Inconvenient Truth or Y2K Repeat

I have an open mind on global warming, but your certainly welcome in Queensland.

Regards JD.

Thanks JD

I'm kind of hopeing for the weather, but you can keep the crocks and stingers!

I would love it if they are all wrong, but I'm an insurance kinda guy, I would love to switch my 20 liter per 100 km LPG landrover to Sompthing more "greenhouse friendly" but some how an electric 2500kg lump just doesn't seem too practical!!

Immediately pick up, move to Ararat (Australia, not Turkey), build a boat. A big boat. Then take a pair of Roos, a pair of Tasmanian devils, and so on. And, oh, some rootstock of your better winegrapes (Australia..who would have thunk you guys could make really good wine?)

Anyway, anyone who has ever worked with a complex servo system knows how difficult it is to get all the settings just right by theory. The first time through, we normally disable forcing inputs, damp the heck out of it, turn down the gain, and turn off the integral before firing it up, lest the beast kill everyone within 20 feet. So, I think, it is with climate models. We don't yet know all the inputs nor the gains of some of the feedbacks (or even the phase in some instances).

My best guess (absent mitigation success) is somewhere between twenty-five years (Al Gore is a shill for Big Oil scenario) and three hundred years (Al Gore is really Chicken Little scenario).

TVP45 said

>> Immediately pick up, move to Ararat (Australia, not Turkey),

>>build a boat. A big boat. Then take a pair of Roos,

>> a pair of Tasmanian devils, and so on.

better watch the wind turbines in Ararat as we float off, would be Ironic to be sunk by our feable attempt to save the place!!

I would like to comment upon the title of this thread. Whether or not climate change is actually occurring, never mind why it is happening, is a real good question. IMHO... The term "Y2K" should not be held up alongside the phrase "Inconvenient Truth" as if it, Y2K, was a side show scam or something similar.

Y2K was a real issue and the reason it presented as little impact on the world as it did is due to the fact that a lot of good people spent a lot of money making sure it would not cause any problems.

While the impact of the date rollover on systems had much to do with how the system in question worked with date codes, the impact on some systems can not be discounted.

I personally supervised remediation efforts at three manufacturing facilities and know there would have been an impact to the operation of those same facilities if the remediation of those systems had not taken place.

IMHO... one of the largest benefits to society from the whole Y2K issue, was a rethinking of the QC efforts that go into the development of microprocessor based systems from both a hardware and software perspective.

The bean counters, that do not know any different, after Y2K, painted many of the people that drove the Y2K initiative with the stain "money waster". Some careers were ruined when they should have been thanked for their efforts.

I was at the planning and execution level and did not suffer from the negative impact of the perception that it was a big waste of time and money. It was not...

Thanks North of 60:

point taken, I suppose my choice was based on public perception, the reality is that if Y2K had not been fully prepared for, and the worst had hapened, it was never going to be the end of the world as we know it, however, if the previous next president of the USA is correct, we are stuffed! so I was basing this purely on perception, the media had people worried that their microwave ovens were going to destroy them, not to mention the vicious attack from the clock radio!!

I doubt that most people noticed the potential of industrial system faliure, this wasn't so much fun for the Media!!

How are we "stuffed?"

I actually think the comparison is a good one. Al runs around telling us the end of the world as we know it is coming, in 50 or 100 years. How? Why? Are there not engineering solutions to the problems? Will the planet be uninhabitable if the average temp increases by a few degrees?

Assuming the premise of global warming is correct, and using Al's scenerios, then sea level rise will cause problems for a number of large cities. But not over night, and while the costs may be large, I expect London and Shanghai to move inland, while New Orleans is simply abandoned along with a number of islands in the south Pacific. That is not the end of the human race, and those are problems that are solvable.

Again assuming Al is correct, I fully expect engineering solutions to the potential problems in just the same way that engineering solutions were found to problems expected with Y2K.

I do not believe there is any reason to panic, and I think it is a bit obnoxious for people like Al Gore to insist that they have the only plan to save mankind.

Climate will change, climate has always changed. When the climate changed on the Anazasi indians of the southwest US, they moved. When it changes on New York, they will move as well. Human beings are very adaptable. This is not the first time that humans have been faced with severe climate change and survived.

Very well put Milo. GA

Hi Milo

Tag corrected, I believe Sparkstation took my comments in jest as they were intended, he is a New Zealander, the most intelligent of all races, and born with a natural sense of humour.

Though this topic is far from a joke, often humour is a great way of dealing with these things, and who knows, maybe it will take a Sceptic to find the ultimate solution and avoid Al's worst nightmares, and instead we can all perish in the Black hole that's rumoured to destroy us all tomorrow!!

Phil

Hey. Humor is helpful, I agree, but it is often difficult to recognise. Particularly the sublime kind.

It is particularly difficult to sniff humor and or saarcasm out on "green" and "global warming" topics which are just so polarizing. We just can't tell if the nostrils are flared, or not...

The black hole is another thread...

Like your tag line.

milo

Global Warming may be true and may not be true. I don't think enough data is in that points directly to people as the only cause. I believe pollution should be controlled or eliminated if possible and conservation of our natural resources preserved. Alternate means of energy or power should be investigated and sought after vehemently.

My only thoughts are about how cool and beautiful August has been in the New York City region. Gorgeous days in the eighties and cool evenings for sleeping.

Has the fact that the sun has had the least amount of activity during this period mean anything? Who knows.

As for Al Gore being the only one with a solution, I think it refers to his bank account only!