
In any case maybe “Joe six Pack” should leave the decision making to others if he is so uninterested in understanding the problem.
~Matt
Matt in that case I would agree. We should take away ones decision making authority on public policy matters (ie. their right to vote) when it is apparent they lack a certain level of intellect about critical issues. Perhaps we should use income as a proxy for intelligence (I know its not perfect but far better then nothing) and can get to the desired point by just taking away poor peoples right to vote. Is this what you are suggesting?
