TED Conversations

Mike Colera

TEDCRED 30+

This conversation is closed.

Why won't the Global Climate Debate end.

Here we go again. The USA administration is definite on Climate Change and is spending a billion dollars to explore containment, Al Gore is in Kansas City warning of the return of the great dust bowl, but if we just stop burning fossil fuels... implying all would be as it was if we do.
OK, Back to basics.
What is global climate. It is the running average of weather metrics from worldwide sources over a long period of time. Temperature, humidity, all the stuff you see on TV. So, how do you change a running average.... with great difficulty. Many metrics have to change to make a noticeable swing in the Global Climate numbers. So, what changes weather. A thousand TV stations would like that information. But, local weather anywhere is a best a guess... a calculated guess but a guess never the less.
There are too many things that effect weather. Granted, 20 million cars in the LA basin burning gas can have an effect on local weather. But a massive undersea volcanic eruption can affect water temperatures changing current flows and bring differing weather in many parts of the world.

So is there Global Climate Change? Yes, always was and always will be.

Can mankind bring it to a screeching halt? Ok, too strong a question! Can we stop one tornado from tearing up Oklahoma City... still beyond the pike...

But, if we just stop using fossil fuels all will be right with the world....????

Will Kansas not have another dust bowl and will that billion dollars be well spent?

I know many scientist agree on this... and I am not a scientist and I don't have an agenda...

But, I am from Texas and I do know BS when I step in it.

Share:

Showing single comment thread. View the full conversation.

  • thumb
    Mar 1 2014: Again, I do not deny the climate is changing. What I find incredible is Al Gore and his cronies are attributing this to the combustion of fossil fuel, I do not deny that the combustion of fossil fuel doesn't have some effect on weather when millions of cars are parked most days 8 wide and a hundred miles long as seen on the I-10 in Los Angels county. I am not sure of the effect but I would not be surprised. What I question is that Al Gore and friends who say that if we stop combustion of fossil fuels, the climate will quiet and we will not face the projected drastic climate changes of melting polar ice caps, raising seas, and the displacement of coastal inhabitants to higher ground. There is also the implication of habitat loss for cold weather species such as polar bears, etc.
    So the question begs, why am I not convinced. Everyone who knows me will speak highly of my gullibility. I own a Kirby vacuum cleaner.
    So what is my problem? OK. Back in the 70s, respectable scientists had looked at past climate figures and calculated that by the year 2000, the world would be much cooler and that chilling effect would effect food product resulting in food wars and other world hardships that would mean the death of millions of people. Well, we dodged that bullet.. So, today's "scientist" using the same old data projecting cold are saying that now it will be hot due to the combustion of fossil fuels. But, in the old days there was probably a significant larger problem with combustion. It was much dirtier. Coal fired steam engines on trains and more of them. There may be more cars today but they are no where near as polluting as the old ones. Back then most of our power came from coal fired power plants,as I remember all this smoke was going to blot out the sun and that was the source of cooling. So, we cleaned up the smoke now the CO2 in the atmosphere is going to concentrate the sunlight and the heat will come. Same data, different answers? Explain.
    • thumb
      Mar 3 2014: Ironically, Mike, one thing that is keeping global temperatures down artificially is the vast number of jet airplane vapor/CO2 contrails that spread into huge cloud banks that then shield the Earth's surface from the sun's radiation.

      The only good thing that came out of 9/11 was this study that was done by meteorologists on the three days that all aircraft in the US were supposedly grounded. It showed that without any jet contrails over the US, the average temperature for that day was a full one degree higher... in a single day. This may not seem like much to amateurs, but to meteorologists it is flat-out huge. If you take 10 minutes to read this, could you please reply and tell me if you still think humans have little to do with our climate? If you must, skip down to the 9/11 study.

      Check out photo of isolated contrails of Air Farce One and its fighter escort. Hmm... they don't mention the jets that were scurrying around the US that day picking up members of Osama Bin Laden's family during that "grounding" and zipping them out of the US before the FBI could make bigtime money connections between them and George Bush the First's huge Carlysle Investment Group that had a lot of Bin Laden family money in it...

      http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/nova/space/contrail-effect.html
      • thumb
        Mar 3 2014: Water vapor is the prime atmospheric pollutant. CO2 is way down the list, a fraction of one percent.
        However, Al Gore, as I remember, never said anything about water vapor....
        • thumb
          Mar 3 2014: Didn't know Al Gore was your topic, Mike. He isn't listed in your question.

          Jet contrails shading the Earth was my topic here, and they have everything to do with Climate Change, which is in your question, soldier.

          Yet again, when given the opportunity to actually learn something you have refused to take as little as 5 minutes to read enough to do so. Mike, guys like you are the reason I spent 40 years on my "Brain Catastrophes by the Numbers" research. Excerpt here:

          "Neuroscientists Deglin and Kinsbourne, authors of Divergent Thinking Styles of the Hemispheres: How Syllogisms Are Solved During Transitory Hemisphere Suppression, conducted experiments which involved temporarily deactivating one of the brain's hemispheres. In their research they found that "when false propositions are put to the left hemisphere it accepts them as valid because the internal structure of the argument is valid. However, the right hemisphere knows from experience that the propositions are false.” This is a huge problem for us, since, with some caveats and qualifications, the left brain is often regarded as the male-dominant hemisphere, and approximately 95% of our world’s government and religious leaders are men.

          "At this point it would not be a stretch at all for you to think, 'So this is why our government, Wall Street and the Pentagon are so depressingly predictable!' Indeed, it is virtually impossible for male-dominated think tanks to think properly, since the dominant hemispheres of our brains aren’t wired for holistic thought and contemplation. Thus no matter how many words we speak or write, unless we learn how to more deeply engage our concrete, holistic, synthesizing, right brains in our councils, we will continue chasing our own tails in search of wisdom. Comparing the left brain’s hopeless search for wisdom to getting lost on a country road, the paradox of hearing a native tell you, 'Mister, you can’t get there from here' vanishes, now doesn't it?"

Showing single comment thread. View the full conversation.