BS: It's global warming, stupid!

Subject: RE: BS: It's global warming, stupid!
From: Stringsinger
Date: 18 Feb 13 - 10:10 AM

Rally in Washington 2/17/13

Someone is waking up.

Subject: RE: BS: It's global warming, stupid!
From: Stu
Date: 19 Feb 13 - 06:02 AM

Palaeontologists have some insight to offer on the subject:

The Paleocene-Eocene Thermal Maximum – Is Modern Global Warming Anything to Worry About?

Subject: RE: BS: It's global warming, stupid!
From: beardedbruce
Date: 29 Mar 13 - 12:24 PM

DEBATE about the reality of a two-decade pause in global warming and what it means has made its way from the sceptical fringe to the mainstream.

In a lengthy article this week, The Economist magazine said if climate scientists were credit-rating agencies, then climate sensitivity - the way climate reacts to changes in carbon-dioxide levels - would be on negative watch but not yet downgraded.

Another paper published by leading climate scientist James Hansen, the head of NASA's Goddard Institute for Space Studies, says the lower than expected temperature rise between 2000 and the present could be explained by increased emissions from burning coal.

For Hansen the pause is a fact, but it's good news that probably won't last.

International Panel on Climate Change chairman Rajendra Pachauri recently told The Weekend Australian the hiatus would have to last 30 to 40 years "at least" to break the long-term warming trend.


But the fact that global surface temperatures have not followed the expected global warming pattern is now widely accepted.

Research by Ed Hawkins of University of Reading shows surface temperatures since 2005 are already at the low end of the range projections derived from 20 climate models and if they remain flat, they will fall outside the models' range within a few years.

"The global temperature standstill shows that climate models are diverging from observations," says David Whitehouse of the Global Warming Policy Foundation.

"If we have not passed it already, we are on the threshold of global observations becoming incompatible with the consensus theory of climate change," he says.

Whitehouse argues that whatever has happened to make temperatures remain constant requires an explanation because the pause in temperature rise has occurred despite a sharp increase in global carbon emissions.

The Economist says the world has added roughly 100 billion tonnes of carbon to the atmosphere between 2000 and 2010, about one-quarter of all the carbon dioxide put there by humans since 1750. This mismatch between rising greenhouse gas emissions and not-rising temperatures is among the biggest puzzles in climate science just now, The Economist article says.

"But it does not mean global warming is a delusion."


http://www.theaustralian.com.au/news/features/twenty-year-hiatus-in-rising-temperatures-has-climate-scientists-puzzled/story-e6f

Subject: RE: BS: It's global warming, stupid!
From: pdq
Date: 29 Mar 13 - 01:25 PM

"The global temperature standstill shows that climate models are diverging from observations," says David Whitehouse of the Global Warming Policy Foundation."


That is because the 'climate models' are nothing but graphs generated by computer nerds who adjust the numbers until they get a graph that seems to reflect the results they want.

This is not science. What they produce is propaganda.

Subject: RE: BS: It's global warming, stupid!
From: beardedbruce
Date: 29 Mar 13 - 01:37 PM

pdq,

The significant part:

"But the fact that global surface temperatures have not followed the expected global warming pattern is now widely accepted.

Research by Ed Hawkins of University of Reading shows surface temperatures since 2005 are already at the low end of the range projections derived from 20 climate models and if they remain flat, they will fall outside the models' range within a few years.

"The global temperature standstill shows that climate models are diverging from observations," says David Whitehouse of the Global Warming Policy Foundation.

"If we have not passed it already, we are on the threshold of global observations becoming incompatible with the consensus theory of climate change," he says.

Whitehouse argues that whatever has happened to make temperatures remain constant requires an explanation because the pause in temperature rise has occurred despite a sharp increase in global carbon emissions."

Subject: RE: BS: It's global warming, stupid!
From: Q (Frank Staplin)
Date: 29 Mar 13 - 02:24 PM

1. What length intervals are significant? Is the interval too short to give a true pattern?
2. Global temperature changes have two causes- human activity and periodic shifts as a result of natural causes- insolation, axis shift, current shifts, etc.

pdq- Many checks are run on the climate models. They are accurate based on their data input. Are the divergences from observations the result of using too short intervals, our ignorance of the effects of minor physical changes in earth conditions?, or a combination of these factors?

Subject: RE: BS: It's global warming, stupid!
From: GUEST
Date: 30 Mar 13 - 07:03 AM

The fossil record shows that climate has constantly changed. That is fact. Mankind since the Industrial revolution has burnt fossil fuels, producing copious amounts of CO2. That also is a fact. The extent to which the present climate change is due to anthrapogenic causes is unclear.
All research is funded and those funding it set the agenda. Turkeys do not vote for Christmas. Also climate change is a perfect cover for the introduction of carbon taxes. Perhaps as a geologist I am just too cynical.

Subject: RE: BS: It's global warming, stupid!
From: Stringsinger
Date: 30 Mar 13 - 09:48 AM

"The extent to which the present climate change is due to anthropogenic causes is unclear."

Not according to the world's leading scientists who say that it is clear. The cynical idea
that scientists are somehow bought off is a canard. It's a case of the corporate turnaround accusing leading scientists of what corporations do. They buy off corrupt scientists to
support their shaky claims.

Here is a quote from David Whitehouse. "science, and communicating science, is too important to be left to the scientists. An essential component of the scientific enterprise is the science journalist, and there as the saying goes, we have a problem."

The problem is science deniability. This statement reveals the ideological nature of the organization Global Warming Foundation.

Who other than scientists are qualified to inform the public about global warming?

Subject: RE: BS: It's global warming, stupid!
From: GUEST,TIA
Date: 30 Mar 13 - 09:52 AM

It is explained in this graph:

http://www.skepticalscience.com/graphics/Escalator_2012_500.gif

the escalator

Subject: RE: BS: It's global warming, stupid!
From: Q (Frank Staplin)
Date: 30 Mar 13 - 12:32 PM

guest is close to the mark when he says that those who provide the funding set the agenda. The studies, however, are funded by different groups. Some research is based on the theory of multiple prejudices, and progresses by knocking them down, leaving the most likely as a basis for further study.

During the Eocene period, the northern hemisphere was subect to "global warming," with plants and animals (including alligators)typical of modern counterparts in the Carolinas, existing on the Arctic Islands. This was the result of a combination of factors, none of them due to man, who would not appear on the scene for another 60 million years or so.

We have had many small swings documented in the past few thousaand years. Man is contributing CO2 and other substances, but how much of the present warming is the result of geological/solar changes and how much to these activities of man?

I believe that man's contribution is too large to ignore, but I understand why there are skeptics.

Subject: RE: BS: It's global warming, stupid!
From: Rumncoke
Date: 30 Mar 13 - 02:09 PM

Last year the UK set new records for high temperatures in March, this year we have new record lows and unseasonal snow. Last Summer set new records for rainfall.

The reason - we are told - is that the jet stream is unstable due to the melting of the Arctic ice.

That is the key - instability.

In the past there have been long slow swings which gently slowed and reversed in most cases, though there were some fairly abrupt changes which are thought to be due to some event, a meteorite strike, a very large volcanic eruption which gave things a shove, but which were external to the system.

Anyone who has pushed a child on a swing knows about keeping a smooth oscillation going by applying a controlled force evenly over a distance - those who don't probably wonder why the authorities allow such dangerous items in playgrounds.

The amount of greenhouse gasses produced over the last hundred years is what is causing the swing to fly out from under us, and it is all down to luck if we are going to land on our head or our heels.

Subject: RE: BS: It's global warming, stupid!
From: GUEST
Date: 30 Mar 13 - 02:32 PM

To take on trust everything that science states is an absolute truth can be very dangerous. It was a given fact that the earth was flat not so long ago. Radiation exposures are given arbitrary levels stated to be safe as a result of some very dubious science. Chemicals formerly in widespread use have been found to be highly toxic, yet previously declared safe. DDT being a prime example. Asbestos was sprinkled about like talcum powder for decades before the true danger was publicised. Tobacco has a similar history.
One can argue the rights and wrongs of this for ever, and from many perspectives. However the fact remains that science can be fallible.
In addition when money and politics enter the equation truth takes a back seat.

Subject: RE: BS: It's global warming, stupid!
From: GUEST,Sketchy past
Date: 30 Mar 13 - 05:56 PM

Many scientists who I know seem personally convinced that human produced carbon in the atmosphere will lead to changes in climate. But, that does not mean they have scientific evidence to prove it. I suspect their opinion may be better than many, but it is certainly not infallible and is subject to scientific uncertainity.But, is it reasonable to expect certainity when attempting to predict the future from a variety of information sources from the far past

Subject: RE: BS: It's global warming, stupid!
From: Stringsinger
Date: 31 Mar 13 - 10:46 AM

Q, you and the guest are using the "tobacco argument" in attempt to convince that the scientific community are divided on this subject. They are not. There will be outliers like
Whitehouse who have their own agenda. To claim that scientists endorsed radiation to be safe or DDT is incorrect. It was the companies that stood to gain in making money that endorsed these, such as asbestos or tobacco.

Anthropogenic activity in creating global warming is not a matter for a real scientist
to become convinced unless the evidence is there, which it is. A true scientist doesn't operate on personal opinion but stated empirical evidence. To discount what scientists are saying by in large about global warming is more dangerous.

BTW, not everyone believed the earth was flat. Aristotle didn't.

Of course science is fallible but anything outside the scope of science is not infallible and mostly when it comes to real appraisals of how things work, wrong.

Religion and politics is far more fallible than science. Science deniability is truly dangerous.

Subject: RE: BS: It's global warming, stupid!
From: Q (Frank Staplin)
Date: 31 Mar 13 - 01:01 PM

I wrote- "I believe that man's contribution is too large to ignore."

I am not using any "tobacco" argument, I point out that there is two causes and neither can be ignored.

Subject: RE: BS: It's global warming, stupid!
From: GUEST
Date: 31 Mar 13 - 02:33 PM

"but anything outside the scope of science is not infallible" -

Universal statements are normally problematic and need careful condideration-NOTE I use normally.
Most issues are more complex and cannot be summede up by a simple statement like that:)

Subject: RE: BS: It's global warming, stupid!
From: Nigel Parsons
Date: 31 Mar 13 - 02:44 PM

Of course science is fallible but anything outside the scope of science is not infallible and mostly when it comes to real appraisals of how things work, wrong.

Stringsinger: Is science the same as everything outside of science?
I just wondered why you have to use a double negative to confuse your argument!

Subject: RE: BS: It's global warming, stupid!
From: beardedbruce
Date: 01 Apr 13 - 08:34 AM

The question I have put forward, and been attacked for, is that we do NOT know if man-made effects are the TOTAL cause for GW. IF we remove the man-made effects, at great cost and risk of social upheaval, and the remaining causes of global warning are STILL sufficient to cause the damage predicted, WILL IT HAVE BEEN WORTH THE COST?

It seems that it is forbidden to talk about this, just as ALL proposed actions by the GW Front are to REDUCE the man-made effects , and NOT to deal with the consequences of the warming itself. THAT would be worthwhile.

When I am informed how man-made causes are melting the icecaps on Mars, and changing the weather patterns on Jupiter, perhaps then I would be less concerned about ACTUAL global warming and more about what steps we can take to prestend it is not going to happen.

Subject: RE: BS: It's global warming, stupid!
From: pdq
Date: 01 Apr 13 - 10:21 AM

Almost all of the "greenhouse affect" is due to water vapor, which can be near 5% in extreme cases. That would be 50,000 parts per million.

CO₂ is about 365 PPM.

Methane is 1.7 PPM.

Methane nas no measurable affect on the ambient air temperature at 4" above the ground or ocean.

The influence of CO₂ is a matter of some debate. It certainly is not something that accutate climate projections can be based on.

Subject: RE: BS: It's global warming, stupid!
From: pdq
Date: 01 Apr 13 - 10:32 AM

"Methane nas no measurable affect on the ambient air temperature at 4" above the ground or ocean."


Nor at 4 feet above the Earth's surface as the statement was intended to say.

Subject: RE: BS: It's global warming, stupid!
From: GUEST
Date: 01 Apr 13 - 11:22 AM

Having made several contributions to this thread,that for the most part have been unhappily received, I would like to add a couple of other comments.
The evidence that climate change is ocurring is proved. But what is climate other than a standstill event among numerous superimposed cycles of change over the aeons? There is an increase in CO2 since industrialisation. The complexities of climate change and the models constructed to explain it are imperfectly understood, therefore to extract one variable i.e. CO2 and give it a ranking of it's contribution to the present changes presents further levels of difficulty.
   Having stated the above there is another far more important aspect of the equation that is given very little mention. Humanity is now an industrialised being, and like nuclear energy the genie is out of the bottle.To reduce the carbon footprint to levels seen before the Industrial Revolution with the present tools at our disposal, many unpalatable truths have to be faced:
No lights
No cars
No tractors
No oil based medicines
No oil based fertilizers
A collapse of modern agriculture
A collapse of urban centers
A collapse of population numbers
It has been stated that one gallon of fuel provides the work of 100 slaves.
We have become soft and indolent and few of us could survive, even assuming we could relearn the required skills.
As yet alternative technologies can make a contribution so small as to be insignificant.
For the near future we are stuck with a carbon based economy irregardless of the morality of this situation.

Subject: RE: BS: It's global warming, stupid!
From: pdq
Date: 01 Apr 13 - 11:31 AM

Will GUEST,anon consider taking a consistent name?

We have very few Science majors who post here. Mostly Liberal Arts and a few Music majors.

Your posts are quite well-received by those who have open minds.

Subject: RE: BS: It's global warming, stupid!
From: Q (Frank Staplin)
Date: 01 Apr 13 - 01:06 PM

As a reearch scientist (retired), I never did trust those Liberal Arts people- most are just too liberal..

(Retreating to fortified position)

Subject: RE: BS: It's global warming, stupid!
From: GUEST,TIA
Date: 01 Apr 13 - 01:15 PM

Yes, climate has changed dramatically over geologic time, with global average temperatures way above today's.
*Rate* of change is everything in this discussion.
When climate changes slowly, the biosphere adapts.
When it changes rapidly, there are mass extinctions.
The change we are seeing now is extremely rapid (geologically speaking), and the rate of species loss is unprecedented (due to many human activities, not just burning of fossil fuels).
The list of consequences posted by GUEST ought to be weighed against the consequences of triggering (an already underway?) Anthropocene mass extinction. But it is not just atmospheric carbon dioxide that we should be worried about. It is human overpopulation that is at the root of it all.

(a practicing Earth Scientist)

Subject: RE: BS: It's global warming, stupid!
From: GUEST
Date: 01 Apr 13 - 02:39 PM

I think most would agree the root cause of the problem is overpopulation. However a humane culling is not an event I would like to contemplate. This brings to mind Agenda 21 and the NWO and quotes by various US presidents about shadowy figures influencing world events behind the scenes. The latter organisations mentioned are already putting in train events to reduce population. Many knock this as conspiracy theory, but if various US presidents can accept the reality of hidden controllers, then so can I.

(Another earth scientist)

Subject: RE: BS: It's global warming, stupid!
From: Rumncoke
Date: 01 Apr 13 - 06:12 PM

Run around run around the sky is falling and we have to stop doing all that makes life worth living!!!!!

Er - no - we need to make a difference to how we live, but that could just be growing strips of vegetation instead of all those miles and miles of fences, planting more trees, maybe using wooden decking instead of tarmac and paving, wicker baskets instead of plastic that split open after a few years, but above all stop being so bloody stupid and making such idiotic statements such as those made by 'guest'.

Subject: RE: BS: It's global warming, stupid!
From: GUEST
Date: 02 Apr 13 - 05:20 AM

Thomas Jefferson
    "I believe that banking institutions are more dangerous to our liberties than standing armies.
Already they have raised up a monied aristocracy that has set the government at defiance. The
issuing power (of money) should be taken away from the banks and restored to the people to
whom it properly belongs." — Thomas Jefferson, U.S. President.

Andrew Jackson
    "If Congress has the right [it doesn't] to issue paper money [currency], it was given to them to be used by...[the government] and not to be delegated to individuals or corporations" — President Andrew Jackson, Vetoed Bank Bill of 1836

James Madison
    "History records that the money changers have used every form of abuse, intrigue, deceit, and violent means possible to maintain their control over governments by controlling money and it's issuance." —
James Madison

This list could go on, but the point is made. There is plenty of data to be mined in the public domain. How the dots are joined is a matter of personal interpretation. The above post is my interpretation. I do not expect everyone to agree. However I would ask you to think about the concept that the reality we inhabit is a facade constructed by MDM, that politicians are groomed prior to presentation for election, and that the financial collapse was not the result of pure chance, and that the road we are on is carefully directed.
You owe it to yourself as a human being to at least think about the scenarios outlined.
To hug a tree, close your eyes and recite all things bright and beautiful, while denouncing the messenger as an idiot, does nothing to aid your counter argument.

Subject: RE: BS: It's global warming, stupid!
From: GUEST,TIA
Date: 02 Apr 13 - 07:59 AM

Oh, I definitely agree that the financial collapse was not the result of pure chance.

Subject: RE: BS: It's global warming, stupid!
From: GUEST,sciencegeek
Date: 02 Apr 13 - 11:23 AM

when I first starting going online... at age 51... I needed a moniker and had to think long & hard about one that felt right.

I gravitated towards science as a child... along with literature, art, music, critters, and growing things. I've personally known a fair number of scientists and mathmaticians who shared my love of music or science fiction.

A number of America's founding fathers were amateur scientists... as well as writers, musicians ... and politicians.

Science is not about spouting "facts"... it about thinking and asking questions that will lead to some answers.. and more thinking. Sience uses facts that can be reproduced/proven to move forward with their search for answers. No one can prove how many angels can dance on the head of a pin... and frankly, why should anyway care?... you can create any number of scenerios... but it's still all just talk until you can tie it to reality.

Subject: RE: BS: It's global warming, stupid!
From: beardedbruce
Date: 02 Apr 13 - 12:25 PM

Normally, the news that Antarctica's summer melt season is getting longer might just be added to an endless compilation of scientific evidence that confirms the reality of global climate change. A recent research report, though, seems to run counter to the conventional wisdom. It shows that if the ice pack at the bottom of the world has more time to melt each summer, less of it might transition from solid to liquid.
In fact, the study, published in the March issue of Nature Geoscience, found, the presence of a layer of slowly melting freshwater might actually help slow the melting process--as melt water from Antarctica's ice shelves increases in volume, it creates a cooler surface layer that shields the ocean from warmer, ocean strata below.
The study provides a compelling contrast to findings in the Arctic, where studies from the last 60 years have supported the idea that increased summer melting breaks up ice shelves, leading to a rise in sea level in the region. The maximum-recorded extension for the Arctic's polar ice cap this year, on March 15, was the sixth lowest on record. All ten of the region's lowest maximums have occurred in the last ten years.
But on the opposite end of the globe, sea ice has expanded dramatically in the austral autumn and winter months, achieving a record enlargement as recently as 2010. The scientists behind the study have come up with several theories to explain the southern sea ice expansion. More intense winds might reduce transfer of heat--one theory holds--and then go on to enhance overall cooling. Another surmise: build-up of cold melt water may result from a negative feedback effect in which cooler ocean water protects sea ice from melting, which would, in turn, help offset greenhouse warming.
Using a coupled climate model simulation called EC-Earth, which models both the atmosphere and oceans, the study's scientists showed that the presence of increased accumulations of cool meltwater promote sea-ice expansion. Starting with the year 2000, the team performed a 31-year sensitivity experiment, adding an additional 250 billion tons of water each year to surface waters around Antarctica.

Subject: RE: BS: It's global warming, stupid!
From: GUEST,TIA
Date: 02 Apr 13 - 01:35 PM

The southern ocean has clearly warmed. Satellite, ship, and buoy data all agree on this. Therefore, the growth of Antarctic sea ice is counter-intuitive, but there are several easy explanations (probably all working together).
Closure of the ozone hole has cooled the stratosphere, enhancing the cyclonic winds, which push apart sea ice, exposing open water which then freezes, increasing the volume of sea ice.
Increasing precipitation enhances a layer of cooler, fresher water that lessens upward transfer of heat from the deeper, warmer saltier water and reducing sea ice melting.
Now, let's discuss the Arctic...

Subject: RE: BS: It's global warming, stupid!
From: Stringsinger
Date: 02 Apr 13 - 05:35 PM

Tarsand bitumen is possibly more of a polluter and contributor to global warming potentially than coal fired plants. Nuclear waste is a major problem left undetected by innocent people who are suffering its consequences and it does contribute to global warming.

Global warming is anthropogenic and there is a lot of evidence for this.

Conservation and constructive utilization of energy can still allow for the necessary and comfortable survivability but there are too many corporate energy CEO's and Wall Street oil speculators that would rather get rich quick and sell out the well-being and health of the planet.

This is basically where the climate denier propaganda is coming from.

Subject: RE: BS: It's global warming, stupid!
From: GUEST,TIA
Date: 02 Apr 13 - 06:57 PM

Amen! Conservation is the cheapest and easiest to use energy resource there is.

Subject: RE: BS: It's global warming, stupid!
From: beardedbruce
Date: 03 Apr 13 - 08:18 AM

Any one with a background in science would realize that unexplained and unexpected facts lead to a question of whether the models being used to predict what will happen are flawed- but of course it is forbidden to even think that the model is not exactly correct in all aspects, and provides absolute proof to support certain political aims.

Subject: RE: BS: It's global warming, stupid!
From: beardedbruce
Date: 03 Apr 13 - 08:25 AM

" It is human overpopulation that is at the root of it all."


AGREED- So where in the list of those to be removed for the sake of the planet should we put Mudcat posters, Folkies,and Banjo Players? Before or after Politicians?

Subject: RE: BS: It's global warming, stupid!
From: GUEST
Date: 03 Apr 13 - 10:49 AM

I will posit that Global Warming/Climate change is a very minor part of the problem, irregardless of man's influence upon it. I think a rational person would accept that man impacts on every ecosystem he inhabits. The extent of the impact is variable but generally is far from positive. Since the first use of stone tools and the start of agriculture, man had modified his environment. These modifications have grown as man has developed more complex societies and industrialisation has given him ever more powerful tools. In tandem with this tunnel vision lawyers allowed corporations to be given a persona.
As societies developed, rules evolved to enable functionality. These rules are approximated in all religions and it can be argued they are innate to human conciousness, derived from religion, or imposed by government. At the end of the day the true origin in irrelevant. What is relevant is that the majority of mankind are happy to accept a moral code and strive to live by it, because the alternative is the breakdown of society and anarchy. Returning to the concept of corporation, it is allowed no morality, because it exists to generate ever increasing profit. It is a frankenstein monster that needs reining in. Even though the CEO of a major oil company or mining company may recognise the harm done to the environment by their activities, unless changes are enforced by legislation, the shareholders insist on retaining the status quo.
If the IPCC were serious about the impact of man on his environment
they would consider all aspects of the problem. Furthermore if the severity of the problem is as they state it to be then why are they still pontificating? Are they truly a scientific organisation or a political entity? If they wanted credibility then by now a worldwide equivalent of the Manhatten Project would be underway to delineate the problem and properly research potential solutions.
If this is the best that mankind can accomplish to remediate his environment then perhaps he deserves extinction.

Subject: RE: BS: It's global warming, stupid!
From: GUEST,Lizzie Cornish
Date: 03 Apr 13 - 11:40 AM

If you want to help STOP Global Warming, then contribute funds to Polly Higgins and her Ecocide Team...Polly, who has become known as The Lawyer For Mother Earth, has now dedicated her life to bringing in The Law of Ecocide.

You can donate right here:

Eradicating Ecocide - Funding Page

If you have any problems, let me know and I can contact Polly's team via Facebook,in an instant, for you.

Bolivia's President, Evo Morales is already building the legal framework for 'The Law of Mother Earth'

Meanwhile, Brazil's President is overseeing the highly illegal and genocidal Belo Monte dam in the Amazon Rainforest, the first of over 60 planned for there, third largest in the world...

And Ecuador is about to auction 3 MILLION acres of her Rainforest to Chinese Oil Companies, again, illegally, with NO consultation taking part with the Indigenous People whom this will wipe out...

Peru's Rainforest is in dire straits to the Corporate Oil Bastards...

And even darlin' Terry Pratchett has joined in, making a tiring and arduous journey recently to try to wake the world to the plight of the Orangutans and the rapidly disappearing Rainforest of Indonesia..

Swings and Roundabouts....of Evil and Good..

And then, of course, we have the Frucking Frackers...

Meanwhile, the First Nations/Native Americans are rising up in Idle No More, for Mother Earth and the rights of Indigenous Peoples..being taken up on a global scale...

And whilst all this is going on, plus a WHOLE lot more, our little Bees are dying, dying, dying....

In Britain it has been a disaster for them, too cold to fly, natural winter food gone, emergency food administered by their keepers, freezing..and whole hives dying, dying, dying, whilst our Complicit and Evil Media use their front pages to tell the world about fecking Justin Bieber's Monkey!!

Yes, there ARE over 7 BILLION of us, but we can still grow enough food to feed every person on the planet, but instead of those who DARE to call themselves 'leaders' DEMANDING that ALL CHILDREN learn how to grow their own food, build their own houses, become beekeepers...and are taught how to LOVE Mother Earth with their very souls, over here in Britain our 'Education Minister' is demanding that our children are no longer taught about Climate Change!!!!!

We get the governments we deserve!
We get the WORLD we deserve!

And right now about 6 BILLION people truly couldn't give a FUCK for Mother Earth, nor for ANY other Species upon Her...seeing themselves as the most outstanding, the most intelligent and the ones who dictate EVERYTHING upon this planet...

They are soon to be in for the biggest shock of their lives...

Subject: RE: BS: It's global warming, stupid!
From: Don(Wyziwyg)T
Date: 03 Apr 13 - 12:39 PM

""For the near future we are stuck with a carbon based economy irregardless of the morality of this situation.""

And when the oil, and later the coal, run out.

Internal combustion engines run perfectly happily on hydrogen gas, producing only water vapour.

There is an unlimited supply of hydrogen in the sea, as the water vapour given off will naturally cycle back into that body.

Two things make hydrogen too expensive for current use.

1. It costs more to separate seawater than to refine oil, as it requires electrolysis, with the fossil fuel supplying the energy needed.

However, advances in solar power generation are bringing that cost down.

2. Hydrogen is murderously explosive and can shimmy through the minutest gaps.

However there is a way to use it employing zeolytes, according to NASA.

My feeling is that as oil and coal diminish, cost will become academic.

Don T.

Subject: RE: BS: It's global warming, stupid!
From: GUEST,TIA
Date: 03 Apr 13 - 01:01 PM

"All models are bad, but some are useful."
I forget whose quote that is...

Global climate change is not something predicted by a model.
It is an observable, measurable phenomenon.
Models have been developed to try to understand how and why it is happening, and to predict where it is heading and at what rate.
Models are built based on known physics, and various parameters adjusted so they can hindcast recorded historical data.
Then they can be used to predict trends (not individual weather events).
The accuracy (or not) of the predictive models remains to be seen, and might not be known for 30 years or more.
Meanwhile, the data that are used to formulate and test the models exist on their own.

Subject: RE: BS: It's global warming, stupid!
From: pdq
Date: 03 Apr 13 - 01:56 PM

Global Warming is based on exactly one item: the average of maximum and minimum temperatures as measured at about 4' above the Earth's surface.

Some discussions go back to the 1840s, others back to the 1880s, others go back 100 years. Doesn't matter, the number is essentially the same.

Australia's official weather service puts the number at 0.74^oC.

The US Weather Service says it is at 0.70^oC.

One European country pegs it at at 0.75^oC.

7/10 degree change in 150 years is trivial. Less that most similar periods in history.

Let's rename it Global Normalcy and move on to important problems.

Subject: RE: BS: It's global warming, stupid!
From: GUEST,TIA
Date: 03 Apr 13 - 02:20 PM

There is way more to it than that.
And I am no climate alarmist.
Read and learn.

http://www.skepticalscience.com/print.php?n=292

Subject: RE: BS: It's global warming, stupid!
From: beardedbruce
Date: 03 Apr 13 - 03:07 PM

Guest TIA,

I do not dispute climate CHANGE- I dispute the claim, made based on the MODELS, that it is caused SOLELY by anthropologic causes, and that changes these causes can significantly change the climate change going on.

Thus, a failure OF THE MODEL is a failure to show anthropologic causes.

Subject: RE: BS: It's global warming, stupid!
From: Don(Wyziwyg)T
Date: 03 Apr 13 - 03:31 PM

""I dispute the claim, made based on the MODELS, that it is caused SOLELY by anthropologic causes, and that changes these causes can significantly change the climate change going on.""

Now there's your problem BB.

You're disputing a claim that nobody has ever made, so you are absolutely correct. It is not, and could not ever be, ""caused SOLELY by anthropologic causes"".

You have finally won an argument!...............with nobody!

There is, however, plenty of evidence that it is PARTIALLY anthropologic though the proportion has not been, and probably won't be, quantified, and that you have yet to address.

Also unquantified is the impact of a humanity wide reduction in that proportion, but the impact of no reduction is becoming fairly obvious to us who are seeing violent changes in what used to be a moderately predictable climate.

Don T.

Subject: RE: BS: It's global warming, stupid!
From: beardedbruce
Date: 03 Apr 13 - 03:45 PM

Don,


Try reading posts. You only have shown the you did not bother to read my post of Date: 01 Apr 13 - 08:34 AM



"though the proportion has not been, and probably won't be, quantified, "


Yet ALL efforts have been to reduce that portion, and NONE have been made to deal with the FACT of climate change happening WHETHER we reduce CO2 or not.

As I said...



Date: 01 Apr 13 - 08:34 AM

The question I have put forward, and been attacked for, is that we do NOT know if man-made effects are the TOTAL cause for GW. IF we remove the man-made effects, at great cost and risk of social upheaval, and the remaining causes of global warning are STILL sufficient to cause the damage predicted, WILL IT HAVE BEEN WORTH THE COST?

It seems that it is forbidden to talk about this, just as ALL proposed actions by the GW Front are to REDUCE the man-made effects , and NOT to deal with the consequences of the warming itself. THAT would be worthwhile.

When I am informed how man-made causes are melting the icecaps on Mars, and changing the weather patterns on Jupiter, perhaps then I would be less concerned about ACTUAL global warming and more about what steps we can take to prestend it is not going to happen.

Subject: RE: BS: It's global warming, stupid!
From: beardedbruce
Date: 03 Apr 13 - 03:57 PM

BTW, Don,

Water vapor is a MUCH better greenhouse gas than CO2. So you want to put how much more into the atmosphere?

Subject: RE: BS: It's global warming, stupid!
From: pdq
Date: 03 Apr 13 - 05:27 PM

For the umpteenth time, CO₂ is responsible for some of the greenhouse affect.

However, there is no definitive proof as to how much this contribution is.

Until affect of CO₂ can be quantified, CO₂ cannot be plugged into an honest climate projection formula.

Subject: RE: BS: It's global warming, stupid!
From: Ed T
Date: 04 Apr 13 - 08:31 AM

Research- Sea vents arose after Earth's last mass extinction.

deep sea vents

Subject: RE: BS: It's global warming, stupid!
From: Q (Frank Staplin)
Date: 04 Apr 13 - 12:43 PM

Ed T, I would like to see more of the article on deep sea vents.
The summary seems to contain an error.

Last mass extinction.....65 million years ago....
These strange life forms arose after the last mass extinction....
The first vent animals appeared 500 million years ago...

I tried looking for the abstract in the journal, but came up with articles mostly on the Canadian arctic sea life.

Subject: RE: BS: It's global warming, stupid!
From: pdq
Date: 04 Apr 13 - 01:38 PM

There are usually two sides to a story.

Have a pleasant read...


http://blog.independent.org/2010/06/18/ipcc-insider-admits-climate-consensus-claim-was-a-lie/


http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1254660/Climategate-professor-Phil-Jones-admits-sending-pretty-awful-emails.html


http://www.npr.org/2012/02/22/147263862/climate-scientist-admits-to-lying-leaking-documents


http://articles.latimes.com/2012/feb/21/nation/la-na-climate-documents-20120222


http://www.theregister.co.uk/2012/02/21/gleick_admits_to_heartland_hack/


http://newsbusters.org/blogs/iris-somberg/2012/02/21/soros-funded-group-admits-lying-acquire-heartland-climate-documents

Subject: RE: BS: It's global warming, stupid!
From: Don(Wyziwyg)T
Date: 04 Apr 13 - 06:54 PM

""Water vapor is a MUCH better greenhouse gas than CO2. So you want to put how much more into the atmosphere?""

You really enjoy leading with your chin, don't you mate.

Read up on the water cycle.

The atmosphere can only hold so much water, and what cannot remain in cloud suspension falls as rain, eventually finding its way, by watercourses, back into the sea, after topping up worldwide aquifers.

We would have slightly increased rainfall and some places now desert, would once more be fertile.

The greenhouse gases would be more or less what they were before the invention of the internal combustion engine.

Sounds impossible, doesn't it? But it relies on the simple fact that a certain volumne of air can suspend only a finite volume of water.

Don T.