What Do We Think About Climate Change

[the1much]

ready for this?? they figured out how to stop global warming,,, WHITE ROOFS , and lighter colored pavement,,,hehe,, it will reflect more heat out to our atmosphere,,,,,,,,,,doesnt co2 keep the heat in? or is reflective heat different,,,hehe
,,,,and,, mornin Beanzyz

[bntii]

Boston-

Yeah I am out for a bit as I have other ditches to dig just now..

But.....

"Thats it Jim... nature dwarfs our green house gas outputs, the variation in natures output is greater than our output so how can we be significant?"

Beanz is halfway there..

Accepting the basic thesis that there is a 'greenhouse' mechanism at work is the first step towards understanding the issue.

Understanding that land use and emissions create a NET increase in atmospheric C02 and changes the carbon cycle is rest of the story.
It matters not how large the carbon cycle is- if greenhouse gases influence climate, any change in the carbon cycle can therefor alter the climate. It is not hubris or ego to acknowledge the dynamic nature of the climate system. Understanding rate and extent of change is I believe a fair exercise for the scientists involved and the peanut gallery.

Not so tough to understand eh?

[the1much]

all this said,,,,,,,,,,nature USED to outnumber us,,,,it doesnt anymore ,, we're over populated, half of nature is under our roads and houses ,, and the part of nature that "took care of things" have been cut down or buried.
you are somewhat right,,,nature DID dwarf us ,,,,DID.

[masalai]

I just got a message from "nature" & she said, in big red letters - yelled actually - - "PAYBACK TIME"..... and I feel a little pissed and despondent, what with current hardware problems with my new computers - whenever I take delivery - it fails to work properly - in months I am on release version #4 and is is a matter of "I didn't do it" - I am even getting blamed for the recent local weather

Roll on "climate change"

[Meanz Beanz]

Originally Posted by bntii

Understanding that land use and emissions create a NET increase in atmospheric C02 and changes the carbon cycle is rest of the story.

It matters not how large the carbon cycle is- if greenhouse gases influence climate, any change in the carbon cycle can therefor alter the climate. It is not hubris or ego to acknowledge the dynamic nature of the climate system. Understanding rate and extent of change is I believe a fair exercise for the scientists involved and the peanut gallery.

Not so tough to understand eh?

Who the hell made you the arbiter of right and wrong, 1/2 right... bloody condescending....

Apparently their are a lot of scientists that do have trouble with it. Me I get caught up on simple things like the evidence that carbon lags and not leads temperature. As for the "carbon cycle", the point is that natural variance in any given year easily overwhelms human activity. Thus the trend in nature will determine the outcome. Your argument is as logical as saying one investor can control the direction of a market. That is only so if the market is in absolute perfect balance and is not trending... we know that is not the case with the climate system, we know it cycles and there is always a directional trend in the data. To argue that any change upsets this balance is to misunderstand the forces at work. Yes, if we accept that carbon is indeed the issue, any additional carbon will accelerate any underlying trend but when we know that what we do is such a small percentage of the overall output it remains completely obvious that our efforts will change nothing.

No... we need to do this for reasons much closer to home, simple unglamourous things like air quality, quality of life the wonder of nature and its eco systems.

Mark these words "green warriors".... if you destroy economies in this process you will create a competitive backlash that will more than undo everything you think you have achieved. Hungry people don't care about ten years down the track... blow this and you will damage the green movement for generations. A great deal more needs to be understood about markets and the competitive dynamics that drive them which ultimately is human nature. Align these forces and you will see great success, act punitively against them and they will bite you.

[Meanz Beanz]

Originally Posted by the1much

all this said,,,,,,,,,,nature USED to outnumber us,,,,it doesnt anymore ,, we're over populated, half of nature is under our roads and houses ,, and the part of nature that "took care of things" have been cut down or buried.
you are somewhat right,,,nature DID dwarf us ,,,,DID.

There's that arrogance again... we are not a problem for the natural cycles of this planet, we are a problem for ourselves. Whatever we do the planet will regenerate and life will go on, quite possibly without us ... but hey nature should be worried?

We need to contain out growth for our own survival... yes we are quite likely already beyond the sustainable human population limit for the earth, given our current desired lifestyles. This is our problem, not natures... we will not kill the planet we have not got the power, all you have to do is consider its complete history to realise that. We might put a dent in things if we nuke the whole place but it will come back.... just without us. This is a human issue, we will be the main benefactors of taking the correct path and we need to be clear about what it is we are trying to achieve. Nowhere do I here politicians talking about stable zero growth economies and populations... or god forbid population reduction... no we are all foolishly hooked on more of more... in the greenest possible middle class way of course.... give me a break, anyone can see that is never going to work no matter how green we are. Limits to growth are real, we need to respect them for our own good.... but will we? nah....

[masalai]

YO heinz, sock it to em, I accept your reasoning.... (I didn't say I believe - hehe) but it makes more sense than many other posts.... Thanks and appreciated....

[the1much]

yuppers,,, we dont matter when it comes to the earths "natural" cycles,,,, but what are the cycles?, and when are they suppose to happen?,, all these gurus can say "oh every 2 million years we have an ice age",,, nope,, we have NO idea when and what is the cycle,,,. we wont "kill" the earth,, but we will kill ourselves,,, and the "greenies" way may postpone it,, but sooner or later even their outlandish thinking will kill us.
i myself dont give a crap bout the earth,,,, but i do give a crap bout my grandkids,,,,. the only argument i've heard bout the "green" side is we'll stop the economy ( actually slow it down alot),, that wont kill us,,,it may kill alot,, but not all ( and that could be a good population reduction),, i can live without oil,, and i know every could,,, we've done it for thousands of years,,, i dont think WE are all to blame,,, but i bet we're at LEAST 50% of the problem.
population is the BIG problem,, theres no arguing that,,,,,,
a 50 gallon fish tank goes through its own cycles,, put 10 fish in there, it still goes through them, but quicker,,put 20 more fish in there,,and the cycles get even faster, and more devastating,, and 20 more fish,, and it CANT recover,,,,,UNTIL it is empty and left alone,, it'll take a while,, but it WILL come back.


mornin Beanzy ,, hehe

[boat fan]

we wont "kill" the earth,, but we will kill ourselves,,, and the "greenies" way may postpone it,, but sooner or later even their outlandish thinking will kill us.

I have come to that conclusion too

I myself dont give a crap bout the earth,,,, but i do give a crap bout my grandkids,,,,.

Having a problem with that , the1 .. ,....are they not in some way linked ?
I mean , harm the earth , harm the children ?Maybe I misunderstood ?

the only argument i've heard bout the "green" side is we'll stop the economy ( actually slow it down alot),, that wont kill us,,,it may kill alot,, but not all ( and that could be a good population reduction),, i can live without oil,, and i know every could,,, we've done it for thousands of years,,, i dont think WE are all to blame,,, but i bet we're at LEAST 50% of the problem.

Yep:

(

population is the BIG problem,, theres no arguing that,,,,,,
a 50 gallon fish tank goes through its own cycles,, put 10 fish in there, it still goes through them, but quicker,,put 20 more fish in there,,and the cycles get even faster, and more devastating,, and 20 more fish,, and it CANT recover,,,,,UNTIL it is empty and left alone,, it'll take a while,, but it WILL come back.

yep: (So what`s the answer ? big war ?)

[the1much]

yup,,, their linked,,,,, that was the idea
and war will fix the population,, but so wont just letting stupid people die,,,,and letting the bums starve,, and letting monkey eating dwarfs die from aids, and many more things,,,,,,but NO,, we cant let that happen,, someone might see,,,hehe

[boat fan]

yup,,, their linked,,,,, that was the idea

Sorry the 1.....I think I was having a " blonde moment? "

Monkey eating darfs hey ? .......

[boat fan]

The real wars will come when the water runs out ...its happened with oil already , but water is the big one I think.....

[masalai]

recycle sweat, urine and what else?

[boat fan]

Originally Posted by masalai

recycle sweat, urine and what else?

Sweet !

[Boston]

oil money in support of science that specifically defends oil use
your right
that does makes sense

Lorne Gunter from the National Post says that the dreaded Mainstream Media is biased when it comes to Global Warming “debate” and does nothing but discredit scientists who are climate change skeptics while simultaneously lauding the efforts of scientists and politicians like Al Gore for their efforts to spread awareness about human caused global warming.

As evidence, Lorne points to the differences in the mainstream media’s coverage of the Nongovernmental International Panel on Climate Change (NIPCC) versus its coverage of the U.N.’s Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC).

“After reminding readers that the IPCC and former U.S. vice-president Al Gore shared the Nobel Peace Prize in 2007 for their work on climate change, the paper [Washington Post] then, sneeringly, added: ‘While the IPCC enlisted several hundred scientists from more than 100 countries to work over five years to produce its series of reports, the NIPCC document is the work of 23 authors from 15 nations, some of them not scientists.’”

Seems like a valid point to make, citing the fact that one group was much larger than the other, with far more experts from more varied backgrounds. An even better point to make is that the IPCC was funded by the U.N., while the NIPCC “had ties to conservative politicians, such as former British prime minister Margaret Thatcher, and that the conference sponsor — the Heartland Institute — received money from oil companies and health care corporations.” Hmmm.

Here’s the rub though. At no point in this “column” does Gunter point to any scientific evidence which would make the NIPCC any more credible than the IPCC. If anything, by bringing up the funding of the NIPCC, Gunter poses evidence of the exact opposite, that the NIPCC was in the pocket of polluters to begin with.

So in the end, this article doesn’t do anything to further valid debate on climate change and global warming. It is merely a big whine-fest about how no one wants to listen to climate change skeptics and global warming deniers.

Here’s a piece of advice for Lorne Gunter and the rest of his ilk: If you want to be taken seriously, then don’t give others the ammunition to discredit you; get some notable scientists and for God’s sake, stop accepting funding from oil companies or any other industry whose best interests lie in ignoring the overwhelming evidence that global warming is caused by human activity.

from ( http://rebello.wordpress.com/2008/03...-lorne-gunter/ ) <----- sample of a reference

although the part about All Gore being a scientist is way off ( he is definitely not a scientist ) in general this article, if not the next, pretty much exposes the NIPCC "scientists" for what they really are, oil industry cronies

30 January 2008
What if you held a conference, and no (real) scientists came?
Filed under: Climate Science — group @ 5:37 PM
Over the past days, many of us have received invitations to a conference called "The 2008 International Conference on Climate Change" in New York. At first sight this may look like a scientific conference - especially to those who are not familiar with the activities of the Heartland Institute, a front group for the fossil fuel industry that is sponsoring the conference. You may remember them. They were the promoters of the Avery and Singer "Unstoppable" tour and purveyors of disinformation about numerous topics such as the demise of Kilimanjaro's ice cap.

A number of things reveal that this is no ordinary scientific meeting:

Normal scientific conferences have the goal of discussing ideas and data in order to advance scientific understanding. Not this one. The organisers are suprisingly open about this in their invitation letter to prospective speakers, which states:
"The purpose of the conference is to generate international media attention to the fact that many scientists believe forecasts of rapid warming and catastrophic events are not supported by sound science, and that expensive campaigns to reduce greenhouse gas emissions are not necessary or cost-effective."

So this conference is not aimed at understanding, it is a PR event aimed at generating media reports. (The "official" conference goals presented to the general public on their website sound rather different, though - evidently these are already part of the PR campaign.)

At the regular scientific conferences we attend in our field, like the AGU conferences or many smaller ones, we do not get any honorarium for speaking - if we are lucky, we get some travel expenses paid or the conference fee waived, but often not even this. We attend such conferences not for personal financial gains but because we like to discuss science with other scientists. The Heartland Institute must have realized that this is not what drives the kind of people they are trying to attract as speakers: they are offering $1,000 to those willing to give a talk. This reminds us of the American Enterprise Institute last year offering a honorarium of $10,000 for articles by scientists disputing anthropogenic climate change. So this appear to be the current market prices for calling global warming into question: $1000 for a lecture and $10,000 for a written paper.
At regular scientific conferences, an independent scientific committee selects the talks. Here, the financial sponsors get to select their favorite speakers. The Heartland website is seeking sponsors and in return for the cash promises "input into the program regarding speakers and panel topics". Easier than predicting future climate is therefore to predict who some of those speakers will be. We will be surprised if they do not include the many of the usual suspects e.g. Fred Singer, Pat Michaels, Richard Lindzen, Roy Spencer, and other such luminaries. (For those interested in scientists' links to industry sponsors, use the search function on sites like sourcewatch.org or exxonsecrets.org.)
Heartland promises a free weekend at the Marriott Marquis in Manhattan, including travel costs, to all elected officials wanting to attend.
This is very nice hotel indeed. Our recommendation to those elected officials tempted by the offer: enjoy a great weekend in Manhattan at Heartland's expense and don't waste your time on tobacco-science lectures - you are highly unlikely to hear any real science there.

from
( http://www.realclimate.org/index.php...ientists-came/ ) <------ another sample of a reference just in case anyone round here wants to give it a try

found this next commentary to be kinda funny
Im presently running a search through multiple databases and see what DR Singer has published but it will take till morning to get complete results

Dr Fred Singer is an Electrical Engineer, who has held a long series of academic and political post, but not much else. A senior fellow at a conservative think tank, he has no peer reviewed works in atmospheric science related to global climate changes (warming or cooling).

He has also argued that there is no link between second hand smoke and lung cancer or between radiation and melanoma. However, anybody with a PHD making such claims will be able to get more than a few $$ for saying so.

No wonder he likens himself to Galileo and Einstein; as nobody else would ever draw such a conclusion about his work.

In other words, Dr Fred Singer is a classical quack.

from ( http://global-warming.accuweather.co...ger_on_he.html ) <----- yes, each source does get its own reference

ok so these heartland NIPCC oil stooges are pretty easy to to see through
clearly they have an ulterior political motive

I would recommend sourcewatch.org or exxonsecrets.org. if you would like any further verification as to the highly political affiliations of the NIPCC and its members

thank you
B

steps off soapbox
takes a bow