THANKS!
Finally some honest information on alleged man made global warming.
The main stream media like CNN , NBC, etc... are NOT reporting any sort of balance.

Thanks for presenting some honest reporting.

Hmmm...I wonder how the AGW proponents will spin this one. Let's see, the author makes claims where he does not cite references, he comments that the issue is not about science but politics, and he debunks Kyoto as merely a transfer of wealth. The first is an oft repeated tactic by the AGW crowd, the second is an unwritten tenant of AGWism, and third, he states the facts about the supposed grail of the AGW fight. Obviously, it will be stated by the AGW crowd that he either works for big oil or took their aluminum hat in the middle of the night.

Either way, they will proclaim him to be a heretic. Sadly, they will probably dismiss him instead of learning the reality that is GW. I find it funny though that when there is a discussion with an AGW proponent, we hear nothing but doom, gloom, and unjustifiable claims of future problems, but when a "skeptic" is on, we hear an entirely different approach to the "issue".

I hope that Fehlinger asks at least one or two followup questions after this softball "interview".

For example, I'd like to know whether Horner feels that there is any probability that the science behind AGW might be correct after all. Surely the politics is influenced by the science -- right?

Next, I'd like to know what Horner feels the politicians should do instead of the Kyoto accords. I'd like Fehlinger to ask a question along the lines of "Suppose the Kyoto accord is a dead-end, as you suggest. Suppose the politicians from the left and right are staking out their familiar ground as you suggest. What, in your opinion, should our politicians be doing instead?"

I grow weary of framing this as some sort of athletic competition, with cheerleaders on each side exhorting their respective fans. Could we, instead, have a little more discussion along the lines of "How much of this is real, and what if anything should we be doing about it?"

Oh, and could we please ditch the advertisement at the front of the clip? I know we all have to put food on the table, but I use the web precisely to avoid annoying commercials like this. The Fehlinger pieces are already pretty low in the fluff/content ratio. Commercials put them in squarely in the realm of "spam", and I don't mean the food product.

I intended to write "The Fehlinger pieces are already pretty low in the content/fluff ratio."

I don't think this interview was any more or less softball than any of the others. They all seem about the same in the end. Someone who is involved in the topic one way or the other with their respective opinion.

Gosh, I really don't think we want politicians doing anything about this. It has been shown ad infiniteum (sp) that politicians are only good at taking a stand when they know which way the wind blows. I really think that if they are intelligent going to Washington, they become nearly logically impotent quickly in that setting. Or rather, the smart ones work in the background while the rest run to a camera for the "good" soundbite.

As far as this being a competition, really that is what this is all about in the end. And that, precisely, is the crux of the issue. Who can convert the most people, so that the herd can move in one direction or the other.

Gosh, I really don't think we want politicians doing anything about this.

Darren, we've been over this ground before. If the politicians don't do anything about this, who will? Are you saying that nothing needs to be done? Nothing needs to be studied? There's NO risk?

That's certainly not what the science says.

Should "politicians" be doing anything about our food supply? How about carcinogens? How about our drug supply? Each of these is, like AGW, an issue with a profoundly complex scientific component and an equally confounding political aspect.

Do you suggest we ignore all these? If we don't ignore them, and politicians don't address them, then who does? As imperfect as our political system may be, it seems to be the best we've yet discovered. This imperfect political system seems to work best when it is supplied with data from an imperfect scientific establishment working hard to be as objective as possible.

Do you have a better alternative?

Hmmm...Do I have a better alternative? Sure just make me the head cheese in charge of it all and everything will be just dandy LOL.

And yes, we have been over this ground before. I do feel that GW along with many other issues should be studied. I beg to differ though, the science is pretty much inconclusive in most respects. It is only certain when you look at things that have been measured in recent times. Beyond that, it is conjecture based in the desire to prove a particular theory. When you take it a step futher to predicting what will happen in the future, it goes even more haywire.

While I understand and accept the cost of doing nothing, I also understand that doing something may be of little value. Not because it is too late, or not everyone on the Earth will comply, but because the issue may still be completely misunderstood. For instance, we all have been told that CO2 is at high levels right? I have yet to hear about the science describing how it retains heat in the atmosphere. It is always commented that CO2 does this, but never how, nor more importantly, how effective CO2 is in reflecting the radiation back to the ground. It is as though it is an "Accepted" truth about the issue. To go farther, simply testing this in a lab setting is not accurate, it must be evaluated on a global setting. Therefore, by proxy, the actual true results are hardly known but merely theorized.

This is the point I believe of Horner's book.

I do feel that GW along with many other issues should be studied.

Doesn't that mean that we should be increasing, rather than slashing, budgets for climate change research? Doesn't that mean we should be designing and launching, rather than scrubbing, satellite missions to gather climate change data?

I have yet to hear about the science describing how it retains heat in the atmosphere. It is always commented that CO2 does this, but never how, nor more importantly, how effective CO2 is in reflecting the radiation back to the ground. It is as though it is an "Accepted" truth about the issue.

Laura, can you perhaps post some permanent links to relevant background texts for questions like this? It's a perfectly reasonable question, and it's tiresome to find and post the links over and over.

Darren, try this primer. The math is a little dense (comparable to the math in an undergraduate engineering program), it comes with the territory -- I don't know if that's a problem for you or not (I don't know your technical background, or even if you have a technical background).

Gosh, I really don't think we want politicians doing anything about this.

Darren, we've been over this ground before. If the politicians don't do anything about this, who will? Are you saying that nothing needs to be done? Nothing needs to be studied? There's NO risk. Doesn't that mean that we should be increasing, rather than slashing, budgets for climate change research?

REPLY: That's the typical response. Run to Government to prevent the big bad mythical Global Warming boogie man from ending mankind as we know it. Let's increase budgets to do more studies, to raise our taxes, to slap unnecessary regulations on us so we can cripple captialism. You guys really are the limit. I sincerely hope you and your politician friends on the left have a fun time using one sheet of toilet paper the next time nature calls. All in the interest of hugging a tree when you get near it! Brookline, you and your crowd never cease to amaze me.

Kudos to Accuweather for actually taking an objective stance on such a controversial topic. Global Warming is always being over-hyped by the LIBERAL media! When I first read that Accuweather was taking this topic on, I thought it was just going to be more of the same "the sky is falling, the sky is falling!" I don't find these interviews to be softballs at all. Both sides are being given a chance. These videos demonstrate journalistic balance. Refreshing. Hey Brookline Tom, isn't there a tree somewhere you should be hugging?

BT:

Well, I did a little research as you suggested. You are correct, it appears that the current administration is reducing funding for climate related study as compared to past years. But please read on as you are now jumping for joy.

What I found though was quite intriguing. Search Clinton GW funding you get a little over 1 mill hits. Search Bush GW funding you get a little over 2 mill hits. Granted, I did not look at all of these hits but the first several pages of Clinton are overflowing with praise and how much that administration is taking the "lead" in GW concern. Conversely, the first several pages of Bush pretty much villify the administration.

If you look at the numbers, there is a drop in actual money for research but only because Bush is trying to shift responsibility to voluntary actions. Clinton on the other hand, tried to ensure it was government leading the changes.

This quick research though solves a question. There is vastly more negative stuff being written about this administration. So while you may feel that there is validity to it, the overall impression is negative and probably not at all justified. In reading several of the negative articles, I find the complaints to be over semantics more than substance. Clinton though is given a complete pass on the same general topics.

As far as your reference for describing the process of GW. Thanks. I am troubled that you consistently use realclimate as a source though. It is very skewed in its' presentation and is not an open forum per se. Nevertheless, I am troubled by the apparent disdain for engineers. Could it be that engineers, by their very nature, are inquisitive and delve into the workings of most things rather than just take the ramblings of "experts" at face value? Or could it be that engineers are just reviled for not taking their course of study to the level of a scientist or academic?

Fortunately, the math is not a problem for me. The description of the processes was helpful but I am troubled by the extent of assumptions that must be made to complete the calcs. Recognizing that this is a simplistic approach, there is no description of how the assumptions are made. Most importantly, lambda in the equations, argueably the most important factor to all of us, is not defined relative to imput from CO2, water vapor, CH4 or anything else. Funny how that is skimmed over except in the comment section where the author states that CO2 emmissivity is a log function and not limited in the real world as it in the equation.

By the way, I am a structural engineer.

Nevertheless, I am troubled by the apparent disdain for engineers. Could it be that engineers, by their very nature, are inquisitive and delve into the workings of most things rather than just take the ramblings of "experts" at face value? Or could it be that engineers are just reviled for not taking their course of study to the level of a scientist or academic?

No disdain from me, I have a B.S.E.E. from Carnegie Mellon University, early seventies.

I meant my comments quite literally as they were written. Some readers, including some readers of this blog, are immediately put off by greek letters and funny mathematical symbols. I'm glad that you are not.

As an engineer, you know that assumptions are the name of the game. During my undergraduate years, our instructors hammered into us that assumptions were the difference between engineering and science. A scientist has to get it "right". An engineer has to get it good enough to work.

You wrote, in your earlier post:
I have yet to hear about the science describing how it retains heat in the atmosphere. It is always commented that CO2 does this, but never how, nor more importantly, how effective CO2 is in reflecting the radiation back to the ground.

I believe the link I cited was responsive to your request. It articulates how CO2 retains heat in the atmosphere. It specifically identifies the relevant mathematical models. I'm quite certain that your concerns about the assumptions made in this piece are readily addressed by exploring the similar material widely available in the literature.

Finally, I'd like to note that the comparison between the media handling and politics of the current and prior administrations is yours, not mine. I think I was very specific: I said we should be spending more, not less, on climate research. I said we should be designing and launching more, not scrubbing, satellite missions.

I fail to see how "voluntary contributions" are going to make any meaningful contribution to orbital data gathering instruments in the immediate future. I think that climate research, like embryonic stem cell research and any other basic science, is most effectively funded through national research grants and is not effectively funded through private enterprise. I note that defense research falls squarely in the same category.

Guess everyone on the blog can't tell that we are engineers huh?

True on the greek letters etc. I see that too.

Not so sure the instructors are correct though..we have to get things right as well. I doubt that you would like to run the main service for a house through a 14 Ga wire even though it may just work at least for a little while.

On the assumptions part...I'm not sure what to say. I just really fail to see how CO2 is that large of a contributor. I understand the physics, but it just seems that CO2 is a following indicator not the starting indicator.

I take full credit for the media handling comment of the admins. I have been going along presuming that Bush has put more money in than Clinton. I was incorrect. But the presentation of both is striking and illustrative.

I kinda disagree on the Feds providing the grants for this but I can see your point. That is a dilemma in today's world.

Not so sure the instructors are correct though..we have to get things right as well. I doubt that you would like to run the main service for a house through a 14 Ga wire even though it may just work at least for a little while.

I fear you misunderstand what I mean by "get it good enough to work".

The scientist adds the sum of the current from all the breakers, then attempts to calculate the minimal conductor cross-section that will safely handle that current, and comes up with an answer. An answer that, while correct, is probably different for every house, and that probably means that every main has to be replaced every time every home-owner adds a breaker.

The engineer says "I know that I can send 200A through a 4/0 stranded copper conductor in a 2" conduit and safely dissipate the generated I-squared-R heat. I'll put that on the main, protected by a 200A breaker and the owner can do whatever they want. Besides, that's what the code says."

In other words, the engineer understands the theory, understands the risk analysis, and understands how to apply the theory in real life to minimize exposure to anticipated risks.

I think we need the same attitude towards climate change. I think we need to understand enough theory to understand what knobs we, as a society, are able to frob on our climate. We need to understand enough theory to understand how much our climate will respond to our frobbing and how fast. Then, I think we need make recommendations to our governments about what our "code" should be. We know how to do it with electrical services -- and that maturity took a long time and burned down a lot of houses. Knob-and-tube is pretty dangerous.

Now we need to learn how to do the same thing with climate. We need the science. We need the engineering. We need the government regulation. If it turns out that we can't stop our "house" from burning down, then we need to find out where the fire is likely to start, how long we have to pack our things, and where we should best flee.

I think we need to STOP the useless bickering and get on with solving the problem.

BT:

Well stated.

Maybe if engineers started really looking at the science and then began applying a rational approach to it, maybe, just maybe, we all would have a much different understanding of this issue with regard to risk and reward. What I find truly intriguing is how the two of us, both engineers, can end up bickering over esoteric items around it.

Sadly, the topic has been highjacked by politicos and scientists on both sides who somewhat seem to be reveling in the attention.

anyone who doesnt think humans create pollution through transportation demands,probably cant calculate cubic air used to operate a gas powered engine producing green house effects so I forgive them, but don't excuse the ingnorance!!*#?