• Quick note - the problem with Youtube videos not embedding on the forum appears to have been fixed, thanks to ZiprHead. If you do still see problems let me know.

Errors In Crichton's book on GW?

a_unique_person said:
"State of Fear is a really funny Book".
http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/forumdisplay.php?f=5

Another problem he has. When he is discussing the temperature records, he notes that the US has recorded a lower rise than other countries. He then goes on to make the anthropogenic assumption that this is because the US is just better at recording temperatures than other countries. It appears that the real reason is that the US is just much more subject to 'global dimming' caused by other pollutents, that dim the sunlight. Such a thought never occurred to him.
Click to expand...

This gets my vote for "ad hoc justification of the year".

Has it occurred to you that if "Global Dimming" was affecting the US records, then it should be affecting all of the others?

Have you noticed that according to the EPA, the US has got substantially cleaner in terms of these pollutants over the last 30 + years? That if anything, the US should be warming FASTER than the rest of the world if "Global Dimming" were caused by "pollutants"?

No?

Color me not surprised.
 
I'll answer the original question: "State of Fear" is not terribly well written as a thriller. I wish Crichton had simply written about Global Warming rather than this rather labored fictional construction.
 
I kind of see things in much the same way Dave. Another problem, at least I think it is or is going to be, is that world populations are increasing rapidly and every person born is going to be some sort of carbon consumer. I never thought I'd see the day when India was going to eclipse China in total population. I'm all for people in general having a better life. I don't like poverty but there's only so much water you can put into a soup.
 
Dave1001 said:
My money is currently on maintaining CO2 emmissions, even expanding them, if it means greater economic growth and wealth production.
Click to expand...

This is the core of the question, actually. On one hand, there is a potential payoff that can only be reached through a period of massive investment of a scarce resource. On the other hand, reducing use of the resource will prolong its availability. I'm in favor of the "burnthough to a higher technology" approach also, but I understand that it's a risk while the conservation approach is a sure path to a future that will gently coast downhill...
 
Diamond said:
This gets my vote for "ad hoc justification of the year".

Has it occurred to you that if "Global Dimming" was affecting the US records, then it should be affecting all of the others?

Have you noticed that according to the EPA, the US has got substantially cleaner in terms of these pollutants over the last 30 + years? That if anything, the US should be warming FASTER than the rest of the world if "Global Dimming" were caused by "pollutants"?

No?

Color me not surprised.
Click to expand...

The US was for a long time the biggest polluter, since it was the worlds biggest economy. It also has the busiest jet traffic, and, as was found after the 9/11 ban on flying, cooling due to contrails.

Everything to you if it is not predicted is 'post hoc', but a lot of science starts off as post hoc, that is, people trying to find an explanation for things they don't understand.
 
elgarak said:
I assume that the mentioned pdf file of Lindzen is the one here.
Click to expand...

What is truly agreed (albeit with some controversy)
1. The global mean surface temperature is always changing. Overthe past 60 years, it has both decreased and increased. For the past century, it has probably increased by about 0.6 ±0.15degrees Centigrade (C). That is to say, we have had some global mean warming.
2. CO2is a greenhouse gas and its increase should contribute to warming. It is, in fact, increasing, and a doubling would increase the greenhouse effect (mainly due to water vapor and clouds) by about 2%.
3. There is good evidence that man has been responsible for the recent increase in CO2, though climate itself (as well as other natural phenomena) canalso cause changes in CO2.
Let us refer to the above as the basic agreement. Consensus generally refers to these three relatively trivial points.
Click to expand...

So we all agree on that much?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom