Climate Change - Bad News

[Ben Dhyan]

Feedback is not a forcing.

Fine, change it to forcings and feedback!

 

[Shadow Wolf]

And I just read something a couple days ago calling Al Gore the "High Priest" of the climate change crowd.

I think people are failing to consider that geographical location is part of the over-population myth

How is it a myth, when any given ecosystem (and the earth is very much indeed an ecosystem) can only support so much life? This is not a question of physical space, but a question of what can be sustained? Is there enough food, enough water, enough energy to be consumed and enough energy going back in, how much can the soil produce before vegetation suffers, and other such questions. Mark my words when I say eventually we will have it down to a mathematical formula. If you really think "over-population" is about physical space, then do yourself a favor and go to your nearest state park (or whatever it is Australians have) and have the park rangers explain to you how ecosystem sustainability works. Or go to a zoo and ask one of the many people who are likely to be on staff who study such things. Or even just read some of Aldo Leopold's writings to get a good reader-friendly outlook on how these things work and why we must be concerned. Or just even go ask a farmer about crop rotation and why it is necessary.
And if you truly do believe geographical location is the issue, by all means by my guest to take residence withing the 75% of the earths surface that is covered in water, the massive chunks of frozen over ice and tundra of Antarctica, or go live in any one of billions of acres of barren desert paradise.

 

[LegionOnomaMoi]

Fine, change it to forcings and feedback!

Wow, you sound like the IPCC!

 

[Ben Dhyan]

Wow, you sound like the IPCC!

Yep, gotta get consensus...

 

[Quintessence]

I'll bet on the earth. If it's a scam, so be it. The alternative is too great a risk.

This. This is a point that I wish was emphasized more. The costs associated with doing nothing - assuming you like humans - are astronomical.

 

[dyanaprajna2011]

I've said it before, I'll keep saying it: it doesn't matter whether global warming/climate change/whatever is happening or not; it doesn't matter whether humans are causing it or not if it is happening: it is our responsibility to take care of the planet, and treat it with care and respect, regardless of anything else. The fight over whether it's happening or not, or whether humans are causing it or not, is ridiculous, and doesn't change the fact.

 

[BSM1]

The global warming to date is due to a change in natural forcings, some major forcings include solar radiation, volcanic activity, changes in earth's orbital parameters, cloudiness/albedo, ocean and and atmospheric composition and feedback activity.

Humans who think other humans can determine the state of climate of planet earth are, imho, mistaken. That doesn't mean I don't want the very best climate appropriate for the thriving of mankind, it's just that mankind can't control the global climate and the alternation of ice ages and interglacial periods will continue into the future.

If some of those major forcings outside the control of man move in the direction of creating a warmer planet or a cooler planet, then it will be, a carbon tax under the pretext of CO2 being an atmospheric forcing that if regulated, could in turn regulate the world's climate is a scam, simple as that.

For those of you who are caught up in the hype of the global warming scare, I caution you to consider that actual reality exists outside of the intellectual campaign to keep you all frightened and prepared to pay for the fix. The beast is alive and well, Truman finally saw through it, so can you...

This is so true. The major scammer in this whole GW fiasco was and still is Al Gore. He's made almost 100 million dollars off the scammees. But, for the sake of argument, let's say that man is somewhat responsible for 'climate change' what can we realistically do about it? If you say "regulate emissions" how would you enforce this in a country that's the biggest polluter, say China or India, that tells you to take a hike? Do we boycott their products? Nuke their facilities? What?

 

[Shadow Wolf]

This is so true. The major scammer in this whole GW fiasco was and still is Al Gore. He's made almost 100 million dollars off the scammees. But, for the sake of argument, let's say that man is somewhat responsible for 'climate change' what can we realistically do about it? If you say "regulate emissions" how would you enforce this in a country that's the biggest polluter, say China or India, that tells you to take a hike? Do we boycott their products? Nuke their facilities? What?

When there is hard, concrete evidence that the climate is changing, the earth is getting warmer, and that it is basic earth science that carbon emissions cause a greenhouse effect how is it a scam or fiasco?
Of course we can't regulate China, but here in America if we actually cared about the earth and environment we could make a tremendous contribution ourselves.

 

[YmirGF]

Of course we can't regulate China, but here in America if we actually cared about the earth and environment we could make a tremendous contribution ourselves.

Go ahead, bankrupt your country. Even the most ardent proponents of massive infusions of capital to bribe the Climate Change cartel must blink when they think that it might be all for nothing. The only real problem with this is if the economic engine known as America goes down the tube, they will drag everyone else with them. I guess we could then begin the Socialist Nirvana given that everyone would then be as poor as church mice. Bit of a steep price to pay for social justice and equality.

 

[Shadow Wolf]

Go ahead, bankrupt your country. Even the most ardent proponents of massive infusions of capital to bribe the Climate Change cartel must blink when they think that it might be all for nothing. The only real problem with this is if the economic engine known as America goes down the tube, they will drag everyone else with them. I guess we could then begin the Socialist Nirvana given that everyone would then be as poor as church mice. Bit of a steep price to pay for social justice and equality.

The thing is, with me, economics be damned. We can do just fine without all the financial institutions, we can survive without making everything a commodity, and we would be so much better off, both environmentally and as a species, if alot of what would go if such a thing happened did go. The more we can get people to move away from lives of consumerism and lust for money, the more we can move towards improving society and the earth. The less we tolerate profit at the expense of the environment, the better.

 

[Sunstone]

The global warming to date is due to a change in natural forcings, some major forcings include solar radiation, volcanic activity, changes in earth's orbital parameters, cloudiness/albedo, ocean and and atmospheric composition and feedback activity.

Humans who think other humans can determine the state of climate of planet earth are, imho, mistaken. That doesn't mean I don't want the very best climate appropriate for the thriving of mankind, it's just that mankind can't control the global climate and the alternation of ice ages and interglacial periods will continue into the future.

If some of those major forcings outside the control of man move in the direction of creating a warmer planet or a cooler planet, then it will be, a carbon tax under the pretext of CO2 being an atmospheric forcing that if regulated, could in turn regulate the world's climate is a scam, simple as that.

For those of you who are caught up in the hype of the global warming scare, I caution you to consider that actual reality exists outside of the intellectual campaign to keep you all frightened and prepared to pay for the fix. The beast is alive and well, Truman finally saw through it, so can you...

I didn't know one of the Koch brothers was named "Ben". Learn something new everyday.

 

[BSM1]

When there is hard, concrete evidence that the climate is changing, the earth is getting warmer, and that it is basic earth science that carbon emissions cause a greenhouse effect how is it a scam or fiasco?
Of course we can't regulate China, but here in America if we actually cared about the earth and environment we could make a tremendous contribution ourselves.

1. There is no "hard, concrete evidence" of any of this nonsense.

2. If the is such a thing as man-made climate change and the biggest contributors keep pumping out the carbon emissions, anything we do would be useless.

I think someone has already pointed out that bankrupting this country and destroying our lifestyle over this non-issue is exactly what keeps certain other countries laughing up their sleeves.

 

[BSM1]

The thing is, with me, economics be damned. We can do just fine without all the financial institutions, we can survive without making everything a commodity, and we would be so much better off, both environmentally and as a species, if alot of what would go if such a thing happened did go. The more we can get people to move away from lives of consumerism and lust for money, the more we can move towards improving society and the earth. The less we tolerate profit at the expense of the environment, the better.

Soo...you're using a computer you fashioned out of hemp and powering it with potatoes in salt water?

 

[Riverwolf]

Go ahead, bankrupt your country.

If that is the price, then so be it. The species is more important than any one country, which will fall sooner or later anyway just like every country in history.

 

[Riverwolf]

Soo...you're using a computer you fashioned out of hemp and powering it with potatoes in salt water?

Minimization, not removal. Removal is impossible.

'Sides, that's irrelevant. We who actually recognize the issue do what we can, whether that be a little or a lot. For example, I don't drive.

Some people go to extremes. Others are too spoilt by modern luxuries to do little more than recycling. But every little thing counts.

 

[Riverwolf]

1. There is no "hard, concrete evidence" of any of this nonsense.

Already provided one: summers 'round here are getting longer and hotter, and the winters dryer. The climate is changing.

 

[Ben Dhyan]

I didn't know one of the Koch brothers was named "Ben". Learn something new everyday.

I didn't know either Phil, btw can you spare me a dime?

 

[Shadow Wolf]

1. There is no "hard, concrete evidence" of any of this nonsense.

2. If the is such a thing as man-made climate change and the biggest contributors keep pumping out the carbon emissions, anything we do would be useless.

Yes, there is evidence. I think it's comical that pretty much only here in America do people deny climate change. Pretty much only in America (and in Turkey and a few other places) do people deny evolution. To those who actually study the environment and climates, there is no question or controversy.

Soo...you're using a computer you fashioned out of hemp and powering it with potatoes in salt water?

Technology isn't inherently bad. What's bad is when the consumer is content buying junk products because it's going to be replaced by a new model year after year. From what I've heard, all you pretty much have to do is look at a smart phone wrong and the screen breaks. Why is something that is so easily broken in such high demand? And instead of a culture of fixing things that are broken, we have a culture of get a new one, even though most common repairs to just about any electronic device are usually very simply, take only a few minutes, and with the exception of a few rare cases, will be much cheaper than getting a new one. Having a TV isn't bad. Having one in every room of the house, even if front of the swimming pool as AT&T implies, is bad. We also live in a culture of excess, and take far more than what we need and what we could reasonable want. Technology is actually pretty great. We can close the distance of long term relationship, share an entire world's worth of information, and in many good ways improve the lives of ourselves and others. But our vanity, inpatients, and excessiveness have made a monster of a good thing.

 

[LegionOnomaMoi]

I think it's comical that pretty much only here in America do people deny climate change.

I can't speak for the general population of other countries, but as for scientists and contributors to specialist literature on climate change America is hardly the only country to have those that do not agree with the IPCC assessment and who think that there is insufficient evidence to show that humans are causing dangerous climate change. That changes in Earth's bombardment by galactic cosmic rays thanks to solar magnetic flux is a significant forcing is in the current IPCC report, although in a severely weakened form. Those who actually developed the theory posited it explains most of the observed warming. These include the British physicist Jasper Kirby, the Danish atmospheric and astrophysics physicist Henrik Svensmark, and Israeli physicist Niv Shaviv. The current central research hub for GCR-climate links is CERN's Cloud project, which is peopled by mostly non-US scientists. Contributors to the literature have included everyone from the Finnish head of the University of Oulu's Cosmic Ray Station to British science writer Nigel Calder and is supported by even more, including e.g., the long-time environmental activist and science analyst Peter Taylor (he's Welsh).

That's just one alternative to anthropogenic global warming. And we don't even have to go into alternatives to find those heavily opposed to the various proposed economic actions. Just ask the suddenly widely-hated Danish economist and head of the Copenhagen Consensus Centre Bjørn Lomborg. He's almost as hated as Steve McIntyre, the ex-Canadian prospector whose mathematical skills and the boredom of retirement had him looking into reconstructing paleoclimate temperature data. He's a current and past contributor to the IPCC, lead or co-author (usually with Canadian professor Ross McKitrick) to multiple papers in mainsteam climate journals, and neither a scientist per se nor an American.

America is probably the only place where "mainstream" media outlets still (almost always for the wrong reasons) report about uncertainties and doubt regarding AGW. It is not at all the only place where leading contributors to climate research who don't believe that humans are the central cause of the observed warming (and/or who don't agree that the observed warming reflects the actual level of warming). Also, there are only a few really central climate research centers, the places where the temperature data is recorded and/or analyzed and reports about its implications published in the leading journals. NASA has a few of these, the UK's CRU is another, and another is UAH, where the specialists on the satellite temperature records work (the guys who invented the way to use MSUs to obtain more global temperature records that were not affected by biases in the heat around them). Neither believes that there is anywhere near sufficient evidence to say that humans are causing global warming. So even when specialists like Richard Lindzen, John Christy, David Douglass, etc., who are American, don't agree that humans are causing the observed warming, it's nothing to be laughed off because they're American. Christy & Spencer not only developed the methods for obtaining satellite records but were the original analyzers and continue to be a central group analyzing the data and cited everywhere in climate literature. MIT's Lindzen & Harvard's Baliunas don't work for no-name research centers in some unrelated field. These are leaders in the field working at the most prestigious institutes in the world.

 

[Knight of Albion]

They have other concerns. At the moment, the biggest is the fact that IPCC models have been wrong since 1998 and they have no explanation for the current 15 year trend:

The current IPCC report doesn't say much about this discrepancy, claiming that it is mainly "internal variability." What the **** is the point of climate models if they can't account for internal variability over 15 years, especially as the claim is that most of the warming since 1951 is due to humans? That 15 years is 1/4 the total period, and from 1951 to almost 1980 global temperatures were decreasing from the highs of the 1930s. That gives us a ~30 year increase in global temperatures attributed to humans, preceded by cooling and followed by a 15 year period that none of the models predicted, including all of those from the IPCCs 2007 report (AR4). The IPCC is once again caught with its pants down and scrambling to cover this up with promises for a more detailed report rather than the ad hoc attributions of model errors to "internal variability" caused by either aerosols or unexpected ocean heat retention despite the lack of any evidence for either. Currently, AR5 cites papers that don't even exist.
They've got enough on there hands to worry about thanks to the leaked AR5 without worrying about cows.

Then they are guilty of complacency and irresponsibility. The Livestock Industry is responsible for 18% of greenhouse gas emissions. (Though some put the figure far higher...) That is more than all cars, planes, ships, trains, motorbikes etc. - ALL forms of transport - COMBINED.
And with the emerging economies of China, India and Vietnam starting to adopt the Western 'meat & dairy' diet. Plus 40% more people on the planet by 2050.
The phrase 'eating yourself out of house and home' springs to mind!

Last year here in England we had a record year of rainfall. We had to import wheat for the first time in living memory because the wheat harvest was so poor.
The soaking conditions disrupted autumn planting for the following spring.
The US had a poor corn harvest due to overly hot weather.
it doesn't take much fluctuation in weather patterns to impact negatively in a big way.

I don't know why some people are still in denial. The planet is warming, the weather is changing, the environment is taking a hit and the alarm bells are ringing. The only debate is wheter we humans are totally or partly responsible.
Either way we need to take action.