Do you have any concern for the environment when keeping your equipment 24/7 ?

Hello n80,

     You're correct that a net global temperature change of several degrees Fahrenheit would not likely cause the extinction of the entire human population on earth. The IPCC (International Panel on Climate Change) predicts that increases in global mean temperature of less than 1.8 to 5.4 degrees Fahrenheit (1 to 3 degrees Celsius) above 1990 levels will produce beneficial impacts in some regions and harmful ones in others. Net annual costs will increase over time as global temperatures increase.
     The problem is the IPCC, which includes more than 1,300 scientists from the United States and other countries, forecasts a temperature rise of 2.5 to 10 degrees Fahrenheit over the next century.
      Because human-induced warming is superimposed on a naturally varying climate, the temperature rise has not been, and will not be, uniform or smooth across the country, the world or over time.
     You stated:
" If you have to ask yourself one question about the science of global warming it should be this: How is it possible that a net global temperature change of several degrees can cause only harmful outcomes?

      Because it's not true. Most outcomes will be bad in the short term but not all of them.  The length of the frost-free season (and the corresponding growing season) has been increasing nationally since the 1980s, with the largest increases occurring in the western United States, affecting ecosystems and agriculture. Across the United States, the growing season is projected to continue to lengthen.
     Considered over the long term, however, the  outcomes of continued global warming are predominately negative and become increasingly more severe and negative as the earth warms.  The negative outcomes of continued global warming are too numerous and varied for me to list them all here.
    The only good news is that negative outcomes will be considerably smaller if heat-trapping gas emissions are reduced.  All measures reducing heat-trapping gas emissions are cumulative and will, at a minimum, slow the rate of gas emissions and, therefore, the rate of global warming. There is also the prospect that new future technology could be developed that could both reduce heat-trapping gas emissions into the atmosphere and reduce the already existing heat-trapping gas in the atmosphere. 
So I'm saying it doesn't have to be all doom and gloom and a battle between human caused global warming believers and deniers.  The IPCC determined we've still got a chance to reverse, or at least slow the rate of, global warming and the sooner we begin, the better.
     There's also my Bright Idea I recently submitted to Dairy and Beef cattle associations suggesting all overly flatulent cattle have Beano or Gas-X added to their cuds.  What? Every little bit helps, right?  

     My opinion is that each individual needs to decide whether they'd prefer helping the rest of us in reducing the heat-trapping gas emissions into earth's atmosphere or do they prefer taking a one way jettisoned rocket trip off it? 
     I believe we can love each other, love our planet while still raising cattle that are more polite and have a bit more decorum.

      Tim

There are other problems too, in addition to relentless warming. Poisoning of everything, including the oceans, disappearing biodiversity and forests, soil and coastlines erosion, and others.
Let's have fun while we can, who knows what awaits us very soon ?

Tim, all of these models are based on the assumption that we are in a state of beneficial equilibrium _now_ or at least recently.

Such prognostications also invariably fail to account for the adaptability of human innovation and resilience and always fail to give nature credit for adaptability as well.

This has always been a weak link in the environmentalist world view. It always fixes on a certain state of being and seeks to preserve it at that chosen point.

In other words, in the 1770s during the mini ice age a prediction of higher temperatures would have been greeted as salvation. As it turns out, due to unknowns which they (western Europe, North America) could not foresee (and even with our tech, neither could we) the mini ice age was directly responsible for hugely beneficial events and changes for the world at large.

The problem with so much of the global warming models is that they are derived by people, scientists, our modern day priests, who openly hold political ideologies that are anti-capitalist and pro wealth re-distribution. Their models invariably support their ideological dreams. And since models are not pure science they are easily shaped. This conflict of interest, failure to account for beneficial outcomes and the polarized way in which this science is reported on have greatly damaged the credibility of climate science whether you are a ’believer’ or a ’skeptic’.

Of course the main thing that damages credibility in climate models is that they routinely and predictably fail to predict the weather accurately for TOMORROW.

n80

Of course the main thing that damages credibility in climate models is that they routinely and predictably fail to predict the weather accurately for TOMORROW.

This is where your reasoning falls apart. First, climate and weather are really two different things. Second: Short-term weather forecasts are remarkably accurate.

Accurately forecasting tomorrow’s weather is a trivial task today. Of course, television forecasters are typically focused on showbiz and ratings; they’re not to be entirely trusted. But real meteorologists - such as the ones who work for the National Weather Service - have an outstanding record of accuracy.

all solid state NO