 sj |
||
|
||
BS: It's global warming, stupid!
|
|
|
Subject: BS: It's global warming, stupid! From: Stringsinger Date: 14 Jan 13 - 06:46 PM real scientists do agree worldwide. This is the most crucial issue of our day. Bill McKibben Do the Math tour Global Warming impacts food shortages, wars, international, interstate and intrastate, depletion of natural resources, domination of corporate deniers and ruthless energy companies, the poisoning of air, water, soil and food contamination, erratic weather conditions like tornados, hurricanes, tidal waves and the chance that we could become extinct as a species. The biggest solution at this point is education and getting people to wake up. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: It's global warming, stupid! From: GUEST,999 Date: 14 Jan 13 - 07:29 PM Please note the thread title source. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: It's global warming, stupid! From: Bill D Date: 14 Jan 13 - 07:47 PM Duly noted.... |
|
Subject: RE: BS: It's global warming, stupid! From: Ed T Date: 14 Jan 13 - 07:52 PM No comment just information: Northern Canada Sea-Ice trends, 2011 |
|
Subject: RE: BS: It's global warming, stupid! From: Bobert Date: 14 Jan 13 - 07:53 PM The problem we have is with Big Media... 99 climatologists can agree that man's activities are responsible for climate change and 1 wacko disagree and guess what... The wacko gets ***equal*** time??? WTF??? B~ |
|
Subject: RE: BS: It's global warming, stupid! From: Q (Frank Staplin) Date: 14 Jan 13 - 08:37 PM Natural variation in climate can be severe, exacerbated by man's activities, which is the stupid part of the equation. The lead-in time to climate neutral industry and living habits is 50 years or more, and as time goes on, the gap is not being reduced. The expense will be tremendous and increased taxes and costs are a no-no not only to politicians but to all of us (what, me worry?). Big media or little media, they all lead us to believe that the inevitable can always be put off. But the media only echo what we want to believe. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: It's global warming, stupid! From: Keef Date: 14 Jan 13 - 08:57 PM (in Oz) It aint alf ot mum! |
|
Subject: RE: BS: It's global warming, stupid! From: Rumncoke Date: 14 Jan 13 - 10:16 PM Here in the South of England it has been raining all Summer after a drought in Spring. Food prices have gone up, some things have been scarce, and my apple trees are in a poor way - two years ago they were drooping under the weight of fruit, last year there were a few dozen cracked apples which fell off before they ripened. Many people imagine that global warming means more sun - but warm air holds more moisture, so more clouds, and so more rain, snow or other precipitation. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: It's global warming, stupid! From: Bobert Date: 14 Jan 13 - 10:34 PM ************************For the record************************** The real climatologists have predicted that weather would get real weird before it settled in to a warmer cycle... Yup, that has occurred... San Diego is freezing right now and here in Charotte, NC, it's 65 degrees... We should be 30 degrees under that... "Weird weather"??? So what happens when a section of the polar ice caps the size of the continental United States melts in just one year??? Well, what happens in that cold ice brings down the temperatures of the Pacific Ocean off the the US's northwest coast... Hmmmmmm??? "Weird weather"??? I mean, let's get real here... We won't turn back the damage that we have done... That damage is done and that accounts for our... ..."weird weather"... At best, we can perhaps slow down the complete destruction of the planet but... ... that ain't gonna happen either because Big Oil won't let it... B~ |
|
Subject: RE: BS: It's global warming, stupid! From: Keef Date: 15 Jan 13 - 12:03 AM It's not "Big Oil" you need to fear. It's BIG APATHY and BIG SELF INTEREST Turn off, tune out, give up! |
|
Subject: RE: BS: It's global warming, stupid! From: GUEST Date: 15 Jan 13 - 03:08 AM http://science.nasa.gov/heliophysics/focus-areas/magnetosphere-ionosphere/ You can't discuss climate change without understanding the Sun-Earth relationship.Yes we are poisoning the planet but we aren't poisoning the other planets that exp the same phenomena.We are not the center of the universe,old Sol is not the center either is it.Another puzzler Sols temp does not seem to be the cause.Perhaps we have to start thinking bigger to understand.School doesn't teach you about the electric uni so most don't even take this into consideration.Stupid such a iffy word like intelligence.Stuuupid is as...8)Seriously the subject has been destroyed by selfish interests both financial and intellectual.Very hard to find research not infected by the Me/Mine its personal disease. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: It's global climate penulum, stupid! From: John on the Sunset Coast Date: 15 Jan 13 - 11:45 AM 'Nuff said. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: It's global warming, stupid! From: Ed T Date: 15 Jan 13 - 11:58 AM ... ""we aren't poisoning the other planets that exp the same phenomena". Curious: How so, "the same phenomena" in the other planets? Explain. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: It's global warming, stupid! From: GUEST Date: 15 Jan 13 - 01:39 PM Been a while since i went through all this but,plenty of research out there and it is a pretty controversial subject as i am sure you know.8) http://www.dakotavoice.com/2009/06/nasa-study-shows-sun-responsible-for-planet-warming/ ....here is a pretty balanced viewish.Could flood you with more then flood you with the contrary so a bit meh. I'm still not sure myself but i think anyone who says they know for sure are ..well wrong heh. Too many leaps of faith on "our behalf" the EU option covers all aspects of our existence and clears up a lot of jumbled mess;unites everything.Imho way way too much evidence for the EU now.Anyhow all old hat really, if only we could give Tesla the greatest mind/scientist that ever drew breath the credit he deserved we would be in better shape.Opinion of course.8) |
|
Subject: RE: BS: It's global warming, stupid! From: GUEST Date: 15 Jan 13 - 01:46 PM Mind you i am not saying it is the Sun,our Sun is prob being influenced too for all we know.Plus how much of the spectrum do we see;can measure. Pity we don't have Tesla cosmic phone number. http://www.pbs.org/tesla/ll/pv_gossip_pop.html |
|
Subject: RE: BS: It's global warming, stupid! From: Bonzo3legs Date: 15 Jan 13 - 01:58 PM Looking forward to our next flight!!! |
|
Subject: RE: BS: It's global warming, stupid! From: ollaimh Date: 15 Jan 13 - 02:06 PM Q isn\t attacking climate change science. have we entered bizzaro world. this is the guy who uses every thread he can to fling mud at natives, even if it is fifteen thoiusand year old mud. fox news only went back 14 years to get a gotcha quote against obama, q had to look back fifteen thousand years to find a now debunked theory why the enviornmental crisis was of course started by natives. kooks reveal their bigotry when they speak openly. most just talk to the converted so it takes them a while to learn that there is a real world out there |
|
Subject: RE: BS: It's global warming, stupid! From: pdq Date: 15 Jan 13 - 02:07 PM 14 FEB 2013 ALBUQUERQUE 28 10 AMARILLO 29 17 COLORADO SPGS 15 -4 SALT LAKE CITY 15 11 RENO 29 17 FLAGSTAFF 16 -9 LAS VEGAS 38 24 |
|
Subject: RE: BS: It's global warming, stupid! From: gnu Date: 15 Jan 13 - 02:08 PM Ed... excellent link! Good find. Looking at the graphs, I was immediately intrigued by their similarity in regression analysis trend slope values (visually). Only one linear regression seems marked different from the others and it is in the northmost zone of the analyses which, empirically, makes sense to me. I would be interested in finding out if the same types of analyses have been carried out for other ice regions, north and south, thereby allowing a comparison of slope values. Of course, I don't think any Canuck polar bears could be arsed to bother researching such a thing as I think the data and it's analyses is conclusive in the overall and my ponderance of any similarities would only be furthered if they were similar. And, I suppose, the opposite would be true but my lethargy in such regard is mostly due to the fact that I have a gut feeling the whole planet is on the same (slippery) slope. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: It's global warming, stupid! From: Q (Frank Staplin) Date: 15 Jan 13 - 02:33 PM pdq- your predictions for Feb. will be watched. Albuquerque extremes for February are 76 and -5 (F); January 69 and -17. 28 is well within normal range. http://www.wrcc.dri.edu/cgi-bin/clilcd.pl?nm23050 Flagstaff- Jan. extremes 66 and -22; 16 and -9 are well within normal range. Temperatures for other cities are also well within normal range. What is your point? Short term data are useless. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: It's global warming, stupid! From: GUEST,sciencegeek Date: 15 Jan 13 - 02:45 PM The joy of living in an interglacial period is much akin to living in "interesting times". Ultimately it is the amount of energy coming from our sun that keeps the planet habitable - for now at least, cosmically speaking. But we have: 1 an atmosphere that moderates solar radiation, 2 a tilt & wobble of the planitary axis that causes irregular heating of the surface that reflects or absorbs radiation/heat differently based on surface material, 3 a sun that does NOT produce solar radiation at a uniform, never changing rate, 4 volcanic activity and now human activity that changes the makeup of said atmosphere, 5 whatever I left off but can still be a factor :). Try balancing that all out ... you make models based on observations and best guesses on current trends... cross your fingers and then keep refining your work. And put up with the second guessing and denial of those who just do not want their comfortable ideas or vested interests to be disturbed. Where is the "tipping point"? Hopefully we aren't there yet or likely to be soon, because we are having a hard enough time supporting the current population - which is still increasing- and major climatic change may screw our ability to raise adequate food for those hungry mouths. The geek likes to try and stay optimistic... but sometimes it's just hard. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: It's global warming, stupid! From: GUEST Date: 15 Jan 13 - 02:56 PM http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-21033078 If we did everything we could to reduce these emissions we could buy ourselves up to half a degree less warming" Prof Piers Forster University of Leeds" |
|
Subject: RE: BS: It's global warming, stupid! From: gnu Date: 15 Jan 13 - 03:09 PM sciencegeek & GUEST... let's not bring logic into this discussion! Think about the panicists. They NEED to ignore historical and scientific facts in order to have something to panic about. Go ahead panicists... shit on my day... by degrees. >;-) Just TRY to get some true perspective based on good science, okay? |
|
Subject: RE: BS: It's global warming, stupid! From: Ed T Date: 15 Jan 13 - 03:13 PM ""If we did everything we could to reduce these emissions we could buy ourselves up to half a degree less warming"" I suspect that is because the investment has already made in the atmosphere (the stuff is already up there) - that will impact us for the next 100 years (even if we put nothing else up). |
|
Subject: RE: BS: It's global warming, stupid! From: pdq Date: 15 Jan 13 - 03:31 PM "I suspect that is because the investment has already made in the atmosphere (the stuff is already up there) - that will impact us for the next 100 years (even if we put nothing else up)." Last time I checked the facts, about 1/3 of all atmospheric carbon is removed each year. With none coming in to replace it, the level would be less the 1% of present level in about 10 years time. The claim that polution from the begining of the Industrial Revolution is still there shows how warped and unsuppoterd most of the GW promoters claims are. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: It's global warming, stupid! From: GUEST,sciencegeek Date: 16 Jan 13 - 10:32 AM removal of carbon (in the form of carbon dioxide)from the atmosphere is part of the Carbon Cycle... which you should have learned about in grade school science class. Since all life known on this planet is carbon based, carbon is the primary ingredient of biomass. The more carbon bond into biomass, the less that is available to float in the atmosphere and be dissolved in the hydrosphere. Removal of carbon from the cycle is called sequestration. Bind it into biomass like tree trunks or bury biomass in the ground or mud - the processes that resulted in oil & coal. But since carbon dioxide in the atmosphere is only one factor in global warming - via what is known as the Greenhouse Effect- we have other things to keep track of. Solar energy (heat) is either absorbed or reflected ( albedo effect).. or in greenhouse effect gets down to the surface but is then trapped in the atmosphere. It is all the trapped solar energy that powers our weather activity. The more energy the wilder the weather. Surprise surprise. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: It's global warming, stupid! From: GUEST,999 Date: 16 Jan 13 - 10:51 AM There are three places we can put garbage, and that's a part of the problem. We can put it in the air, on the land or in the water. Th-th-th-th-that's all folks. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: It's global warming, stupid! From: Ed T Date: 16 Jan 13 - 02:31 PM ""Last time I checked the facts, about 1/3 of all atmospheric carbon is removed each year"" Can you provide a source, or, better yet a link, to the "fact" you refer to in the above statement? I rarely accept anything anyone says is a fact (versus opinion, or bias), unless I see the source and the route that was used to get to such a conclusion. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: It's global warming, stupid! From: GUEST,TIA Date: 16 Jan 13 - 03:36 PM "Last time I checked the facts, about 1/3 of all atmospheric carbon is removed each year" This is kind of silly as a stand-alone statement. If this were the truth and the whole truth, atmospheric co2 concentrations should be falling, not rising steadily (as they clearly are). Are we perhaps talking about residence time or turnover time? A co2 molecule does have an average residence time in the atmosphere of about 5 years, but when it leaves, it typically swaps places with one in the geosphere or hydrosphere (e.g. if a co2 molecule is sequestered in a tree, another tree dies and decays, releasing co2). This turnover has been pretty stable over geologic time (it has clearly changed, but the change has been very very slow). Massive burning of fossil fuels quickly puts lots of co2 molecules in the atmosphere, that may only stay there for about 5 years, but their return and sequestration (in trees or carbonate sediments or whatever) is slower than the rate at which additional co2 molecules are pumped into the atmosphere. So the residence time is ultimately irrelevant. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: It's global warming, stupid! From: Ed T Date: 16 Jan 13 - 03:51 PM ""What the science says... Individual carbon dioxide molecules have a short life time of around 5 years in the atmosphere. However, when they leave the atmosphere, they're simply swapping places with carbon dioxide in the ocean. The final amount of extra CO2 that remains in the atmosphere stays there on a time scale of centuries.""....."" It is true that an individual molecule of CO2 has a short residence time in the atmosphere. However, in most cases when a molecule of CO2 leaves the atmosphere it is simply swapping places with one in the ocean. Thus, the warming potential of CO2 has very little to do with the residence time of CO2."" From: Skeptical Science |
|
Subject: RE: BS: It's global warming, stupid! From: Rumncoke Date: 16 Jan 13 - 06:58 PM Nitrous oxide - laughing gas - is a much more heating gas than carbon dioxide and where carbon dioxide is happily absorbed by plants I don't know of anything that actively absorbs nitrous oxide. However, levels of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere are far higher than a few thousand years ago. Even if the life of a molecule of it is not all that long, the number of molecules has been is increased. I'd think that we really should be covering every square foot of soil with things that grow. When the permafrost melts and the dead plants and animals it contains start to decompose then the level of carbon dioxide is really going to rise. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: It's global warming, stupid! From: gnu Date: 16 Jan 13 - 07:28 PM "However, levels of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere are far higher than a few thousand years ago." Prove it. I am not saying you cannot. I just want you to support your arguement. Fair request? |
|
Subject: RE: BS: It's global warming, stupid! From: pdq Date: 16 Jan 13 - 07:33 PM We don't even have accurate temperature data before about 1800. Anyone who thinks we had CO2 sensors before modern times is deluded or on drugs. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: It's global warming, stupid! From: Bobert Date: 16 Jan 13 - 07:38 PM ************************POP QUIZ************************ Who doesn't want Earth friendly energy sources to be developed??? A. Big Oil & Coal B. Big Oil & Coal C. Big Oil & Coal Pick one... B~ |
|
Subject: RE: BS: It's global warming, stupid! From: GUEST,Shimrod Date: 17 Jan 13 - 04:41 AM Fossil fuels - coal, oil, gas etc. accumulated over millions of years. The human race has dug up a very large percentage of these materials, such that easily accessible reserves of oil, at least, are now much scarcer, and burned them in just a few human lifetimes. It's probable that a major part of this burning has taken place in my lifetime - I'm 65 this year. Surely, we must expect some adverse consequences from such a monstrous enterprise? As I understand it, the second?, third? Law of Thermodynamics says that if you pump more energy into a system it becomes more disordered. Although it's probably too early to tell absolutely, the climate seems to be becoming more disordered. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: It's global warming, stupid! From: Nigel Parsons Date: 17 Jan 13 - 05:44 AM Anybody who starts a discussion with a heading such as: "It's global warming, stupid!" is immediately, and unconditionally, refusing to accept that any contra arguments may have any merit. As such, to attempt to put any reasonable arguments (unless they support the original posting) is pointless. This seems to be a common strategy of those who believe that 'Global Warming' has been proved to be caused by human actions. Such people will always trot out comments about scientists with opposed views being funded by the fossil fuels industry etc., but will ignore the suggestion that anyone who claims to be a 'Climate Scientist' will only continue to find paid employment while there is a belief that there is something wrong with the climate. I agree that we seem to be seeing some more severe weather systems. Ice coverage of some parts of the globe seem to be decreasing (compared to some previous measures) Climate may be changing (although I was taught in school that 'Climate' is a consideration of general conditions over a 30 year period) If there is climate change, some of it may be due to our actions. Due to the viewpoint (noted above) of the original poster it seems pointless to get into a debate about these matters. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: It's global warming, stupid! From: Ed T Date: 17 Jan 13 - 06:08 AM ""If there is climate change, some of it may be due to our actions"" To take a reasonable approach, maybe so? But, would it not be just as reasonable to consider very much could be due to our actions, as none of it is due to human actions? I agree that to engourage reasoned discussion, thread posters should select non-provoking titles. I suspect some chosen are tit-for-tat reasons, stimulated by similar ones in the past. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: It's global warming, stupid! From: gnu Date: 17 Jan 13 - 06:57 AM I think arguements in favour of reducing the human footprint are valid. I think arguements which attempt to instill panic by saying humans are THE cause of global warming are invalid. Rumncoke... my apologies. Perhaps a better phrasing would be : are you aware of any studies which examine climate (eg annual precipitaion) other atmosmosperic/ice/soil compositions by region and other factors which would impact the cool/warm cycle? |
|
Subject: RE: BS: It's global warming, stupid! From: VirginiaTam Date: 17 Jan 13 - 07:01 AM "Now there are some things in the world we can't change – gravity, entropy, the speed of light, the first and second Laws of Thermodynamics, and our biological nature that requires clean air, clean water, clean soil, clean energy and biodiversity for our health and well being. Protecting the biosphere should be our highest priority or else we sicken and die. Other things, like capitalism, free enterprise, the economy, currency, the market, are not forces of nature, we invented them. They are not immutable and we can change them. It makes no sense to elevate economics above the biosphere, for example." David Suzuki |
|
Subject: RE: BS: It's global warming, stupid! From: gnu Date: 17 Jan 13 - 07:01 AM It's a cycle. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: It's global warming, stupid! From: sciencegeek Date: 17 Jan 13 - 07:05 AM there are ways to determine previous climates, atmospheric compositions and other information without having been there with scientific monitoring equipment. And that is information that has been gathered by scientists for quite some time and used to support the global warming hypothesis. Atmospheric gases are trapped in snow & ice.... deep bores taken from polar ice packs is tested to determine atmospheric gas composition for a long geologic period. Different isotopes of carbon and oxygen in ancient ice cores is used to determine temperatures. Trees growth is related to temperature and long lived trees can show the growth rings that resulted from temperatures over their lifetime. Fossilized trees can provide similar information. Ancient environments left behind sediments that can be studied for evidence of what type of climate existed during its formation. Scientists from many different disciplines have collected data that is available for all to study and view from the many points of view. When evidence from multiple sources is put together it should become harder to refute... at least in a rational fashion. So, the thread title reveals the exasperation of those who have to put up with the willing blindness of people who ignore anything that disturbs their worldview. Who seek to discredit rather than actually investigate the evidence. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: It's global warming, stupid! From: gnu Date: 17 Jan 13 - 08:39 AM Good job, sciencegeek. Short and sweet. Much better than I could have said it. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: It's global warming, stupid! From: GUEST,sciencegeek Date: 17 Jan 13 - 09:51 AM thanks, gnu a major problem we humans have is social inertia ... getting off our collective asses and challenging the same old way of doing things. we push green technology .. and ignore the simple cheap & easy ways... you know work WITH nature kinds of things. why keep installing pavement that increases runoff and flooding issues when you can use a combination of geogrids or other methods that are then interplanted with carbon dioxide, water absorbing vegetation? the biggest absorber of carbon is the ocean... both the water & the phytoplankton... with terrestrial vegetation a distant second. Planting more trees will not only absorb carbon, but it will lock it in the wood, not to be released until it either decays or is burned. Small steps, but well worth taking... plants not only absorb carbon, but air pollutants as well.... besides respiring O2 and tempering the immediate temperatures. Think globally and act locally is paramount... because waiting for others to do it... well go reread Aesop's Fables and you'll figure it out. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: It's global warming, stupid! From: Keith A of Hertford Date: 17 Jan 13 - 10:32 AM Big Oil and Coal. There is no green ecofriendly alternative ready to replace them. Our Western lifestyle is just unsustainable. Sorry. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: It's global warming, stupid! From: Ed T Date: 17 Jan 13 - 10:48 AM ""the biggest absorber of carbon is the ocean..."" Yes and look at how the increased carbon absorbtion in the ocean is now increasing ocean acidity, potentially threating ocean life (and I suspect the phytoplankton that takes up much of the carbon from the atmosphere). A simple experiment shows that "when you push on one area of a balloon, it merely pops out elsewhere". |
|
Subject: RE: BS: It's global warming, stupid! From: Don(Wyziwyg)T Date: 17 Jan 13 - 11:48 AM Methane is another greenhouse gas which isn't apparent in any of the above comment. Surprising since its effects are far greater than carbon dioxide. There are claims that food production (domestic cattle) is a major source, but according to Stephen Fry's QI program, which is usually reliable, the largest producers of methane on the planet are termites. Good luck trying to stop those little buggers. The point is that even warming caused directly by non human sources may still have indirect links with, or be the result of, human activity. We do seem to be standing there with a smoking gun in our collective hands, and to deny that is hiding our heads in the sand. Unless we give up denial and start to take sensible action, that tipping point Sciencegeek was talking about will be reached. I'm sure the Neanderthals thought they would go on forever and where are they now? We are no more immune from the effects of climate change than they, or the Mammoth, or the Sabretooth Cat. Don T. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: It's global warming, stupid! From: GUEST,sciencegeek Date: 17 Jan 13 - 11:50 AM |
|
Subject: RE: BS: It's global warming, stupid! From: GUEST,sciencegeek Date: 17 Jan 13 - 12:07 PM weird... no clue what happened to my previous post. Acid rain is caused by emissions of sulfur dioxide and nitrogen oxide, which react with the water molecules in the atmosphere to produce acidic precipitation... this comes from natural sources like volcanic gases, not just human activity. Carbon dioxide dissolves in water... the colder the more gas is dissolved... which is taken up by organisms, many of which use it to make shells of carbonate material, not just those that are photosynthetic. Carbonic acid quickly reacts to form compounds like carbonates. Carbonates buffer acidity... pour some vinegar on limestone or marble to see the reaction in action... lol. You CAN NOT just look at one little piece and think you see the whole picture anymore that the ten blind guys could "picture" an elephant by touching a single part of the critter. If were easy we wouldn't be having this "discussion". |
|
Subject: RE: BS: It's global warming, stupid! From: Ed T Date: 17 Jan 13 - 12:15 PM Some science on ocean acidification: Ocean acidification The National Research Council's Ocean Studies Board |
|
Subject: RE: BS: It's global warming, stupid! From: GUEST,sciencegeek Date: 17 Jan 13 - 12:18 PM about bovine flatulance... if you look more closely at the so called studies you might notice that it is skewed to come up with the conclusion that the problem disappears if humans go vegan.... duh. As if domestic animals are the only source... how about ruminants in general... and how do you explain India? Cattle are a critical part of the agrarian culture while only a minor source of protein for rhis largely vegetarian nation. This biggest producers of methane from digestion/fermantation were dinosaurs - pardon the pun. And they did quite nicely for hundreds of millions of years. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: It's global warming, stupid! From: Ed T Date: 17 Jan 13 - 12:33 PM Some deeper, and broader science on ocean acidification, for those who like it:) Ocean acidification |
|
Subject: RE: BS: It's global warming, stupid! From: GUEST,sciencegeek Date: 17 Jan 13 - 02:16 PM makes you wonder what's up with the calcium & magnesium in oceanic water that would be binding with the bicarbonate. the burning of fossil fuels releases carbon that has been out of circulation for 400 million years or so... talk about too much of a good thing. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: It's global warming, stupid! From: Ed T Date: 17 Jan 13 - 02:39 PM Interesting Qs and As from the European Project on Ocean Acidification: Science Qs and As on ocean acidification |
|
Subject: RE: BS: It's global warming, stupid! From: GUEST,sciencegeek Date: 17 Jan 13 - 02:58 PM gotta love the reference to ocean acdification being counterintuative ... :D took the words right out of my mouth, since my course work in oceanography was done back in the early '80's... and I deal more with acid rain effects on inland freshwater bodies & terrestrial habitats. so much data... so little time |
|
Subject: RE: BS: It's global warming, stupid! From: Ed T Date: 17 Jan 13 - 03:37 PM Yes, acid rain impacts in freshwater presents quite a diferent scenario from ocean acidification. It is quite a complex equasion, one that seems to have raised its head in the science community in recent years. Fortunately, there are excellent international grade scientists working cooperatively on it, and relatively good data sets to draw information from. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: It's global warming, stupid! From: Stringsinger Date: 17 Jan 13 - 07:03 PM ALEC has made inroads in North Carolina to sabotage bills in the congress to enable alternative energy sources. You can go into detail on scientific jargon but the fact remains that world scientists agree that global warming is real. I would trust their opinion over distracting pseudo-scientific statements. It's not just King Coal, it's fracking, strontium 90 and other chemicals being deposited into the atmosphere that is making our planet a wasteland. Ice caps are melting. Coral reefs are disappearing. Dead zones in oceans are appearing. The Canada XL Pipeline will add to the global warming and ecological destruction. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: It's global warming, stupid! From: Nigel Parsons Date: 18 Jan 13 - 03:28 AM You can go into detail on scientific jargon but the fact remains that world scientists agree that global warming is real. I would trust their opinion over distracting pseudo-scientific statements. Or, to put it more accurately: You can go into detail on scientific jargon but the fact remains that many/most world scientists agree that global warming is real some, but not all also agree that it is caused by the acts of men. I would trust their opinion over distracting pseudo-scientific statements. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: It's global warming, stupid! From: gnu Date: 18 Jan 13 - 07:00 AM sgeek... "you know work WITH nature kinds of things. why keep installing pavement that increases runoff and flooding issues when you can use a combination of geogrids or other methods that are then interplanted with carbon dioxide, water absorbing vegetation?" Odd (amazing?) how far this technology has come in the last 35 years. That's about how long ago I did a term paper on soil reinforcment. During my presentation, while talking away, I spread a thin layer of sand over a single sheet of newspaper and repated this several times, rolled it all up, twisted the ends such that it looked like a joint (a crowd pleaser), placed it between two chair seats and, while delivering my final words and thank yous, stood on one foot on the middle of the "joint" ending with the words, "It's shearly resistable." Hey! Engineergeeks laughed at it. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: It's global warming, stupid! From: sciencegeek Date: 18 Jan 13 - 07:39 AM my dad was in construction & I would ask him why you'd see perfectly good material burned instead of being saved for other jobs. The answer... it's cheaper than the effort to do that. It was an early WTF? moment for me. Why not just give it away? We tolerate way too much waste. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: It's global warming, stupid! From: Stringsinger Date: 18 Jan 13 - 05:07 PM "Anybody who starts a discussion with a heading such as: "It's global warming, stupid!" is immediately, and unconditionally, refusing to accept that any contra arguments may have any merit. As such, to attempt to put any reasonable arguments (unless they support the original posting) is pointless." First of all, the statement comes from New York's Mayor Bloomberg. Second, there are no reasonable contra arguments that have any merit whatsoever. This is a crucial issue and supposed "contra arguments' are given mainly by Global Warming deniers who work for energy companies. It's a clear cut issue and is obscured by those who have a corporate agenda, usually paid "science shills" to obstruct information on this issue. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: It's global warming, stupid! From: gnu Date: 18 Jan 13 - 05:37 PM 34 posts in you attribute the "quotation"? Huh? |
|
Subject: RE: BS: It's global warming, stupid! From: freda underhill Date: 18 Jan 13 - 07:55 PM The Australian Bureau of Meteorology is the Australian Government's department for weather monitoring. The Bureau website states that it has a responsibility to provide the correct information to the public and decision makers. It states that Australia's climate is changing, and that Australia and the globe are experiencing rapid climate change. Since the middle of the 20th century, Australian temperatures have, on average, risen by about 1°C with an increase in the frequency of heatwaves and a decrease in the numbers of frosts and cold days. more here ... Yesterday we had our hottest day in Sydney since the 1930s - it was 46 degrees celsius, tho near the airport it was 49 degrees. That's between 115 - 120 degrees for those of you in fahreheit, temperaturtes normally only experienced in the desert. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: It's global warming, stupid! From: Stringsinger Date: 19 Jan 13 - 11:30 AM 2012 was the hottest day on record. Australia is burning up. Ice caps are going fast in Arctic. The Keystone XL Pipeline will be one of the world's biggest polluters and responsible for more C02 emissions worldwide. Game Over |
|
Subject: RE: BS: It's global warming, stupid! From: Stringsinger Date: 19 Jan 13 - 11:34 AM It's not that Global Warming makes all the weather hot. It's that it makes extreme weather circumstances involving snowstorms, floods, tornados, hurricanes, droughts and rising sea levels. It's part of a larger picture of the energy companies destroying our environment through carbon pollution, nuclear waste, fracking (chemicals in the ground causing contamination), strontium 90 in the air, acid rain, mountaintop removal, and don't forget the Great Dust Storm of 1935. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: It's global warming, stupid! From: Stringsinger Date: 19 Jan 13 - 04:03 PM Woody Guthrie was probably the first environmental ecco-singer bringing attention to the Dust Bowl. Ken Burns film is a wonderful document and shows pix of how devastating that was. That film should be a wake-up call to what can actually happen to our planet if we ignore it the way the cattlemen and farmers did in those days. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: It's global warming, stupid! From: Mr Red Date: 20 Jan 13 - 10:31 AM global warming is real. What the deniers avoid is discussing the reasons, it is easier to deny. Now would anyone care to identify the root cause? Global warming is the symptom. Is is the West's profligacy ? (with others following at a rate of knots) Or is it the size of human population? Think about it - less people, less waste, less polution. So the answer is yes and yes. The solution to both is not possible unless you count war and pestilence - and we have that already. Increasing the cost of anything will sure focus minds. eg How many Mudcatters repair socks? I don't. Repair knickers? I do when the elastic goes. Do you epair brooms, torn clothes, etc etc? Repair & recycle is all very well but here in the West we are wedded to the throwaway society. The items we buy are designed NOT to be repaired. If we recycled and repaired any more we would have a recession which implies more R & R, more recession, more R & R - result depression. Yoof today are not educated in R & R by and large. Even I have to declare defeat often. I repair headphones here at Stroud FM (we are all volunteers) but most idiots would leave them broken and complain, or buy their own personal pair and guard them closer than their supply of Viagra. IE buy, - repair ?? they can't even get started on that. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: It's global warming, stupid! From: Stringsinger Date: 20 Jan 13 - 05:27 PM There are many corporate global warming deniers such as the Koch Brothers who have a greedy investment in oil and coal. The nuclear industry is attempting to say that they have a clean alternative which is a bogus claim. There is tremendous opposition to Arctic drilling and the Keystone XL. This is very heartening. This is an issue that many don't want to face but it is tied into economic factors like jobs and corporate profits. It's a larger issue than just coal and CO2 emissions because it involves the poisoning of groundwater through fracking and factory farming. All these issues add up to the planet being ruined by mankind's negligence and unwillingness to face the consequences of this behavior. If this issue is buried by the media and ignored by the public, we as a planet are in for some rough times ahead. Greenland's ice has practically been depleted. Water has gone into the ground and mixed with decaying underground vegetation which is producing gas that goes back into the atmosphere compounding the C02 problem. An interesting book I would recommend is Bobby Kennedy Jr.'s "Crimes Against Nature". |
|
Subject: RE: BS: It's global warming, stupid! From: GUEST,Shimrod Date: 21 Jan 13 - 10:12 AM One problem is that the human race is very good at getting used to things. So, here in the UK, for example, our countryside has been severely damaged by agriculture and development - but people have got used to it and don't notice it any more (especially now when many people just drive through it). Similarly, in a few years time, what is now considered abnormal weather will become the norm. People will adapt, in the short term, and still cling to the ludicrous fiction that our planet is a bottomless barrel, containing infinte, endlessly exploitable riches - but the 'big crunch' must come soon or later. I suspect that, for our species, there won't be any long term. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: It's global warming, stupid! From: GUEST,Peter Laban Date: 21 Jan 13 - 10:30 AM Article about the heat in Oz |
|
Subject: RE: BS: It's global warming, stupid! From: Stu Date: 21 Jan 13 - 12:31 PM "Greenland's ice has practically been depleted." Bit of an over-exaggeration there methinks, and that doesn't help when we're trying to convince the deniers we have a problem (I know it's still there because I flew over it last year and it is immense). |
|
Subject: RE: BS: It's global warming, stupid! From: bobad Date: 21 Jan 13 - 12:54 PM "We will respond to the threat of climate change, knowing that the failure to do so would betray our children and future generations. Some may still deny the overwhelming judgment of science, but none can avoid the devastating impact of raging fires, and crippling drought, and more powerful storms. The path towards sustainable energy sources will be long and sometimes difficult. But America cannot resist this transition; we must lead it." — President Barack Obama, from his second inaugural address |
|
Subject: RE: BS: It's global warming, stupid! From: freda underhill Date: 22 Jan 13 - 01:45 AM thanks for posting the article, Peter, it's good to see that people in other countries are aware we're frying here. freda |
|
Subject: RE: BS: It's global warming, stupid! From: Nigel Parsons Date: 22 Jan 13 - 03:37 AM "Greenland's ice has practically been depleted." Another way of making the situation sound worse than it is. I had to check the online dictionaries, and, sure enough, the word did not mean quite what I thought: Deplete: To decrease the fullness of; use up or empty out. So a slight reduction in ice coverage can be described as depleted (a reduction in the fullness) but most people will read it as meaning 'emptied out' i.e. all gone. The use of 'sloppy' language may be accidental, or may be a deliberate ploy. In response to my comment: "Anybody who starts a discussion with a heading such as: "It's global warming, stupid!" is immediately, and unconditionally, refusing to accept that any contra arguments may have any merit. As such, to attempt to put any reasonable arguments (unless they support the original posting) is pointless." Stringsinger states: First of all, the statement comes from New York's Mayor Bloomberg. Second, there are no reasonable contra arguments that have any merit whatsoever. Firstly, what are mayor Bloomberg's scientific credentials? Secondly, thank you for confirming my comment about your not accepting that there can be any valid contra arguments. A closed mind is not a scientific mind! |
|
Subject: RE: BS: It's global warming, stupid! From: GUEST,sciencegeek Date: 22 Jan 13 - 10:54 AM "First of all, the statement comes from New York's Mayor Bloomberg. Second, there are no reasonable contra arguments that have any merit whatsoever. Firstly, what are mayor Bloomberg's scientific credentials? Secondly, thank you for confirming my comment about your not accepting that there can be any valid contra arguments. A closed mind is not a scientific mind! " Once again a half truth is used to support denial.... If the title had read "It's Gravity, Stupid" would you have felt the need to question it??? And there are quite a few questions about just what is gravity and "gravitational forces", even now... though the basic outline was formulated back in the 1600's by Newton. Anything that requires people to question ( and actually consider changing) their ingrained habits is met with opposition that seems to be as ingrained as the habits themselves. The so called environmental movement was actually started decades before the first "Earth Day" and environmental protection is still being attacked and undermined by those who feel they can "profit more" from less regulation. It is true that many regulations are based on poorly crafted laws that were passed by unscientifically trained people who are also influenced by various lobbys. But even the most ardent against environmental protection DO NOT install their toilets in their kitchens... so they do know better on some level. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: It's global warming, stupid! From: GUEST,sciencegeek Date: 22 Jan 13 - 11:55 AM "unscientifically trained people"... meant to type people not rained in the sciences... but now I realize that I was actually correct the first time... rote memorization is NOT scientific... nor is spitting out answers from the end of each chapter... even of science textbooks... because the answers are only as good as the current research and may very well change in the course of your career, much less your lifetime. and the education that many people receive is not designed to encourage thinking too deeply about things, but rather to accept the "norm" and spit back facts without really understanding the context of those "facts". |
|
Subject: RE: BS: It's global warming, stupid! From: GUEST,sciencegeek Date: 22 Jan 13 - 12:54 PM gack!!! too many typos & I'll leave it at that. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: It's global warming, stupid! From: Ed T Date: 29 Jan 13 - 06:12 PM Attached is background information (fact sheet) on another variable/unknown that is related to changes in climate (aka, global warming)- Potential impatt/changes in the Global Conveyor Belt. Potential changes in Thermohaline Circulation? |
|
Subject: RE: BS: It's global warming, stupid! From: Rumncoke Date: 30 Jan 13 - 09:55 AM The amount of CO2 in the atmosphere has gone up about 80 parts per million since I started in junior school. I am going to be 62 this year, if I live long enough. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: It's global warming, stupid! From: beardedbruce Date: 04 Feb 13 - 10:08 AM http://www.foxnews.com/science/2013/02/01/report-show-un-admitting-solar-activity-may-play-significant-role-in-global/ Maybe someone who disagrees with this can tell me why the recent changes in the Martian ice cap and the Great Red Spot on Jupiter? I keep asking, but have only been told it is man-made CO2 ( even though water vapor and methane are far more effective greenhouse gasses.) that is somehow entirely responsible. One has to wonder who is making money of getting power from the "Global Warming" situation. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: It's global warming, stupid! From: Nigel Parsons Date: 04 Feb 13 - 10:22 AM From: GUEST,sciencegeek - PM Date: 22 Jan 13 - 10:54 AM Anything that requires people to question ( and actually consider changing) their ingrained habits is met with opposition that seems to be as ingrained as the habits themselves. How about the ingrained habits that some on here have being unwilling to question the facts put forward by the climate change industry? |
|
Subject: RE: BS: It's global warming, stupid! From: GUEST,sciencegeek Date: 04 Feb 13 - 12:02 PM the "climate change industry"???? what climate change industry? The petrochemical industry has been around for over a century... the coal industry far longer than that. Global warming has only been identified as an issue in the past few decades... you want to tell me who started this industry? A number of start up companies that have formed to make products for sustainable energy is hardly in the same league. They can't afford the lobbyists... yet. The "facts" that the scientific community relies upon are those that are published in peer reviewed journals. and if the "facts" presented are found to be unrealistic or the hypotheses are not testable, then they don't hold up and are discarded or debunked. And the more supporting evidence that is found from unrelated fields is that much more compelling and provides additional avenues of investigation. Good science is based upon well reasoned questions and the methods used to answer those questions... not making wild statements and then seeing who can argue the loudest. That's for the faith based crowd... who never met a fact they couldn't ignore if it upset their belief system. "Three great forces rule the world: STUPIDITY, FEAR and GREED." Albert Einstein |
|
Subject: RE: BS: It's global warming, stupid! From: EBarnacle Date: 04 Feb 13 - 02:41 PM I am scared. I have two friends, both with "hard" science doctorates, who deny both climate change and warming. They are both Libertarians who also believe that doing nothing is sufficient because "This is just a natural cycle and will self correct itself." Of course, they believe they and/or their descendants will be around after the correction takes place. Saw this on one of my newsletters today: http://www.climatecentral.org/gallery/graphics/warming-winters-in-the-us Of course, one of my friends' points is that anything we do will have minimal or nil effects. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: It's global warming, stupid! From: pdq Date: 04 Feb 13 - 03:06 PM "I am scared. I have two friends, both with "hard" science doctorates, who deny both climate change and warming." ~ EBarnacle Too bad you dont' simply listen to them. They are correct. I have a degree in hard science and I know nobody who believes the GW hawkers except for a few who do so for political reasons. The change in temperature is actually quite little in the last 150 years or so: 0.7 degress C. Vagaries is the Earths rotation, revolution around the Sun and changes in Sun's energy output explain it all. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: It's global warming, stupid! From: sciencegeek Date: 04 Feb 13 - 06:19 PM "The "facts" that the scientific community relies upon are those that are published in peer reviewed journals." Sorry... but I also have a degree in the "hard sciences"... double major actually... and I have long maintained that we are in an inter- glacial period... based on the cycles that been going on for the past few million years. That being said... the facts include plenty of data concerning environmental effects caused by human activity, in addition to "natural processes" that go on regardless. Global warming is causing changes to the environment and we need to figure out how to deal with it... other than sticking your head in the sand or up your arse. These are the "interesting times" referred to in that famous oriental curse. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: It's global warming, stupid! From: Ed T Date: 04 Feb 13 - 07:06 PM I suspect "dueling degrees" won't get anyone any closer to understanding the science - science which few or any here directly participate in. There are planty of people with solid PHD's, plus years of data and experience trying to analyse a mass of current and historic data to come up with some answers that fit. Fortunately, advances in technology are providing more and better data. Unfortunately, this area of science will likely face cutbacks in many nations, as governments try and deal with their deficits. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: It's global warming, stupid! From: sciencegeek Date: 05 Feb 13 - 04:43 AM Too true, Ed. A degree is not proof of continuing involvement in scientific advancement... anymore than having a passport is proof that one is a world traveler. A common joke in college was of professors who spent four years writing their thesis and the next forty defending it. Good science involves asking more questions and dealing with new evidence. Figuring out the mechanisms involved because that is where the answers will be found. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: It's global warming, stupid! From: Don(Wyziwyg)T Date: 05 Feb 13 - 06:15 AM What might help to even out the discussion to the status of reasoned discourse, would be persuading BB and company to broaden their sources of information beyond the online pages of that well respected fount of scientific knowledge...(NOT!).......FOX NEWS? Don T. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: It's global warming, stupid! From: GUEST,TIA Date: 05 Feb 13 - 10:13 AM The peer-reviewed literature indicates that for at least the last 400 years (when we have direct observations), solar irradiance has closely tracked with average global climate indicators. Duh. Earth gets nearly all of its energy from the sun. BUT! This close tracking for hundreds of years fails starting in about 1975. For the last 35 or so years, irradiance has been declining while global average temperature has increased. This is powerful evidence for non-natural climate change. You can read the journal article for yourself here: http://www.mps.mpg.de/dokumente/publikationen/solanki/c153.pdf PS Can somebody please explain to me how I can get rich on this GW scam? So far, I have not made a dime off of it, but if Fox is to be believed, I am missing the boat - there's a lot of money in this gig. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: It's global warming, stupid! From: beardedbruce Date: 05 Feb 13 - 10:28 AM DonT, I don't suppose you would want to come to Goddard (Space Flight Center) and tell us what we are supposed to believe on your say-so. Some of us have questions that narrow minded individuals such as yourself ignore- such as why the Red Spot is significantly changing after 400 years of observation, and the Martian ice caps are shrinking. If you ignore that, then you can certainly postulate man-made causes for GW- BUT YOU DO NOT PROVE IT AS FACT. Tell me, what have you published recently in climatology, since you do not allow any opinions that differ with yours to be considered? |
|
Subject: RE: BS: It's global warming, stupid! From: Ringer Date: 05 Feb 13 - 11:33 AM "Can somebody please explain to me how I can get rich on this GW scam? So far, I have not made a dime off of it, but if Fox is to be believed, I am missing the boat - there's a lot of money in this gig." I think Al Gore's done very well out of it! |
|
Subject: RE: BS: It's global warming, stupid! From: GUEST,TIA Date: 05 Feb 13 - 11:34 AM The idea that Mars is also suffering global warming (and therefore Earth's global warming must be a solar sytem wide phenomenon) is based primarily on the work of Lori Fenton in 2007. Read it here: http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v446/n7136/abs/nature05718.html Fenton and co-authors looked at composite photos of Mars from 1977 and 1999 and calculated the global average albedo - finding a decrease that could be interpreted as a warming trend of 0.65 degrees over 22 years. BUT! These photos are snapshots - showing two instants 22 years apart. Impossible to separate weather from climate with just two photos. Imagine looking at a Northern hemisphere winter picture of Earth in 1977, and northern hemisphere summer picture in 1999. Will they be different? Of course! Will the differences say anything meaningful about climate? Of course not! Seasonal fluctuations are large than global trends (on Mars and Earth). Trying to disprove anthropogenic global warming on Earth by claiming that there is non-anthropogenic warming on Mars fails on two levels: 1) there is no empirical evidence for warming on Mars, and 2) The climate drivers and sensitivity on Mars are not well understood, but we know they are very different from Earth's (e.g. Mars has little atmosphere, and no macrofauna or macroflora). It is just silly to think you can argue against anthropogenic global climate change on Earth (where we have abundant data and continuous measurments of many proxies over long periods of time) by citing global warming on Mars (which is based on two snapshots). If one claims that the science regarding Earth's climate is not settled, you can't support this by citing the far less constrained science regarding Mars' climate. And on to Jupiter...we know even less about climate change, climate drivers, and climate sensitivity on Jupiter than we do for Mars! See above. It's an even sillier argument. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: It's global warming, stupid! From: GUEST,TIA Date: 05 Feb 13 - 12:13 PM Al Gore is no scientist. How can a scientist get rich on this? Help me out here - two kids in college! |
|
Subject: RE: BS: It's global warming, stupid! From: GUEST,Shimrod Date: 05 Feb 13 - 01:22 PM "Mars has little atmosphere, and no macrofauna or macroflora" More crucially, Mars lacks oceans! |
|
Subject: RE: BS: It's global warming, stupid! From: GUEST,TIA Date: 05 Feb 13 - 02:02 PM Excellent point |
|
Subject: RE: BS: It's global warming, stupid! From: GUEST,sciencegeek Date: 05 Feb 13 - 02:05 PM in 9th grade Earth Science back in 1965, Continental Drift was mentioned and scoffed almost in the same breath. Then the Glomar Challenger was launched and new information was obtained from the sea floor. They didn't even have textbooks out in 1969 when I took Geology 101 that covered the discoveries that eventually became Plate Tectonics. When I took Marine Geology almost ten years later, I had to raise my hand early on & 'fess up that what I had been taught as an undergrad was completely different from what he was casually discussing and ask for a quick update. He was a good sport and gave athumbnail sketch of where the field had gone in the past decade. No one blinks an eye now when discussing "Continental Drift"... |
|
Subject: RE: BS: It's global warming, stupid! From: Don(Wyziwyg)T Date: 05 Feb 13 - 03:44 PM ""Tell me, what have you published recently in climatology, since you do not allow any opinions that differ with yours to be considered?"" Nothing at all, since I am not a climatologist. I am, however, an avid reader of publications much more credible than Fox News, and there is too much evidence for, and too little against, a man made element in climate change. As to your questions re Jupiter and Mars, I believe that the only realistic conclusion to be drawn from those changes is that they are not man made. There is no evidence as to what they are either, so you would need to demonstrate the relevance of your question, before expecting your thoughts on it to be considered. Don T. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: It's global warming, stupid! From: gnu Date: 05 Feb 13 - 07:49 PM I am gonna suggest something that all of you global swarmers can do. Even tho I know my post will be completely ignored. Talked about it before but, hey, gnu's... whatever??? Ya wanna help reduce the foot human footprint... here's a start... demand legislation that requires longer warranty periods on goods of all types. Let's take a... fridge. One year parts and labour UNLESS ya buy an extended warranty. WHAT THE FUCK IS THAT? Yer sellin me a FRIDGE that might not last more than a year? SERIOUSLY? Fuck me? Fuck you! I want a 50 year warranty because I care about global warming. Fridges and freezers and furnaces and.... used to be built to a 50 year design life... now it's ABOUT 7 years and might fail sooner? And before anyone posts that I am dreaming... I am an engineer who designs shit and my clients get to choose how much they wanna spend on the life cycle costs... a 50 year fridge is NO different than the shit I design. I got a great story about that. I might come back to this thread and tell it after I crack an ale. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: It's global warming, stupid! From: sciencegeek Date: 06 Feb 13 - 06:58 AM you are quite correct, gnu the Madison Avenue scheme of planned obsolescence has backfired badly.... at least as a sustainable practice. Like any ponzi scheme it made a number of people crazy rich... and left the rest holding the bag. But I think it needs to go further than that... design home item that can last AND run off the grid. Generate power to run industry & business that are more regular & predictable with a smaller output for residential use. And while we're at it... get rid of the excessive packaging that is a waste of resources & landfill space. Make it mandatory that manufacturers have to "take back" their products at "end of life" and see how fast things change. Fat chance on Congress passing that. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: It's global warming, stupid! From: Don(Wyziwyg)T Date: 06 Feb 13 - 02:24 PM ""And while we're at it... get rid of the excessive packaging that is a waste of resources & landfill space. Make it mandatory that manufacturers have to "take back" their products at "end of life" and see how fast things change. Fat chance on Congress passing that."" YES, YES and YES! All that Gnu said and all of yours SG. We have rules in the UK that companies selling electrical goods must offer disposal of what they are replacing (e.g. sell you a fridge and take away your old one for proper disposal or recyling). It hasn't yet persuaded them to make longer lasting goods, but as the price of disposal goes sky high, it might. We just have to wait and see, and hope that they aren't doing as one UK waste disposal company did, sending what should have been recycled to landfill in France. That was really dirty, akin to throwing your trash into your neighbour's garden. Don T. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: It's global warming, stupid! From: GUEST,sciencegeek Date: 06 Feb 13 - 03:34 PM the curse of typing not wordprocessing... hit the enter key to go to the next line.... NOT!!!!! anyhow, as I would have said so elequently before... as long as industry & business can pass on the costs to the consumer... and ultimately society as a whole... they will do so. Create some enormous package for a tiny SD card... so it can put out on display & harder to steal... instead of having them behind a counter & pay a minimum wage sales clerk to handle. If you have to do that to sell cigarettes, then do for other high price small items. or how about using solar batteries to keep power to your electronic gear... you know, that little red light that sips power so you can use all those stupid remotes that come with everything. or my real peeve... you have a stove that has a piezoelectric ignitor, but needs to be pluged in to work... WTF??? the bloody things were first designed to be used on portable camp stoves that were off the grid!!! OMG ... is it so hard to turn on the gas & push in the ignitor button??! we could have a whole thread dedicated to simple sustainable ways to do things... |
|
Subject: RE: BS: It's global warming, stupid! From: Ed T Date: 06 Feb 13 - 04:15 PM Much newer stuff is rarely repaired or repairable than it used to be. Goods are not being produced in a manner that they last, that they can be repaired, even if you could find someone who repairs goods at a reasobable price. While many forks claim they care for the environment - chances are that they are the most wasteful- beyond the "token" trend of the day. A friend of mine repairs broken household appliences and sells them in his shop. He says the older models are the best made ones, and the best value once repaired, But, he says, even though he explains this to customers, it is hard to get anyone to buy the better made and longer lasting older models. We are a wasteful throw-away consumer society. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: It's global warming, stupid! From: Stringsinger Date: 06 Feb 13 - 06:08 PM One point that hasn't been addressed is that how a person treats their own body is a reflection on how they treat the earth's environment. It's a larger picture of how food is marketed and sold and the trash that the fast food manufacturers contribute to the inside as well as the outside of the human body is a huge part of the problem. The point is that denial starts with each individual who is willing to abuse their own body by taking in crap produced by unscrupulous corporate "food" companies and has a bearing on how climate crisis information is received. Note, climate crisis, not the term climate change which soft-pedals the urgency that our survival faces. We are in big trouble and there are so many deniers. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: It's global warming, stupid! From: Don(Wyziwyg)T Date: 07 Feb 13 - 07:01 AM I have been a joiner and wood machinist for many years and have tools still working today which I bought during my apprenticeship in the early 70s. Hand planes, the blades of wich are two inches shorter through constant sharpening. Chisels ditto. I have three saws from that time, which I have sharpened and set by hand. 1) A fine tooth panel saw which has by now been sharpened away to a modeately good kehole saw. 2) A cross cut, now a fine panel saw. 2) A rip, which is now a general purpose cross cut. Put that up against throwaway hardened saws, surform hardened planers, etc. etc., and you begin to realise just how bad things have become. Call me old fashioned, but I won't have a tool in my box which I cannot sharpen and maintain until it is completely used up. I am unashamedly proud of the quantity of metal resources I have avoided wasting in 40 years, and I am about to pass on my tools to my 14 year old grandson, who has shown a huge interest, not only in working with wood, but also in conservation of materials. He should get at least twenty years use out of what I am giving him. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: It's global warming, stupid! From: Don(Wyziwyg)T Date: 07 Feb 13 - 07:07 AM Must get a new keyboard. "moderately good keyhole saw" Incidentally, those three saws are genuine Philadelphia Distons. Think Rolls Royce of hand tools. Don T. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: It's global warming, stupid! From: GUEST,sciencegeek Date: 07 Feb 13 - 09:17 AM I rememeber when a 5 year car battery from SEARS last 6-7 years... now they fall aprat in 2. And I would argue with brother about the so-called merits of "if it breaks, they replace it free"... I want something that does the job well, not have it break in the middle of the job and waste my time & gas to get an equally shoddy POS. Don, I have planes and other woodworking tools from my late step dad who was a master cabinet maker. Beautiful. But they will need to find a good home soon, since I have no one to leave them to. I might find a buyer with some of the neighbors who are Amish.. but they often use power tools on their "English" jobs. There seems to be as many forms of Amish as there are Judism or Protestantism. LOL Sustainable preactices means those that stand the test of time. Right now, the most reliable technology is that which is sent out on deep space probes... we get the leftovers and knockoffs. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: It's global warming, stupid! From: Don(Wyziwyg)T Date: 07 Feb 13 - 11:19 AM The best thing you can do with those tools SG, is to take them to the nearest woodworking shop that trains apprentices, and donate them to the young man who is considered the best by his masters. Your step dad would be proud to see his tools go to a real carpenter/joiner. Don T. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: It's global warming, stupid! From: Ed T Date: 07 Feb 13 - 04:22 PM ""I rememeber when a 5 year car battery from SEARS last 6-7 years... now they fall aprat in 2. And I would argue with brother about the so-called merits of "if it breaks, they replace it free"" Buy them at Costco and they warrant the battery for the full warranty period stated - not the prorated crap. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: It's global warming, stupid! From: Don(Wyziwyg)T Date: 08 Feb 13 - 05:55 AM The point is that it is perfectly possible to make a car battery which, if properly treated, will last ten or more years. Instead they make them to fail in two or three and use five times the resources in the pursuit of profit, not excellence. Don T. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: It's global warming, stupid! From: Ed T Date: 08 Feb 13 - 08:27 AM Mackerel weather-climate and politics Mackerel |
|
Subject: RE: BS: It's global warming, stupid! From: Ed T Date: 08 Feb 13 - 08:32 AM Interesting site on car batteries: Car battery manufaturers |
|
Subject: RE: BS: It's global warming, stupid! From: maeve Date: 08 Feb 13 - 08:39 AM sciencegeek- "we could have a whole thread dedicated to simple sustainable ways to do things... " Good idea! Don- Our saws are the wonderful Distons too, and my husband and I hand sharpen all of our tools. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: It's global warming, stupid! From: Don(Wyziwyg)T Date: 08 Feb 13 - 09:34 AM ""Don- Our saws are the wonderful Distons too, and my husband and I hand sharpen all of our tools."" No saw that I ever picked up came close to rivalling the genuine PA Diston, which would cut 7" X 2" joists in ten strokes without effort. The all cut perfectly straight too, since you don't have to apply pressure, even in bad (semi green) timber. There was I believe a UK made Diston which wasn't as good, though cheaper. If the longevity of mine is anything to go by, buying the other would have cost me a lot extra in replacements, and the planet quite a lot more iron ore, coal, electricity and other resources. As Tesco are so fond of (unconvincingly) saying, every little helps. Don T. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: It's global warming, stupid! From: Ringer Date: 08 Feb 13 - 11:10 AM "... there is too much evidence for, and too little against, a man made element in climate change." Would you care to list some of this evidence for a man-made element in climate change, Don(Wyziwyg)T? It is my opinion (and I am not alone) that there is no such evidence. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: It's global warming, stupid! From: GUEST,sciencegeek Date: 08 Feb 13 - 11:42 AM well, goggle 9/11 and climate to get a slew of articles taking every possible position... but the fact remains, for three days there was a ban on non military flight over the USA. Jets leave contrails... no jets no contrails. A direct & immediate change in weather was noted. It helped reveal a small facet of human influence on the atmosphere. It is an undisputed fact that industry pollutes... as in sends up tons and tons of soot ( aka particulates) and just as much assorted chemicals into the atmosphere. Some of these chemicals act as catalysts to destroy the protective ozone layer and others act to trap heat within the atmosphere, known as the "greenhouse effect", while others create "acid rain" or just act any other toxic chemical when introduced into an organism. If you question these facts, then go the US EPA website and look up any of the thousands of Title IV and V permits that have been issued since 1997 to get a clue. They just happen to list the various chemicals and the amount that a company is allowed by law to emit from their plants. And that's just in the USA. I know this for a fact because I used to work on these permits in New York. Now I work on water pollution permits. SSDD PS... as a geeky footnote... the very first air pollutant was free oxygen, O2, that is the end product of photosynthesis. yes it took time... but it DID change the original reducing environment of this plantet into an oxidizing one... which is the prime reason why multicelluar organisms could make a real go of it. The end result is what we have today. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: It's global warming, stupid! From: Stringsinger Date: 08 Feb 13 - 07:07 PM Ringer, 1. Fracking leaving dangerous chemicals in the air and ground water. 2. Coal burning plants sending carbon emissions into the air. 3. Nuclear waste disposal creating health problems from the air breathed. 4. The use of aerosol sprays sending CO2 into the air. 5. The heating of the oceans due to the residual layer of carbon emissions in the atmosphere. 6. The destruction of the water table where "dead zones" occur. These are just some of the evidence that has been presented as to mankind's despoiling of the air resulting in weather anomalies by reputable scientists who have documented these occurences regardless of what some deniers "believe" . deniers "believe". |
|
Subject: RE: BS: It's global warming, stupid! From: gnu Date: 08 Feb 13 - 07:35 PM Ed... one more note on that link... Britain and the EU hung Iceland out to dry in Chapter 13* so when they say they are gonna "mack on", the more power to them. (I'll bet skarpi agrees.) * Yes. Far worse. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: It's global warming, stupid! From: Ringer Date: 11 Feb 13 - 06:02 AM "These are just some of the evidence that has been presented as to mankind's despoiling of the air resulting in weather anomalies by reputable scientists who have documented these occurences regardless of what some deniers "believe" ." Evidence of mankind's despoiling of nature, certainly, Stringsinger. But not evidence that climate has been significantly affected by mankind's activities. In other words, I dispute your "resulting in weather anomalies." "Deniers," incidentally, is a pejorative term, implying that those who don't support your point of view show the same nastiness as those who deny the Holocaust. What, precisely (do you do precisely?), do you think is being denied? |
|
Subject: RE: BS: It's global warming, stupid! From: Don(Wyziwyg)T Date: 11 Feb 13 - 06:23 AM ""Would you care to list some of this evidence for a man-made element in climate change, Don(Wyziwyg)T? It is my opinion (and I am not alone) that there is no such evidence."" No, I wouldn't! You will have to do as I have done and access all the peer reviewed and genuinely scientific publications on the subject, then try reading them with your eyes, and more importantly, your mind open. You are entitled to your own opinion, but not your own facts. Don T. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: It's global warming, stupid! From: Don(Wyziwyg)T Date: 11 Feb 13 - 06:27 AM P.S. This may come as a big disappointment, but Fox News and others of that ilk are not actually peer reviewed scientific journals. Don T. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: It's global warming, stupid! From: beardedbruce Date: 11 Feb 13 - 08:13 AM Don T. The FACTS are that the climate is changing. The THEORY is that man-made causes have a controlling factor in that change. It is the latter THEORY that is in discussion- As any SCIENTIST knows, one creates theories AND THEN LOOKS FOR THE REASONS IT DOES NOT HOLD TRUE. AFTER none are found, one accepts the theory conditionally, and continues to look for new data. It seems to me you are failing in this. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: It's global warming, stupid! From: GUEST,TIA Date: 11 Feb 13 - 12:37 PM Ringer; Start here with Figure 1. Then keep going. You have lots and lots of reading to do. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: It's global warming, stupid! From: Don(Wyziwyg)T Date: 11 Feb 13 - 12:47 PM It may be very heavy going TIA, but it's consistent and very convincing, and the main argument of the other side seems to be "I don't believe it, so it can't be true". Don T. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: It's global warming, stupid! From: Ringer Date: 11 Feb 13 - 01:10 PM "No, I wouldn't! Fair enough, Don(Wyziwyg)T, but since you decline to list any evidence to the contrary, I feel disinclined to abandon my opinion. "...try reading them with your eyes, and more importantly, your mind open." Ah, I see: anyone with an opinion different from yours is blinkered and has a closed mind. How very convenient, for then you don't need to provide evidence or argument, do you? PS. I don't think I've ever looked at Fox News in my life, so (a) my views don't come from there, and (b) I cannot judge what "others of that ilk" are. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: It's global warming, stupid! From: Ringer Date: 11 Feb 13 - 01:23 PM "It may be very heavy going TIA, but it's consistent and very convincing..." I skimmed the article (I don't believe you've had time to digest it thoroughly, Don(Wyziwyg)T): convincing it may be, but only that carbon dioxide & methane atmospheric constituents have been affected by human activity for longer than is generally thought. OK: I accept that; but my argument is unaffected: I asked for evidence that human activity had affected climate, not that it had affected carbon dioxide & methane, which I accept. "... and the main argument of the other side seems to be "I don't believe it, so it can't be true"" You should try reading the arguments of "the other side" with your eyes, and more importantly, your mind open, Don(Wyziwyg)T. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: It's global warming, stupid! From: GUEST,TIA Date: 11 Feb 13 - 05:03 PM Ringer, "OK: I accept that; but my argument is unaffected: I asked for evidence that human activity had affected climate, not that it had affected carbon dioxide & methane, which I accept." Read again, and spend a bit of time understanding Figure 10. I believe it provides exactly the linkage you seek: human activity affected CO2 and CH4, CO2 and CH4 affected climate, ergo; humans affected climate. Figure 10. Then begin reading the references. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: It's global warming, stupid! From: GUEST,TIA Date: 11 Feb 13 - 05:10 PM And if you want something recent from an unimpeachable source, how about Nature, December 2012? http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v492/n7428/full/492157b.html |
|
Subject: RE: BS: It's global warming, stupid! From: Ed T Date: 11 Feb 13 - 06:46 PM Interesting reading: ""Soot, that black carbon that causes smoggy skies (and has sent Beijing's Pollution Index right off the charts) is the number two contributor to global warming, second to carbon dioxide, according to a four-year assessment by an international panel that is not the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change"". Black Carbon in the climate system |
|
Subject: RE: BS: It's global warming, stupid! From: Ed T Date: 11 Feb 13 - 06:52 PM An interesting paper on black carbon in the climate system: (PDF file) - A scientific assessment. Journal of Geophysical Research: Atmospheres Accepted Articles, Accepted manuscript online: 15 JAN 2013. Bounding the role of black carbon in the climate system: A scientific assessment |
|
Subject: RE: BS: It's global warming, stupid! From: Ed T Date: 11 Feb 13 - 07:00 PM An interesting Science research abstract from Nature Geoscience published in March 2008. Global and regional climate changes due to black carbon |
|
Subject: RE: BS: It's global warming, stupid! From: Ed T Date: 11 Feb 13 - 08:33 PM An interesting article: Solar Influences on Global Temperature, Zeke Hausfather May 27, 2008 common-climate-misconceptions-solar-influences-on-global-temperature Another, by the same scientist:Common Climate Misconceptions on Atmospheric Carbon Dioxide, Zeke Hausfather December 16, 2010 common-climate-misconceptions-atmospheric-carbon-dioxide |
|
Subject: RE: BS: It's global warming, stupid! From: Don(Wyziwyg)T Date: 12 Feb 13 - 06:13 AM ""Ah, I see: anyone with an opinion different from yours is blinkered and has a closed mind."" Not at all! Just those idiots who are too lazy to even look for the evidence and want me to waste my time doing it for them. If you have only researched from one point of view, your conclusions are slanted and your opinion invalid. If, on the other hand, you have done some homework, then you are deliberately choosing to ignore what disagrees with you preconceived notion, which is worse. My apparent ability to digest the information in TIA's link was in fact an illusion, I'm afraid, since it was one of the many strands of evidence I turned up in my own research into the subject. I am no professional scientist (an analytical chemist 5 decades ago), but Google is easy to use if you have any interest in the truth. Don T. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: It's global warming, stupid! From: Stringsinger Date: 12 Feb 13 - 01:42 PM To quote Professor Hausfather: "Graphing emissions over the modern period against changes in atmospheric concentrations illustrates a clear relationship between emissions and increasing CO2 concentrations." In other words, it ain't the sun, son. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: It's global warming, stupid! From: EBarnacle Date: 13 Feb 13 - 12:41 AM Folks, the Sun almost certainly contributes to the situation. The operative word is contributes. So do various forms of pollution. See, for example, Venus and models which compare the temperature of Venus with and without its cloud cover. As far as ice, Ringer, would you like to join me on a cruise of the NortWest Passage this summer? |
|
Subject: RE: BS: It's global warming, stupid! From: GUEST,TIA Date: 13 Feb 13 - 12:53 AM Actually, the sun distinctly does *not* contribute. For the last 800,000+ years, climate has tracked insolation. And now, as insolation declines, global average temperature is rising. Climate is doing the exact opposite of what the sun's effect should be. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: It's global warming, stupid! From: Ringer Date: 13 Feb 13 - 11:24 AM TIA, from your cite in posting at 11 Feb 13 - 12:37 PM - on p285, beginning of section 6: "To evaluate the climatic impacts of these pre-industrial greenhouse-gas increases, the following analysis uses the IPCC (2001) estimate of a 2.5C equilibrium sensitivity of global climate to a CO2 doubling." Is this a serious scientific paper? Using IPCC (2001)? The IPCC reports have been discredited, based as they are mainly on "gray sources": that is, on literature from lobbyist groups with an ax to grind (lobbyist groups such as WWF, Greenpeace, FoE, etc). The current estimate is that climate sensitivity is about 1C, not 2.5. I couldn't work out what effect a smaller value of sensitivity would have on "the following analysis". (OK: perhaps I'm being too harsh on the authors of your 10-year-old cite, since the truly partial nature of IPCC & its reports have only really become well known in the last few years.) But that's neither here nor there. There's at least as much evidence that, historically, temperature changes lead carbon dioxide changes as the reverse. Eg look at Wikipedia; not obvious there that CO2 is cause and temperature is effecxt, is there? And
|
|
Subject: RE: BS: It's global warming, stupid! From: beardedbruce Date: 13 Feb 13 - 11:52 AM Water vapor is also a greenhouse gas- more effective than CO2 (as is methane). Is it too much to think that the temperature increase ( from whatever cause) might increase the water vapor levels in the atmosphere, increasing the greenhouse heating, raising the temperature, and increasing the water vapor?? The ONLY cure for this cycle is to reduce the temperature ( NOT the CO2) by increased particulates. That would reduce the solar heating of the earth, and reduce the temperature. Best way to do that is a major nuclear war. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: It's global warming, stupid! From: pdq Date: 13 Feb 13 - 12:33 PM "Actually, the sun distinctly does *not* contribute." Good grief, Charlie Brown. The Sun is the only external source of energy for the Earth's atmosphere. Without the Sun's energy, the Earth's surface would be approximately the same as that of Pluto. That is about 285oC below what it is now. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: It's global warming, stupid! From: Don(Wyziwyg)T Date: 13 Feb 13 - 01:15 PM ""Good grief, Charlie Brown. The Sun is the only external source of energy for the Earth's atmosphere."" Misunderstanding, accidentally or deliberately Peedee? The distance from Earth to Sun is, within the narrowest of margins, constant, and so is the heat generated at that distance, again within very narrow limits. So, unless the Sun itself gets hotter, it isn't going to cause global warming, and we know that the Sun is in a phase where it is, very slowly, cooling. So, the difference must be at our end, and the only possible answer is, as TIA pointed out, insulation. The more of that heat we keep in, the hotter we get, and that is what greenhouse gasses do. By reducing the heat radiation into space, they cause global warming. So, given our production of CFCs and Carbon Dioxide, and the quantity of carbon we put into the atmosphere since the Industrial Revolution by burning fossil fuels, and the methane production from intensive livestock farming, whether there is a human contribution to global warming is not up for debate. IT IS A FACT! The only thing yet to be determined is the proportion of the whole for which we are responsible. Don T. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: It's global warming, stupid! From: beardedbruce Date: 13 Feb 13 - 01:42 PM Don, http://science.nasa.gov/science-news/science-at-nasa/2013/08jan_sunclimate/ You state:"So, unless the Sun itself gets hotter, it isn't going to cause global warming, and we know that the Sun is in a phase where it is, very slowly, cooling." You assume that the sun is constant, and not variable. "There are no direct measurements of the longer-term variation and interpretations of proxy measures of variations differ; recent results suggest about 0.1% variation over the last 2,000 years,[4] although other sources suggest a 0.2% increase in solar irradiance since 1675.[5] The combination of solar variation and volcanic effects has very likely been the cause of some climate change, for example during the Maunder Minimum. A 2006 study and review of existing literature, published in Nature, determined that there has been no net increase in solar brightness since the mid 1970s, and that changes in solar output within the past 400 years are unlikely to have played a major part in global warming.[6] However, the same report cautions that "Apart from solar brightness, more subtle influences on climate from cosmic rays or the Sun's ultraviolet radiation cannot be excluded, say the authors. They also add that these influences cannot be confirmed because physical models for such effects are still too poorly developed."[7]" "Dan Lubin of the Scripps Institution of Oceanography pointed out the value of looking at sun-like stars elsewhere in the Milky Way to determine the frequency of similar grand minima. "Early estimates of grand minimum frequency in solar-type stars ranged from 10% to 30%, implying the sun's influence could be overpowering. More recent studies using data from Hipparcos (a European Space Agency astrometry satellite) and properly accounting for the metallicity of the stars, place the estimate in the range of less than 3%." This is not a large number, but it is significant. Indeed, the sun could be on the threshold of a mini-Maunder event right now. Ongoing Solar Cycle 24 is the weakest in more than 50 years. Moreover, there is (controversial) evidence of a long-term weakening trend in the magnetic field strength of sunspots. Matt Penn and William Livingston of the National Solar Observatory predict that by the time Solar Cycle 25 arrives, magnetic fields on the sun will be so weak that few if any sunspots will be formed. Independent lines of research involving helioseismology and surface polar fields tend to support their conclusion. (Note: Penn and Livingston were not participants at the NRC workshop.) "If the sun really is entering an unfamiliar phase of the solar cycle, then we must redouble our efforts to understand the sun-climate link," notes Lika Guhathakurta of NASA's Living with a Star Program, which helped fund the NRC study. "The report offers some good ideas for how to get started." |
|
Subject: RE: BS: It's global warming, stupid! From: beardedbruce Date: 13 Feb 13 - 02:09 PM http://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s11434-007-0384-9 for long term variability. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: It's global warming, stupid! From: Ed T Date: 13 Feb 13 - 05:22 PM I suspect there is not much any of us can do about the Sun's heat output, beyond observing it and trying to predict future varibility by understanding earlier changes. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: It's global warming, stupid! From: Greg F. Date: 13 Feb 13 - 05:55 PM I'm sure Bruce will be able to do something about it, Ed - just ask him. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: It's global warming, stupid! From: GUEST,TIA Date: 13 Feb 13 - 06:29 PM So Ringer, you assail IPC as a poor source, then cite me Wikipedia in response? Kind of funny. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: It's global warming, stupid! From: Greg F. Date: 13 Feb 13 - 06:40 PM you assail IPC as a poor source, then cite me Wikipedia in response? That's not funny at all; if anything, its pitiful. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: It's global warming, stupid! From: GUEST,TIA Date: 13 Feb 13 - 08:52 PM Yup. Wikipedia is for those who want to get the "five minute understanding" of a complex topic. Sometimes it is helpful... as a good starting point. But don't go arguing with someone familiar with the primary peer-reviewed literature armed with Wikipedia. You'll look like you learned your shit 5 seconds ago ('cause you did). So, moving on; lots of talk about the sun above. And I notice that many are conflating disparate issues. Are we arguing about total solar irradiance or insolation, or ultraviolet radiation and the ozone layer, or cosmic rays, or D-O events? Or are we mixing them all together as if they are one phenomenon? Let's argue once we understand the difference between these and their (often competing) effects. Or, you know what, just never mind. In the words of Geophysicist Ray Pierrehumbert; "That's [the solar argument] a coffin with so many nails in it already that the hard part is finding a place to hammer in a new one." Hammer away! |
|
Subject: RE: BS: It's global warming, stupid! From: Greg F. Date: 13 Feb 13 - 09:06 PM Wikipedia is for those who want to get the "five minute understanding" of a complex topic. Or, more often, no understanding whatsoever of damn near ANY topic... |
|
Subject: RE: BS: It's global warming, stupid! From: Stringsinger Date: 14 Feb 13 - 05:03 PM February 17th in Washington D.C. will have one of the biggest rallies to protest the Keystone XL Pipeline ever held. Already, at least 50 protesters have been arrested for demonstrations on this issue. Some in front of the White House. This issue is not going away. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: It's global warming, stupid! From: GUEST,Mad Jock Date: 17 Feb 13 - 09:01 AM It is far better to call the change we are experiencing as Climate Change as some places will get warmer others colder some wetter some drier.!! |
|
Subject: RE: BS: It's global warming, stupid! From: EBarnacle Date: 17 Feb 13 - 10:42 AM Regarding arguments that Climate Change believers are trying to suppress deniers, my experience has been the opposite. By means of insult and ad hominem arguments they go about trying to outshout everyone while claiming they are being trampled on. Let's poait a different question: Isn't it better to reduce emissions for whatever reason than to simply continue down the road to Hell or to sit around saying nothing scn/sh0uld be done? |
|
Subject: RE: BS: It's global warming, stupid! From: Stringsinger Date: 18 Feb 13 - 09:49 AM 50,000 people showed up in Washington last Sunday the 17th to protest the implementing of the Keystone XL Pipeline. Not everyone is asleep. The term climate change is a misnomer because it ignores the basic scientific fact that the planet is heating up due to carbon emissions and C02 into the atmosphere, caused by automotive exhaust and other manmade factors. Global warming is more accurate than climate change since there has always been climate change but global warming is new and a recent development which is causing hurricanes, rising sea levels, acid rain, polar melting of ice caps and extensive draughts as found in Australia and Africa. The attempt to obscure the words "global warming" is another ploy by the corporate gas and oil industry to further their economic interests at the expense of all of us. |
|
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 0.74oC. The US Weather Service says it is at 0.70oC. One European country pegs it at at 0.75oC. 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. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: It's global warming, stupid! From: pdq Date: 04 Apr 13 - 08:55 PM Here is a statement from who released the ClimateGate emails in 2009... (Here, via Bishop Hill, is the relevant passage.) That's right; no conspiracy, no paid hackers, no Big Oil. The Republicans didn't plot this. USA politics is alien to me, neither am I from the UK. There is life outside the Anglo-American sphere. If someone is still wondering why anyone would take these risks, or sees only a breach of privacy here, a few words… The first glimpses I got behind the scenes did little to garner my trust in the state of climate science — on the contrary. I found myself in front of a choice that just might have a global impact. Briefly put, when I had to balance the interests of my own safety, privacy\career of a few scientists, and the well-being of billions of people living in the coming several decades, the first two weren't the decisive concern. It was me or nobody, now or never. Combination of several rather improbable prerequisites just wouldn't occur again for anyone else in the foreseeable future. The circus was about to arrive in Copenhagen. Later on it could be too late. Most would agree that climate science has already directed where humanity puts its capability, innovation, mental and material "might". The scale will grow ever grander in the coming decades if things go according to script. We're dealing with $trillions and potentially drastic influence on practically everyone. Wealth of the surrounding society tends to draw the major brushstrokes of a newborn's future life. It makes a huge difference whether humanity uses its assets to achieve progress, or whether it strives to stop and reverse it, essentially sacrificing the less fortunate to the climate gods. We can't pour trillions in this massive hole-digging-and-filling-up endeavor and pretend it's not away from something and someone else. If the economy of a region, a country, a city, etc. deteriorates, what happens among the poorest? Does that usually improve their prospects? No, they will take the hardest hit. No amount of magical climate thinking can turn this one upside-down. It's easy for many of us in the western world to accept a tiny green inconvenience and then wallow in that righteous feeling, surrounded by our "clean" technology and energy that is only slightly more expensive if adequately subsidized. Those millions and billions already struggling with malnutrition, sickness, violence, illiteracy, etc. don't have that luxury. The price of "climate protection" with its cumulative and collateral effects is bound to destroy and debilitate in great numbers, for decades and generations. Conversely, a "game-changer" could have a beneficial effect encompassing a similar scope. If I had a chance to accomplish even a fraction of that, I'd have to try. I couldn't morally afford inaction. Even if I risked everything, would never get personal compensation, and could probably never talk about it with anyone. I took what I deemed the most defensible course of action, and would do it again (although with slight alterations — trying to publish something truthful on RealClimate was clearly too grandiose of a plan ;-). Even if I have it all wrong and these scientists had some good reason to mislead us (instead of making a strong case with real data) I think disseminating the truth is still the safest bet by far. Big thanks to Steve and Anthony and many others. My contribution would never have happened without your work (whether or not you agree with the views stated). Oh, one more thing. I was surprised to learn from a "progressive" blog, corroborated by a renowned "scientist", that the releases were part of a coordinated campaign receiving vast amounts of secret funding from shady energy industry groups. I wasn't aware of the arrangement but warmly welcome their decision to support my project. For that end I opened a bitcoin address: 1HHQ36qbsgGZWLPmiUjYHxQUPJ6EQXVJFS. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: It's global warming, stupid! From: Ed T Date: 04 Apr 13 - 09:29 PM Q, I believe the research article (On the instability and evolutionary age of deep-sea chemosynthetic communities Robert C. Vrijenhoek) can be accessed on this site: Deep Sea Research Part II: Topical Studies in Oceanography |
|
Subject: RE: BS: It's global warming, stupid! From: beardedbruce Date: 05 Apr 13 - 08:40 AM Don, "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." The amount of water vapor that can be held by the atmosphere is a function of temperature. If, as I have postulated and you have NEVER addressed, the climate change is going on regardless of the manmade causes, the temperature will continue to rise, and the increased water vapor will cause a further increase in the temperature, leading to a runaway greenhouse effect. IF there are other causes bed]sides CO2 increase to global warming, YOUR solution is just going to make things worse. Can you demonstrate the ALL global warming is caused by man-made CO2? I don't think you even think so, therefore MY concern is valid, and YOU have just taken a KO punch to the jaw. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: It's global warming, stupid! From: beardedbruce Date: 05 Apr 13 - 10:25 AM Unless you are stating that Global Warming does not involve any increase in temperature... |
|
Subject: RE: BS: It's global warming, stupid! From: pdq Date: 05 Apr 13 - 11:01 AM Here is a graph that tells all you need to know on the "man-made" portion of GW" http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:IPCC_1990_FAR_chapter_7_fig_7.1(c).png |
|
Subject: RE: BS: It's global warming, stupid! From: beardedbruce Date: 05 Apr 13 - 11:10 AM http://www.ipcc.ch/ipccreports/far/wg_I/ipcc_far_wg_I_chapter_07.pdf for those who don't believe Wiki unless it supports their viewpoint... |
|
Subject: RE: BS: It's global warming, stupid! From: beardedbruce Date: 05 Apr 13 - 12:03 PM For Don- want something easier to understand??? Look for the big "T" http://intro.chem.okstate.edu/1515sp01/database/vpwater.html http://encyclopedia.airliquide.com/images_encyclopedie/VaporPressureGraph/Carbon_dioxide_Vapor_Pressure.GIF |
|
Subject: RE: BS: It's global warming, stupid! From: GUEST,TIA Date: 05 Apr 13 - 01:26 PM The Little Ice Age following the Medieval Warm Period ended because of an increase in solar output coupled with changes in thermohaline circulation, and a global decrease in volcanic activity. The solar increase has since reversed, and global temperature and solar activity are now going in opposite directions. And there has been (as yet) no major change in the ocean conveyor or global volcanism. So the Medieval Warm/Little Ice Age graph really does not "explain" anything about the current warming. It is just obfuscation. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: It's global warming, stupid! From: beardedbruce Date: 05 Apr 13 - 02:23 PM "and a global decrease in volcanic activity" And the recent increase in volcanic activity? NOT a man-made cause, is it? |
|
Subject: RE: BS: It's global warming, stupid! From: pdq Date: 05 Apr 13 - 02:40 PM "The Little Ice Age following the Medieval Warm Period ended because of an increase in solar output coupled with changes in thermohaline circulation, and a global decrease in volcanic activity." Absolutely unsupportable by fact or science. Please tell us what type of computer-assisted sensors were used to test the Sun's energy output in 1450. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: It's global warming, stupid! From: GUEST,TIA Date: 05 Apr 13 - 03:35 PM So how do we know anything about anything that happened before computer-assisted sensors! Sorry pdq, you clearly do not know enough about the science to understand proxies, so I will go back to educating young receptive minds, and leave your closed one to read and ponder this: Crowley, T. J.: Causes of climate change over the past 1000 years, Science, 289, 270–277, 2000. Which contains TSI anomalies back to the year 1000. Notice that is the journal Science, not Wikipedia or any other website. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: It's global warming, stupid! From: GUEST,TIA Date: 05 Apr 13 - 03:44 PM bb; The Smithsonian Institution Global Volcanism Program disagrees with your premise. Here is your homework: http://www.volcano.si.edu/education/questions/index.cfm?faq=06 |
|
Subject: RE: BS: It's global warming, stupid! From: GUEST,Guest Iain Date: 05 Apr 13 - 04:05 PM Unfortunately to even begin to get a grasp of the complexity of climate change entails extensive literature research over many different fields of scientific endeavour. Much of the research published is behind pay firewalls, although generally abstracts are freely available. I would argue that to make a definitve statement that there is an anthropogenic component to climate change is simply not possible at the present time. Superficially the increase in CO2 makes a logical argument, but it is not a scientifically proved fact. Many scientists argue that it is, but many also argue it is not. Forget whatever the mainstream media or wikipedia may say, and even some of the more commonly read scientific journals are guilty of publishing certain articles and delaying/killing others. Peer review only works when papers are distributed. Just look at the history of medicine and science and see how many original thinkers were at first villified before having a grudging acceptance of their contributions. Science is a perfect example of Darwinism at work-step outside the herd mentality and your career may well die and your funding dry up. When you see a certain agenda being pushed and another being crucified just ask yourself: Who is the winner from the dominant agenda? What argument is going to make certain people wealthy? The idea that human activities may influence climate has too many moneymaking activities attached to it to let mere science stand in the way. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: It's global warming, stupid! From: GUEST,TIA Date: 05 Apr 13 - 04:10 PM Bravo Iain for this statement: "how many original thinkers were at first villified before having a grudging acceptance of their contributions" That is *precisely* how science works! I forget whose quote this is (Karl Popper?): "Hypotheses are scorned when born, live briefly in glory, and die discredited"... and I have probably butchered it. As for stepping outside the herd - that is the surest route to fame and funding! |
|
Subject: RE: BS: It's global warming, stupid! From: Q (Frank Staplin) Date: 05 Apr 13 - 07:42 PM Thanks, Ed T. The article has a good abstract. The summary you first posted is incorrect. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: It's global warming, stupid! From: Stringsinger Date: 06 Apr 13 - 01:04 PM The American Liberty Publishers are hardly a credible source for interpreting scientific data. They are a propaganda wing and by their own admission state that the IPCC reports do not reflect the views of scientists alone. Politics plays a role here. I smell Koch Brothers money. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: It's global warming, stupid! From: Don(Wyziwyg)T Date: 06 Apr 13 - 06:40 PM ""here is a graph that tells all you need to know on the "man-made" portion of GW" http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:IPCC_1990_FAR_chapter_7_fig_7.1(c).png"" A user generated file in Wikipedia, one half page, sporting a non accredited graph which stops short of the current day and predicts nothing. Oh well done peedee! Care to tell us what your next door neighbour but one has to say on the subject? Don T. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: It's global warming, stupid! From: Don(Wyziwyg)T Date: 06 Apr 13 - 07:03 PM ""The idea that human activities may influence climate has too many moneymaking activities attached to it to let mere science stand in the way."" Take that thought and accept that there may or may not be a human element, then take the next step. If no, what harm may efforts to reduce do? If yes, what harm may efforts to reduce do? In either case zero! If yes, what harm may inaction do? If not now, WHEN? If not us, WHO? I am reminded of the Jewish mother with a sick son, who dosed him regularly with bowls of hot chicken broth. "Will it help Momma?"......."CAN'T HURT SON?" Don T. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: It's global warming, stupid! From: Ed T Date: 06 Apr 13 - 07:46 PM An article from 1996 that I found interesting on the cycles of the Sun. I am sure there is more recent info. but this is still interesting. Old, but still intersting |
|
Subject: RE: BS: It's global warming, stupid! From: pdq Date: 06 Apr 13 - 08:37 PM Not a bad article. Fairly neutral tone and factual. It does use the olde figure of "0.5o C rise in average temperature since 1850". |
|
Subject: RE: BS: It's global warming, stupid! From: pdq Date: 09 May 13 - 07:24 PM The picure in the following article is from 2 days ago. Coming to a university near you... scientific open-mindedness (not!) |
|
Subject: RE: BS: It's global warming, stupid! From: beardedbruce Date: 20 May 13 - 01:47 PM Scientists say the recent downturn in the rate of global warming will lead to lower temperature rises in the short-term. Since 1998, there has been an unexplained "standstill" in the heating of the Earth's atmosphere. Writing in Nature Geoscience, the researchers say this will reduce predicted warming in the coming decades. But long-term, the expected temperature rises will not alter significantly. Continue reading the main story " Start Quote The most extreme projections are looking less likely than before" Dr Alexander Otto University of Oxford The slowdown in the expected rate of global warming has been studied for several years now. Earlier this year, the UK Met Office lowered their five-year temperature forecast. But this new paper gives the clearest picture yet of how any slowdown is likely to affect temperatures in both the short-term and long-term. An international team of researchers looked at how the last decade would impact long-term, equilibrium climate sensitivity and the shorter term climate response. Transient nature Climate sensitivity looks to see what would happen if we doubled concentrations of CO2 in the atmosphere and let the Earth's oceans and ice sheets respond to it over several thousand years. Transient climate response is much shorter term calculation again based on a doubling of CO2. The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change reported in 2007 that the short-term temperature rise would most likely be 1-3C (1.8-5.4F). But in this new analysis, by only including the temperatures from the last decade, the projected range would be 0.9-2.0C. http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-22567023 |
|
Subject: RE: BS: It's global warming, stupid! From: Don Firth Date: 20 May 13 - 02:30 PM Official release: "97% of climate scientists agree that global warming exists and is man-caused." Denier's interpretation of the official release: "Climate scientists are not in 100% agreement that global warming exists, or that, if it exists, it is man-caused." The smirk is going to be on the other side of their faces when all their expensive waterfront property is underwater Don Firth P. S. NASA compilation of reports from various earth sciences sources P. P. S. Smog in Beijing |
|
Subject: RE: BS: It's global warming, stupid! From: GUEST,TIA Date: 20 May 13 - 03:06 PM Interesting article. Here is a very important quote from it: --snip-- This latest research, including the decade of stalled temperature rises, produces a range of 0.9-5.0C. "It is a bigger range of uncertainty," said Dr Otto. "But it still includes the old range. We would all like climate sensitivity to be lower but it isn't." --snip-- Now TIA talking: So, the new prediction may be lower, but the error bars are larger - large enough to encompass the old prediction! So this certainly does not *replace* the old prediction. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: It's global warming, stupid! From: Stringsinger Date: 20 May 13 - 04:15 PM Remember cui bono? Who has to gain from the bought off scientists by the energy companies? Since we've gone past 350 ppb in carbon emissions not to mention the methane created man-made, the dead zones in the seas, the pollution of the Savannah River Plant, the potential for Fukushima style blows up at San Onofre, the under developed nuclear power plants built by GE, the melting of polar ice caps, increasing storms and tornados and the desertification of middle US and Australia, it would be well to mention what is happening to scientists at leading universities who are in danger of losing their funding if they say the wrong thing and the corporations pull the plug on these universities. Academic freedom in the sciences is becoming mythical. Do the math and do your own research but don't expect impartial answers. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: It's global warming, stupid! From: Don Firth Date: 20 May 13 - 05:16 PM In the late 1980s I worked for a firm under contract to the Bonneville Power Administration. My job was to compile the reports brought in by field inspectors into one concise six-page report, with all the relevant figures. These reports were evaluations of how well—or ill—a residence had been insulated to prevent heat loss. The BPA made funds available to people who wanted to have their houses insulated, double-pane windows installed, and generally weatherized. The Department of Energy had commissioned the BPA to find new, non-polluting, and inexpensive sources of energy. After many surveys and much research, the BPA was dragged, kicking and screaming, to the conclusion that the cheapest, most non-polluting source of new energy was Conservation. Many thousands of residences were insulated under this program—until the funds ran out. An engineer friend of mine (and one of my guitar students) and I used to sit in the Pizza Haven and swill coffee for hours, and discuss such things as new and unexploited energy sources. He was full of ideas, a few of which are being talked about these days. But he had a lot of other ideas for cheap, non-polluting energy sources—and how to harness them—that no one else seems to have thought of. And as I said, Doug was an engineer and had thought these things through quite thoroughly. Don Firth |
|
Subject: RE: BS: It's global warming, stupid! From: Greg F. Date: 20 May 13 - 06:01 PM So this certainly does not *replace* the old prediction. Apparently - for Beardy, at least - it does. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: It's global warming, stupid! From: beardedbruce Date: 30 May 13 - 02:28 PM "But this same concern is increasingly being echoed worldwide. The Voice of Russia reported on April 22, 2013, "Global warming which has been the subject of so many discussions in recent years, may give way to global cooling. According to scientists from the Pulkovo Observatory in St.Petersburg, solar activity is waning, so the average yearly temperature will begin to decline as well. Scientists from Britain and the US chime in saying that forecasts for global cooling are far from groundless." That report quoted Yuri Nagovitsyn of the Pulkovo Observatory saying, "Evidently, solar activity is on the decrease. The 11-year cycle doesn't bring about considerable climate change – only 1-2%. The impact of the 200-year cycle is greater – up to 50%. In this respect, we could be in for a cooling period that lasts 200-250 years." In other words, another Little Ice Age." http://www.forbes.com/sites/peterferrara/2013/05/26/to-the-horror-of-global-warming-alarmists-global-cooling-is-here/ |
|
Subject: RE: BS: It's global warming, stupid! From: beardedbruce Date: 30 May 13 - 02:31 PM "Check out the 20th century temperature record, and you will find that its up and down pattern does not follow the industrial revolution's upward march of atmospheric carbon dioxide (CO2), which is the supposed central culprit for man caused global warming (and has been much, much higher in the past). It follows instead the up and down pattern of naturally caused climate cycles. For example, temperatures dropped steadily from the late 1940s to the late 1970s. The popular press was even talking about a coming ice age. Ice ages have cyclically occurred roughly every 10,000 years, with a new one actually due around now. In the late 1970s, the natural cycles turned warm and temperatures rose until the late 1990s, a trend that political and economic interests have tried to milk mercilessly to their advantage. The incorruptible satellite measured global atmospheric temperatures show less warming during this period than the heavily manipulated land surface temperatures. Central to these natural cycles is the Pacific Decadal Oscillation (PDO). Every 25 to 30 years the oceans undergo a natural cycle where the colder water below churns to replace the warmer water at the surface, and that affects global temperatures by the fractions of a degree we have seen. The PDO was cold from the late 1940s to the late 1970s, and it was warm from the late 1970s to the late 1990s, similar to the Atlantic Multidecadal Oscillation (AMO). In 2000, the UN's IPCC predicted that global temperatures would rise by 1 degree Celsius by 2010. Was that based on climate science, or political science to scare the public into accepting costly anti-industrial regulations and taxes? Don Easterbrook, Professor Emeritus of Geology at Western Washington University, knew the answer. He publicly predicted in 2000 that global temperatures would decline by 2010. He made that prediction because he knew the PDO had turned cold in 1999, something the political scientists at the UN's IPCC did not know or did not think significant." http://www.forbes.com/sites/peterferrara/2012/05/31/sorry-global-warming-alarmists-the-earth-is-cooling/ |
|
Subject: RE: BS: It's global warming, stupid! From: Stu Date: 30 May 13 - 03:55 PM Bruce - that entire Forbes article doesn't contain a single reference to a peer-reviewed publication. The entire piece is essentially a run-of-the-mill hack job by a republican shill. the author, Peter Ferrara isn't even a scientist, but a lawyer who graduated from Harvard and served under Reagan and Bush, and is basically a right-wing policy maker. This explains his complete lack of understanding of climate science, and his inability to quote his sources and actually understand the subject he's writing about is impressive. For instance (from this similar rant) (interestingly, the article quotes from an article Ferrara states was published by 'The German Herald on March 31 2013, which as I write this here in the UK is actually tomorrow. Hmmm): "The atmospheric concentrations of CO2 deep in the geologic past were much, much greater than today, yet life survived, and we have no record of any of the catastrophes the hysterics have claimed" Whoa there boy! Is Ferrara sure of that? Because if he is, then he's wrong. For starters, in the Mesozoic there is a correlation between C02 concentration and atmospheric warming, and even when the climate cools towards the end of the Mesozoic and into the early Cenozoic there is no hint of C02-climate decoupling. In fact, the concentration of C02 in the atmosphere during this time explains the cooler intervals that punctuated the warm conditions that prevailed during the Mesozoic. Thing is, citing examples from the popular media is not helping your argument. Hacks like Ferrara simply don't understand the science, don't attempt to address the bigger picture but simply cherry pick the odd phrase they've read to support what is effectively propaganda. This is a complex science, and some of the hysterical todge the likes of Forbes shovel up might be gobbled up buy gullible businessmen but anyone with even a passing knowledge of the science would realise it's utter crap. Here's an idea: stick to peer-reviewed papers. If you can't get over the fact climate scientists are not working to some secret agenda dreamt up by god knows who, then you need to do some reading. I'm surprised you haven't mention Milankovitch Cycles yet. Better get onto it, it's something else for you to misunderstand. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: It's global warming, stupid! From: Q (Frank Staplin) Date: 30 May 13 - 07:53 PM An interesting summary of climate change and CO2 concentrations through geologic time is given in an article by Nasif Nahle, "Cycles of Global Climate Change" Graphs and references included. http://www.biocab.org/carbon_dioxide_geological_timescale.html |
|
Subject: RE: BS: It's global warming, stupid! From: Songwronger Date: 30 May 13 - 09:36 PM 1962 Shock News : Open Water At The North Pole |
|
Subject: RE: BS: It's global warming, stupid! From: GUEST,TIA Date: 31 May 13 - 09:53 AM Skate (SSN-578) at the North Pole, 1962, US NAVY Photograph |
|
Subject: RE: BS: It's global warming, stupid! From: GUEST,TIA Date: 31 May 13 - 10:10 AM The Forbes (Ferrara) piece is premised almost entirely on a talk given by Don Easterbrook at the 2012 Heartland Institute Climate Change Conference. In Easterbrook's talk, he presented supposed IPCC data. It has since been shown that the data he presented were highly selective and possibly manipulated. This is so well known and documented that you can find many explanations and illustrations of this on your own with our friend Google. Sadly Ferrara's understanding of climate science is insufficient for him to spot what is clearly an egregious distortion, so his piece made it into print, and can then be cited by others as some kind of "evidence". Find the original data sources, and it all falls apart. It is a classic anthropogenic climate change denier cherry pick. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: It's global warming, stupid! From: beardedbruce Date: 31 May 13 - 11:07 AM God, what a brilliant factual argument! "It is a classic anthropogenic climate change denier cherry pick." You mean like the "Liberal Pinko lies" that abound here? Labels are not a reasonable debate method, even for Liberals. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: It's global warming, stupid! From: GUEST,TIA Date: 31 May 13 - 12:04 PM Bruce, It has nothing to do with liberal or conservative. Easterbrook was caught presenting very carefully selected data in an intentionally misleading fashion, and Ferrara ran with it without understadning that. Go learn about what you are promoting before you put it out there publically. I am afraid you are the one who is factually challenged here. PS Do you not find it funny that I am talking about data and you are talking about "liberal pinko lies" and pissing and moaning about "labels" in the same sentence? |
|
Subject: RE: BS: It's global warming, stupid! From: beardedbruce Date: 31 May 13 - 12:11 PM Sarcasm, my fiend... A number of the supporters of "Climate Change "have been caught selecting data- shall we ignore everything they say as well, or just those you disagree with? I am working (i.e., in my professional career as a "rocket scientist") to help find data to determine IF the models being used for climate change are accurate representations of reality- What are YOU doing? |
|
Subject: RE: BS: It's global warming, stupid! From: GUEST,TIA Date: 31 May 13 - 12:39 PM What am I doing? Among other things, I am an Earth Science Professor at a University you are undoubtedly familiar with. I am sure you would rather discuss data than have a CV duel. You will get no "appeal to authority" out of me. Here - I will help you out: A video of Easterbrook's talk (that Ferrara relied upon) is on the Heartland website. http://www.viddler.com/v/7a56a0b0?secret=47939698 Go to minute 6:00, and look at the graph in the upper right. Listen as he presents it as the IPCC temperature prediction (i.e. 1 degree C average surface temperature rise between 2000 and 2010). Here is the actual IPC prediction (which is 0.2 degrees C between 2000 and 2010) http://www.ipcc.ch/ipccreports/tar/wg1/images/fig9-14s.gif You will surely see that the graph he presents is not at all like the actual IPCC graph, and he is either misleading the audience, or has made a serious and very public error. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: It's global warming, stupid! From: beardedbruce Date: 31 May 13 - 12:48 PM Great- YOU may actually know something. Can you please explain why, if the solar flux is decreasing the Martian ice caps are decreasing in size and the Great Red Spot on Jupiter, after 400 years of stability has started to change? Could it POSSIBLY be due to weather? I have stated that Climate change IS happening (IMHO)- the discussion is 1. Are Anthropologic sources the driving factor? 2. Can we take steps to adjust to the new climate state, instead of just trying to stop the change? The present arguments have all been on stopping the change, regardless of the costs involved, or risk of war- Are YOU prepared to die to get the Chinese to stop using coal? How about to keep the Third world in an energy shortage, since they do not have the technology to implement "clean energy" in many cases? OK, Prof. Canute? |
|
Subject: RE: BS: It's global warming, stupid! From: Greg F. Date: 31 May 13 - 12:51 PM Facts have no relevence for Beardy, Tia - the same way he complains about people calling him names and then does so himself. You're wasting your time trying to teach this particular pig to sing. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: It's global warming, stupid! From: beardedbruce Date: 31 May 13 - 01:02 PM And with Greggie boy supporting you, you have lost a lot of status- Are you sure you want your university to be aware that people who consider "Black and a Democratic" individuals as "dumb Ni**ers" are backing you up? |
|
Subject: RE: BS: It's global warming, stupid! From: Q (Frank Staplin) Date: 31 May 13 - 02:01 PM Not only are there variations in solar energy, but mountain building, changes is sea distribution and other global events change weather patterns, The earth's axis has changed through time. Man's effects on climate are contributory according to many scientists. Regardless of the cause of global climate change, plans should be made to adjust. A cleaner planet is desirable; we are fouling our own nest. But population growth requires more and more energy and mineral product. Mining and use of fossil fuels will continue to be important, but their contribution must be adjusted to prevent waste. No far, words have been thrown at the problem but little else. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: It's global warming, stupid! From: beardedbruce Date: 31 May 13 - 02:13 PM But the entire "Climate Change" setup is to remove Carbon ( and nothing else) to PREVENT the change- NO effort is being made to adjust people to the new climate. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: It's global warming, stupid! From: GUEST,TIA Date: 31 May 13 - 04:44 PM You asked what I do. I told you. You mocked. I did not mock your profession. You are an asshole. Argue bullshit with yourself. I will teach young minds to think critically rather than waste time on you. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: It's global warming, stupid! From: beardedbruce Date: 19 Jun 13 - 09:25 AM http://news.yahoo.com/mystery-venus-super-hurricane-force-winds-inexplicably-stronger-104226704.html Must be because of man-made carbon dioxide in the Earth's atmosphere, like the recent changes to the Martian Ice cap, and the Red Spot on Jupiter. Don't want to look at a possible solar connection, after all... |
|
Subject: RE: BS: It's global warming, stupid! From: beardedbruce Date: 26 Jun 13 - 09:56 AM Just since Jan. 1, 2013, ABC, CBS and NBC morning and evening news programs have aired 92 stories about "climate change" or "global warming." Not a single one of those stories mentioned the "warming plateau" reported even by The New York Times on June 10. The Times wrote, "The rise in the surface temperature of earth has been markedly slower over the last 15 years than in the 20 years before that. And that lull in warming has occurred even as greenhouse gases have accumulated in the atmosphere at a record pace." The problems with climate forecasting models weren't mentioned either, even though a researcher at Sweden's University of Gothenburg found that many climate models couldn't correctly model known temperatures in China. Investor's Business Daily reported on March 28 that "Only half of the 21 analyzed climate models were able to reproduce the changes in some regions of China," he said. "Few models can well reproduce the nationwide change." In an interview with Der Spiegel on June 20, German climate scientist Hans von Storch of the Meteorological Institute of the University of Hamburg pointed to the major problems of climate modeling. "So far, no one has been able to provide a compelling answer to why climate change seems to be taking a break. We're facing a puzzle. Recent CO2 emissions have actually risen even more steeply than we feared. As a result, according to most climate models, we should have seen temperatures rise by around 0.25 degrees Celsius (0.45 degrees Fahrenheit) over the past 10 years. That hasn't happened.In fact, the increase over the last 15 years was just 0.06 degrees Celsius (0.11 degrees Fahrenheit) -- a value very close to zero. This is a serious scientific problem that the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) will have to confront when it presents its next Assessment Report late next year," he explained. The Media Research Center's Business and Media Institute looked at all the "climate change" or "global warming" stories from Jan. 1, 2013, through June 15, 2013, aired on ABC, CBS and NBC morning and evening news programs. BMI found that out there were more than 8 times as many stories that cited a study or included a scientist promoting global warming alarmism than cited a study or included a scientist challenging alarmism (25 stories to 3 stories). Nearly one-fourth of the stories this year (22 of 92) also connected (or at least asked if there was a connection) weather events like hurricanes, tornadoes, snow or flooding to climate change, in spite of the many scientific critics of those claims. Of course in 2010, when the weather seemed to contradict the message of global warming alarmism Jane Lubchenco, head of the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, said, "It is important that people recognize that weather is not the same thing as climate." 8 Times the Alarmism New reports, studies or scientists that warned of the threat of climate change from concern over penguin populations, to predictions of sea level rise continued to be promoted by the networks in 2013. There were stories or news briefs warning that flying would become more turbulent because of climate change, connecting allergies to global warming, and others worrying about glacial melt and sea level rise. There were 25 networks reports that mentioned a new report or analysis or that cited a scientist who promoted the climate alarmist viewpoint. That was 8 times as many as the other side; there were only three stories that cited a report or included such a scientist challenging alarmism. The networks consulted scientists from NASA and NOAA as well as activists like Michael Oppenheimer from Princeton, who has gotten climate predictions wrong in the past. "Nightly News" interviewed Kenneth Kunkel from NOAA's National Climatic Data Center on May 25 who continued the hype, saying "If we continue to increase atmospheric concentrations of greenhouse gases in the atmosphere, we will warm the globe and that will bring certain risks into play or increase the risks of certain types of extremes." The networks also included other people promoting alarmism who were not counted in this analysis because they weren't on to discuss a new study and they aren't scientists. Editors and reporters from Time magazine went on network broadcasts and hyped the threat of climate change. And NBC interviewed global warming activist and former Vice President Al Gore in three separate stories. One of those times was Jan. 29, on "Today." Matt Lauer and Gore were discussing Gore's latest book and Lauer asked the former vice president about skepticism of the danger of global warming. "I want to talk to you about some polling. If you talk to Americans, about four in five people in this country believe that climate change is happening, global warming is real and it's going to present a problem. But there's a group inside that large group, and it's not an insignificant group, and they don't believe that climate change is manmade or exacerbated by humans. Does that surprise you?" Lauer asked. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: It's global warming, stupid! From: Greg F. Date: 26 Jun 13 - 10:46 AM Ah, Jeez, Beardy, do you have to smear ANOTHER thread with your characteristic horseshit? You want to believe in the tooth fairy or deny the existence of gravity all well & good - but can't you keep it to yourself? Or are you a professional proselytizing asshole of the street-speaking type? |
|
Subject: RE: BS: It's global warming, stupid! From: EBarnacle Date: 26 Jun 13 - 03:42 PM To the deniers, I say but one thing. Let's take a walk across the Northwest Passage next Summer. I'm bringing my kayak. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: It's global warming, stupid! From: beardedbruce Date: 26 Jun 13 - 03:48 PM It is denying climate change to point out that the models are not accurate??? Is truth such a threat to so many of you here???? Unanswered post- For all you "climate change profiteers" out there: Can you please explain why, if the solar flux is decreasing the Martian ice caps are decreasing in size and the Great Red Spot on Jupiter, after 400 years of stability has started to change? Could it POSSIBLY be due to weather? I have stated that Climate change IS happening (IMHO)- the discussion is 1. Are Anthropologic sources the driving factor? 2. Can we take steps to adjust to the new climate state, instead of just trying to stop the change? The present arguments have all been on stopping the change, regardless of the costs involved, or risk of war- Are YOU prepared to die to get the Chinese to stop using coal? How about to keep the Third world in an energy shortage, since they do not have the technology to implement "clean energy" in many cases? |
|
Subject: RE: BS: It's global warming, stupid! From: sciencegeek Date: 26 Jun 13 - 03:58 PM TIA, for whatever my 2 cents is worth in today's economy... I have found your posts to be thoughtful and well considered. You pupils are fortunate to have you. science is at its best when free and open discourse takes place and egos & ideology are put aside for the moment. spirited debate is great, but this rude obstructionism only stiffles inquiry... but maybe that is the intended goal... |
|
Subject: RE: BS: It's global warming, stupid! From: Greg F. Date: 26 Jun 13 - 05:55 PM BeardedBullshit: champion of rude obstructionism. Spoton. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: It's global warming, stupid! From: GUEST,TIA Date: 27 Jun 13 - 09:36 AM Mars: if Earth climate models, constrained by centuries of data of myriad types, are so unreliable, how can we know anything about climate on Mars based on just a few snapshots beginning in 1977? And the eccentricity of Mars' orbit is 5x Earth's, so climate fluctuations and forcing are going to be vastly different. We learn nothing from the comparison. Jupiter: receives 4% of the solar radiation that Earth does, and has a net outward flow of energy from some deep or perhaps primordial heat source, so its "climate" forcings and fluctuations will be nothing like Earth's. Again we learn nothing from the comparison. The "how can global warming be anthropogenic because Mars/Jupiter is warming too?" argument is an ofuscatory denialist talking point with no scientific substance. First you will need to show a sufficent time series of data to demonstrate that they are warming. Then you need to develop a model to explain why they are warming (a model that accounts for their orbital parameters, atmospheric composition, and elemental cycling between their various "spheres" (hydrosphere, geosphere, atmosphere, etc.) And note that the huge differences in these parameters and spheres between Earth, Mars and Jupiter will mean that the models will be vastly different. This is a great field for research, and it is being done. But nobody doing this research is claiming global warming on these other planets... (well except one paper back in about 1992 that compared a 1977 picture of the Martian South Pole to one taken in 1990 or so, and noted that the albedo was lower in 1990. Could have been from shrinkage of the ice cap, but it turns out that it may also have been due to a dust storm. That is, the difference was weather, not climate.) |
|
Subject: RE: BS: It's global warming, stupid! From: sciencegeek Date: 27 Jun 13 - 09:46 AM for what it is worth to some of you, it very simple to access any number of federal websites & sign of for emails on Green Technology updates and other info. Of course, you don't have to read any of what is out there. But for those who do, try these: "DOE Office of Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy" usaepa@govdelivery.com EERE Network News" "U.S. Environmental Protection Agency" |
|
Subject: RE: BS: It's global warming, stupid! From: GUEST,Iain Date: 27 Oct 15 - 10:51 AM is it time for seconds out and round 2 on this highly controversial thread. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: It's global warming, stupid! From: Greg F. Date: 27 Oct 15 - 11:53 AM No point in round 2 - the Global Warming deniers are in the same category as the "earth is 6000 years old" creationists, Holocaust deniers, and other miscellaneous batshit crazy lunatics. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: It's global warming, stupid! From: skarpi Date: 27 Oct 15 - 03:18 PM We watched our claciers get smaller and smaller year after year, so think about it , is that stupid ? |
|
Subject: RE: BS: It's global warming, stupid! From: GUEST,Pete from seven stars link Date: 27 Oct 15 - 04:04 PM I thought the argument was about whether we are having any significant contribution to its increase. Weather and temperature fluctuation has happened previously I understand. Is anyone saying it is not now ? |
|
Subject: RE: BS: It's global warming, stupid! From: Greg F. Date: 27 Oct 15 - 08:11 PM pete, say good night. You're obviously as ignorant about this issue as you are about evolution. What does the Bible say about global warming? That would be the ultimate authority for you, no? |
|
Subject: RE: BS: It's global warming, stupid! From: McGrath of Harlow Date: 27 Oct 15 - 08:53 PM "God showed Noah by the rainbow sign No more water, but Fire Next Time" |
|
Subject: RE: BS: It's global warming, stupid! From: Donuel Date: 28 Oct 15 - 12:06 AM Having once in a thousand year weather events every couple years does not mean global warming is at fault, it means time is moving faster. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: It's global warming, stupid! From: Donuel Date: 28 Oct 15 - 05:32 PM Will you disable air conditioning you have used the most? Will you drive a car that requires oil and gas? Will you give back all income derived from making planned obsolescence items with short lifetimes? No but that is not your fault. People who are paid to be climate deniers will not either but it is a corruption that is at fault by the entities who employed them. For the price of an impenetrable wall at our border we could solarize the metro east coast not including the cost of real estate conundrum. The art of the possible still needs its hero to make big oil obsolete. The looming tragedy of fracking compounds our fresh ground water crises. Awareness of the problem is no more than planning a meeting to discuss a concept to come up with an idea that will defined at a later time. The inability to breathe in Beijing is barely capable of influencing the slowing of building new coal plants. Chernobyl and Fukashima was enough to change policy in Germany but not elsewhere. We have millionaires paid to game the system and knowingly search for safe nuclear dumping grounds they know do not exist. I am afraid that no disaster will change the direction we have been going. Rebuilding after total catastrophe may not even be enough to avert the ultimate conclusion of global warming and human behavior for which we accidentally chose at the outset of each new technology that promised us warmth and comport. Maybe there will be a technology that will save us but don't you usually think I am wrong? |
|
Subject: RE: BS: It's global warming, stupid! From: GUEST Date: 29 Oct 15 - 09:47 AM Lyell's Law of Uniformitarianism stated that all events occur slowly over immense spans of geologic time. Shoemaker Levy impacting into Jupiter suggested our mindset may need readjustment. Thus also with climate change. It will change sometimes fast sometimes slowly. Man may or may not impact these events. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: It's global warming, stupid! From: GUEST,Shimrod Date: 29 Oct 15 - 11:59 AM Just out of interest, Pete, would you mind awfully letting us know what qualifications you've got in climate science, please? |
|
Subject: RE: BS: It's global warming, stupid! From: Bill D Date: 29 Oct 15 - 01:46 PM Right now there IS evidence that human activity is, at a minimum, contributing to the very obvious climate changes. It 'may' be that some warming is also natural, but no matter what the specific % for any one cause, it stands to reason that acting as though we have some input to the problem(s) and doing all we can to move away from fossil fuels and other environmentally unfriendly activities would be a good idea! That is, "it wont hurt, and it will help some things". The big delay is with companies who have their $$$$$ invested in old technology and old habits. (Can anyone remember the arguments about tobacco?) |
|
Subject: RE: BS: It's global warming, stupid! From: Greg F. Date: 29 Oct 15 - 03:12 PM The big delay is with companies who have their $$$$$ invested in old technology No, Bill, the big delay is due to idiots that deny that there is global climate change and to the supporters of big business, corporate welfare and obscene profits and damn the environmental consequences. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: It's global warming, stupid! From: Bill D Date: 29 Oct 15 - 04:08 PM Greg... isn't that about what I said? |
|
Subject: RE: BS: It's global warming, stupid! From: Ed T Date: 07 Nov 15 - 06:26 PM ""If you run into an oil man in a bar, you might want to buy him a drink. It's been a bit of a tough week for the business. It was the end of the line for the Keystone XL pipeline, and possibly the beginning of big trouble for ExxonMobil concerning what it knew when about climate change."" Exxon under investigation |
|
Subject: RE: BS: It's global warming, stupid! From: Stilly River Sage Date: 08 Nov 15 - 08:41 AM One would wonder why Exxon/Mobil might bear the brunt of a legal dispute dealing with climate change, but think of it along the lines of Philip Morris (in whatever form/s the company footprint held in the 1960s and 70s) not disclosing, instead trying to debunk, what it knew about the hazards of smoking. They weren't the only oil company in the world, but they knew what the score was and denied it. From the PRI article linked directly above: Inside Climate News reporter Lisa Song says their investigation found that ExxonMobil was "very much aware of climate change science" as long ago as 1977, and that company scientists had briefed top executives about both climate change and the role of fossil fuel combustion in driving the rise of CO2 in the atmosphere. It's the SEC part of that story that is going to cause the company to stew for a while. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: It's global warming, stupid! From: keberoxu Date: 08 Apr 16 - 02:57 PM Any of you ever heard of an author named Doug Peacock? Latest book: In The Shadow Of The Sabertooth. You want the revised edition; when the earlier edition went to press, the author was hospitalized between hip-replacement-replacement (said the same thing twice for a reason) and open-heart surgery, so the editing was not up to his standards. Hence the need for revision. No, not changing the subject. Peacock posits a connection between megafauna in another epoch, and global warming. Sorry, links are beyond me though. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: It's global warming, stupid! From: keberoxu Date: 09 Apr 16 - 12:58 PM I can't do links, not even blue clicky links; but I can give you a URL. http://billingsgazette.com/news/local/naturalist-author-like-a-lot-of-veterans-I-was-out/article_38906b7c-2d09-5bd6-b261-2684c4a8de83.html |
|
Subject: RE: BS: It's global warming, stupid! From: Iains Date: 09 Apr 16 - 02:27 PM One interesting facet of the climate change controversy is the idea that events may change slowly until reaching a tipping point. At this juncture many inter-related factors come into play causing a cascade of events causing very rapid change. Very much like a meteorite ambling through space. Quite innocuous until it impacts earth but then the results can be devastating. We know these events have occurred in the past but the money devoted to researching future impacts is minute. Mythologies from around the world give a race memory of these events and strangely ancient man had a fixation on the zodiac, a way of measuring vast measures of time(nearly 26000 yrs) I do not believe this was a construct merely to stir the porridge for the requisite length of time. It is only in the last half century the techniques have become sufficiently refined for paleoclimate studies to have real meaning and accurate temperature records for perhaps 150 years(though increasing urbanisation make some of these readings suspect) As a final indignity we have the IPCC hijacked by politicos so their ramblings are now meaningless. We have a major problem sorting wheat from chaff, mythology from fact or fiction and scientific fact from propaganda. Unfortunately we need a paradigm shift in the way we approach these various studies and a way of unifying them to make sensible interpretations as to our immediate future climate. As an aside perusing the following gives food for thought. http://www.bibliotecapleyades.net/hamlets_mill/hamletmill.htm |
|
Subject: RE: BS: It's global warming, stupid! From: Iains Date: 22 Aug 16 - 01:56 PM I am slowly converting from healthy scepticism about anthropogenic climate change to a grudging belief that it exists. http://knowledge.insead.edu/economics-finance/settling-the-debate-on-climate-change-4851 Has anyone else had a damascus conversion as regards their thoughts concerning the cause of climate change. (The article attributed above is merely one of a vast number over the last few years that have changed my perspective) |
|
Subject: RE: BS: It's global warming, stupid! From: keberoxu Date: 22 Aug 16 - 02:25 PM In this C-Span video, Doug Peacock talks for a little under an hour about his book, In the Shadow of the Sabertooth. Live Interview with Doug Peacock |
|
Subject: RE: BS: It's global warming, stupid! From: keberoxu Date: 22 Aug 16 - 02:41 PM The destruction of whitebark pine trees, of which Doug Peacock specifically speaks (it's happening in Montana, where he lives) is one of many symptoms itemized in this article in The Economist. Ravaged Woodlands: feature article |
|
Subject: RE: BS: It's global warming, stupid! From: beardedbruce Date: 22 Aug 16 - 03:37 PM From a posting on a news site: "1) It is not clear that the earth is actually warming in any statistically significant way. Data sets used to show warming are highly adjusted and filled with interpolations to fill in and replace missing or incongruent data. The instruments used to gather the data are not located in sufficient numbers or over a geographically represented area to calculate an average with sufficient precision to calculate an average temperature today and much less so historically. 2) It is impossible to conclude what % of any warming is human caused. We are in an inter-glacial period of an Ice Age and we have been steadily warming for the past 10,000 years. We are not yet even to the Earth's geological average temperature. The average state of the Earth has no ice at either pole. 3) Warming itself is not shown to be harmful let alone "catastrophic." Historically, all life has done significantly better during the earth's warmer periods. We are not experiencing any statistical increase in extreme weather, floods, fire or drought. Sea level rise is at or near the 100+ year average showing no material acceleration. Global food production is at an all-time high. 4) In contrast, a colder planet would be very harmful to all life. If it were possible to warm the planet and offset the inevitable return to glaciation with increased production of clean CO2, we should. 5) None of the regulations by the EPA, proposals by Obama Admin or even the IPCC would have a material impact on the project global increase in temperature (less than .05 degrees over 50 years). The costs of these changes are $trillions. This money would be better spent on projects like mosquito abatement or virus immunizations." I DO NOT agree with all of this- IMHO, there is an indication of climate change occurring, but not driven by man-made sources. Some additional points to think about... https://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/post-partisan/wp/2015/11/04/the-insiders-inconvenient-numbers-for-the-global-warming-crowd/ http://www.investors.com/politics/editorials/noaa-record-temperatures-nothing-to-worry-about/ http://www.investors.com/politics/commentary/climate-change-racket-only-believers-receive-grants/ http://arstechnica.com/science/2015/07/no-scientists-arent-predicting-10ft-higher-sea-level-by-2050/ http://www.upi.com/Top_News/World-News/2015/07/11/Earth-heading-for-mini-ice-age-in-just-15-years-scientists-say/2751436649025/ http://www.scientificamerican.com/article/climate-change-will-not-be-dangerous-for-a-long-time/ http://www.investors.com/politics/editorials/another-climate-alarmist-admits-real-motive-behind-warming-scare/ http://thefederalist.com/2015/11/09/the-climate-change-inquisition-begins/ http://www.investors.com/global-warming-solutions-same-as-global-cooling-cures/?ref=SeeAlso http://cnsnews.com/commentary/robert-m-carter/global-warming-alarmist-rhetoric-propaganda-and-dishonesty-heats-paris http://www.scientificamerican.com/article/climate-change-will-not-be-dangerous-for-a-long-time/ http://www.forbes.com/sites/jamestaylor/2016/04/13/another-survey-of-meteorologists-undercuts-climate-alarmism/#5b9432aa627f http://thehill.com/blogs/congress-blog/energy-environment/252004-even-if-you-buy-the-science-the-policy-still-fails To state my OPINION Climate change is real and will occur regardless of what we are doing. ( In case of nuclear war, this will change) the change is driven primarily by natural and non-anthropomorphic causes- The amount of greenhouse gases produced by mankind and our civilization ( cows, etc) is dwarfed by natural causes such as volcanoes and naturally occurring fires We SHOULD be spending our money and efforts to allow for the inevitable changes to our climate, rather than to try to change that climate. If sea levels will rise, it makes more sense to spend money to relocate people ( which works whether the sea level rises or not ) rather than to spend huge efforts on trying to stop that rise. I had thought the since Canute the politicians had figured that out. When there ore indications of climate change on Mars ( ice cap reduction ) and Jupiter ( Red spot changes for the first time in 400 years ( twice the time of the temperature records being used to justify "climate change alarmists" ) I do not see mankind as a significant contributor to climate change. The present models have 95% of them showing greater than actual MEASURED temperature changes- Hardly a claim of accurate or correct modelling. This shows a bias in the models. Looking at the 650 megayear or so cycle ( over the last 2,000 megayears) MOST of the time the earth has been warmer and NOT had an ice cap. Either we are entering a new "hot" period, or we are having those climate swings that would indicate another ice age. In either case, it makes far more sense to use resources to ADAPT TO THE CHANGES than to try without any hope of success to change to climate to some fixed point. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: It's global warming, stupid! From: Iains Date: 22 Aug 16 - 04:46 PM Since the beginning of the industrial revolution, atmospheric concentrations of carbon dioxide have increased nearly 30 percent, methane concentrations have more than doubled, and nitrous oxide concentrations have risen by about 15 percent. The previous 2000 years show a high degree of stability of concentrations. The combined effect of these increases is to place more energy into the atmosphere due to the greenhouse effect. Additionally the rate of increase is accelerating. The ramifications of these changes are still beyond quantification for the most part, hence the many arguments. There are also many major and minor cyclic changes within the oceanic and atmospheric circulatory systems that continue in the background. The impact of additional energy pumped into these systems is as yet not clear. However there are fears that when certain trigger points are met events cascade to a new equilibrium and many of these could make life extremely untidy for humanity. Potential scenarios are the cessation of the Atlantic conveyor, melting methane hydrates, methane release from melting tundra, cessation or change of direction of monsoons, rapid destabilisation of the greenland ice cap etc. These things may not come to pass but gas guzzling, centrally heated obese westerners should perhaps question the sustainability of their present lifestyles in the light of what could happen. Some scientists also believe that changes that were once thought to require several lifetimes to occur could actually occur in the space of several years. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: It's global warming, stupid! From: Greg F. Date: 22 Aug 16 - 06:22 PM there is an indication of climate change occurring, but not driven by man-made sources Of course you don't BB - you're a denier of a whole pantheon of phenomena and facts that have been repeatedly explained and proven. So you're one of those adaptidiots - would expect nothing else from you. By the way, are you also a Birther, along with Trump? |
|
Subject: RE: BS: It's global warming, stupid! From: Steve Shaw Date: 22 Aug 16 - 08:27 PM The correlation between warming, as measured by thousands of weather stations on land, at sea and on moving and fixed buoys, and that increase in concentration of atmospheric carbon dioxide which can only have been brought about by human activity is just about perfect. Of course, you don't have to trust the science. Pete doesn't trust the science and big oil doesn't trust the science. Yanks with gas-guzzling six-pots running on super-cheap petrol don't trust the science. But the science applies very careful corrections for instrumental bias, for irregular distribution of recording stations, for irregularities of instrumental exposure and for a whole host of other potential sources of error. Despite that, the conclusions are scary. The planet is warming because of what we do. We deny it at our peril. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: It's global warming, stupid! From: Greg F. Date: 22 Aug 16 - 09:13 PM Relax, Steve. Given enough time, humans will adapt: they'll evolve gills. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: It's global warming, stupid! From: mkebenn Date: 23 Aug 16 - 08:18 AM Won't help, Greg, we have defiled the seas enough that they won't sustain us. Mike |
|
Subject: RE: BS: It's global warming, stupid! From: Greg F. Date: 23 Aug 16 - 09:17 AM Well, Mike, there is that one little fly in the ointment...... |
|
Subject: RE: BS: It's global warming, stupid! From: Pete from seven stars link Date: 23 Aug 16 - 07:42 PM Ecclesiastes 10v 1 is presumably where that comes from Greg. Was there not episodes of climate change before the industrial revolution? I think the answer is yes. What do you blame those on ? |
|
Subject: RE: BS: It's global warming, stupid! From: Amos Date: 24 Aug 16 - 12:54 AM Pete, don't be disingenuous. The answer is "not by a long shot". The orders of magnitude are completely disparate. Selective ignoral is a good first target for blame. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: It's global warming, stupid! From: Iains Date: 24 Aug 16 - 03:22 AM When someone with the prodigious cv of Wallace Smith Broeker is quoted as saying "Climate is an angry beast and we are poking it with sticks" it is probably sensible to have some sort of grasp of his message. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: It's global warming, stupid! From: Stu Date: 24 Aug 16 - 05:21 AM "Was there not episodes of climate change before the industrial revolution? I think the answer is yes. What do you blame those on ?" Who's blaming them on anything? "the change is driven primarily by natural and non-anthropomorphic causes- The amount of greenhouse gases produced by mankind and our civilisation ( cows, etc) is dwarfed by natural causes such as volcanoes and naturally occurring fires" So BB is more of a climate scientists than most of the climate scientists out there? Hmmm. This argument is based on personal incredulity and perhaps has political motivation but either way; the facts, empirical data scientifically obtained and subject to strict, peer-reviewed analysis does not support the argument than vulcanism and carbon emissions from natural fires are warning the climate - post refs to papers supporting these assertions if they exist. Truth is, the deniers (who are science deniers rather than climate change deniers) are talking to themselves. My uni dept. specialises in ocean and earth science and the argument of whether humans are causing climate change is settled, consensus has been reached and we are now some years into trying to understand how climate change is happening, the consequences of that change and how to mitigate for the effects. It's actually worse than most people think. The effects of a warming climate on the ocean are profound and very far-reaching. We know some mass extinctions correlate with changes in sea level and changes in plankton at the base of the food web has a pronounced knock-on effect reaching to the top of the food chain. The real truth is no-one wants to change. Our free-trade based economies view everything as a resource with a price; they are incapable of understanding (or caring about) the long-term consequences of their actions and are incapable of self-regulation. They are responsible for stripping the world of it's natural resources, instigating a massive and unprecedented mass extinction event and fail to act for the common good. Believe me, our children and grandchildren will curse us for our ignorance and greed and for squandering our natural heritage before we have even scratched the surface of it's wonders; who knows what medicines are being lost as virgin forest is felled for palm oil plantations or beef for burgers. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: It's global warming, stupid! From: mkebenn Date: 24 Aug 16 - 02:07 PM With half our country water and the other half aflame time to stop denying, look around and take the blame. Mike But let's bring the coal industry back while there's still time |
|
Subject: RE: BS: It's global warming, stupid! From: mkebenn Date: 24 Aug 16 - 02:09 PM crap, should be under water, proofing while sending moron. Mike |
|
Subject: RE: BS: It's global warming, stupid! From: Pete from seven stars link Date: 24 Aug 16 - 03:30 PM Umm, interesting stu. So there was climate change in recorded history and no one blames anyone or anything ! And the science is "settled, consensus has been reached", but still"trying to understand how climate change is happening" despite being some "years into " this enterprise. as it happens, I am keeping a relatively open mind on man made climate change, but it does look like , from your own words, that I might well be justified in suspecting that this is yet another case of decide the answer .and then look for something to validate said answer.... |
|
Subject: RE: BS: It's global warming, stupid! From: Greg F. Date: 24 Aug 16 - 05:14 PM Pete, go read your bible & don't mess with things you don't understand, OK? Thanks. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: It's global warming, stupid! From: mkebenn Date: 24 Aug 16 - 05:33 PM Pete, you don't live by the sea, do you? Mike |
|
Subject: RE: BS: It's global warming, stupid! From: Steve Shaw Date: 24 Aug 16 - 06:10 PM Well, Pete, here's the basics. Over the last 150 years or so, carbon dioxide emissions/deforestation have increased the atmospheric carbon dioxide level by around 20%. In the last few decades, global warming has increased in almost perfect sync with increasing carbon dioxide. The rate of warming in the last few decades is unprecedented since the end of the last ice age. The situation is no longer arguable, in spite of the best efforts of big oil and the US. Catastrophically, emissions now are greater than ever. Fanny around arguing about it all you like. The immoral position is to say that we're not sure and that we are therefore justified in doing nothing. There's a lot of it around. You will find next to no scientists taking that view. Of course, Pete, we know you don't trust scientists. Good job you're in charge of nothing. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: It's global warming, stupid! From: Pete from seven stars link Date: 24 Aug 16 - 07:07 PM Thank you Steve for explaining the reasoning behind your belief. Actually , I do have some faith in scientists , but not the same ones as you. And, as I have said often, the majority of scientific consensus has often been wrong before. Consensus science is not science... |
|
Subject: RE: BS: It's global warming, stupid! From: Greg F. Date: 24 Aug 16 - 07:43 PM the reasoning behind your belief Its not a "belief" pete - its a fact. Consensus science is not science 1. You don't know what science is. 2. Biblical bullshit creationism isn't science- its bullshit. Now, back to rational discussion by intelligent adults. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: It's global warming, stupid! From: Steve Shaw Date: 24 Aug 16 - 08:30 PM I don't do beliefs, nor do I have faith in scientists. Scientists are fallible, like everyone else. But if you doubt scientific consensus, you'd better have a very good argument. Scientists are, on the whole, honest brokers who work to a fairly strict code known as the scientific process, which has served humanity quite well so far. So let's have some substance for your scepticism. After all, we don't want the earth to burn, do we? |
|
Subject: RE: BS: It's global warming, stupid! From: Stu Date: 25 Aug 16 - 06:27 AM "from your own words, that I might well be justified in suspecting that this is yet another case of decide the answer ." Discovering an event is occurring and what it's causes are, then understanding the processes involved as the changes occur are different things. We know what's happening and why, but finding out how that physically manifests itself and the consequences of these changes is massively important for all of our sakes. Climate science is very complex as the systems involved are very complex and needs to approached very carefully to ensure we get our understanding of man-made climate change correct,. "Consensus science is not science..." The consensus is reached because of the science. "I do have some faith in scientists , but not the same ones as you" You don't get to pick and choose who to believe or who you like best or who fits your worldview or personal philosophy, that's not how science works. Peer-reviewed research is published in scientific journals which in time will be challenged and accepted or rejected as... wait for it... consensus is reached. Science isn't Strictly Come Dancing. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: It's global warming, stupid! From: Iains Date: 25 Aug 16 - 09:21 AM It is not so much climate change that is the problem. It is the rate of change seemingly in step with the accelerating CO2 content of the atmosphere that is of concern. Essentially fossil sunlight is being burnt off by humans at a rate ever increasing since the start of the industrial revolution and the subsequent explosion of the oil industry. In essence more CO2 equals more energy equals more extreme events equals a potentially precarious future for humans. That is the bare bones of the argument reduced to the lowest common denominator. Take it or leave it-the true answer is just down the road and shortly coming to a neighbourhood near you. The climate models may be inaccurate, the details may be disputed but sufficient ecosystems show sufficient disruption over a short timescale for many to be increasingly concerned. The climatic quasi equilibrium that enabled mankind to raise crops, form communities and explode like a rash over the planet over the last few thousand years may be coming to an abrupt end. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: It's global warming, stupid! From: JHW Date: 25 Aug 16 - 02:55 PM Re 'Belief'- By the tracks leading opposite ways out of my local railway station both signals showed Red as I arrived. Not having seen or heard my train depart I quizzed the other waiting passenger. "No, no train either way" But there must have been for the signal to turn Red? "Well, that's your belief" |
|
Subject: RE: BS: It's global warming, stupid! From: TIA Date: 22 Sep 16 - 04:07 PM Iains summed it up perfectly on Aug 25. Thank you. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: It's global warming, stupid! From: Steve Shaw Date: 22 Sep 16 - 04:49 PM What's even more worrying is that there's solid evidence that the oceans' ability to absorb carbon dioxide is declining. There is positive feedback now in process. I read about this last week but can't quote the source just now because, temporarily, I haven't got access to the article. Ask me again next Tuesday-ish. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: It's global warming, stupid! From: Steve Shaw Date: 22 Sep 16 - 05:23 PM Hi, TIA. I've missed you. I see you've been on that infernal Trump thread that I've been avoiding. I guess I'm keeping my cowardly head down in that regard in the hope that the yanks will do something sensible for a change. As for climate change, we are facing the biggest moral issue in human history. If the odds that human activity is causing climate change are 99.9%, or 95%, or 50%, or even less, then it is incumbent on us to act, and act now. There is a chance that we will get away with carrying on as we are now. I hope to Christ that we WILL get away with it if we do carry on as we are now. Sane people can see that the odds against that are massive. Oil company executives and the politicians that are in their pockets are not insane, but they are ruthless, money-grabbing bastards who know that global warming will simply drive them on to their yachts. Oil company executives don't give a damn about the hundreds of millions who live in low-lying coastal communities, or the hundreds of millions who will be driven out of their homelands by drought. Their thoughts are for the people who already have more money than they know what to do with, their big shareholders who sit on their fat arses getting richer by doing precisely nothing, and they have an unhealthy obsession with being able to manipulate politicians. They will cling to the contrary pseudo-science of denial and they have the monetary means to shove that down our throats to make it seem that this is a fifty-fifty issue. Greenhouse-gas emissions have never been higher than they are today. So much for "protocols," eh? |
|
Subject: RE: BS: It's global warming, stupid! From: Ed T Date: 22 Sep 16 - 05:40 PM "there's solid evidence that the oceans' ability to absorb carbon dioxide is declining." Growing ocean acidification is a science reality, not a theory. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: It's global warming, stupid! From: Ed T Date: 22 Sep 16 - 05:58 PM A NOAA explanation of ocean acidification, climate and the oceans uptake if CO2: ocean acidification |
|
Subject: RE: BS: It's global warming, stupid! From: Steve Shaw Date: 22 Sep 16 - 06:11 PM Ed, I read this last week in Weather magazine, published by the Royal Meteorological Society. My copy is currently two thousand miles away from where I am! But thanks for that anyway. I'll be back! |
.png){kind=link}
