What Do We Think About Climate Change

[capt vimes]

Originally Posted by Boston

the danger is that if the system wants to naturally correct itself
which I believe it does
and if that natural correction is artificially delayed
then the eventual correction will be amplified resulting in a catastrophic cooling event

and a huge number of climate scientists agree

on the extreme end of the result
snow ball earth time
600 million years ago
( to the extreme described in the film it is still controversial )
the earth froze
( you guys are going to love Hofman )

this is very plausible and one of my fears as well...
it does not need very much to mess up the gulf stream and its motor... IF that is happening - sax 'hello' to the new iceage and wax your skies!

but in a less dramatic event we still get a worse ice age than what we have seen in a long time because the triggering mechanism was turbocharged so to speak and the event is likely to respond in kind

thus it would be significantly better if we did not screw with what amounts to a very delicate system

what makes it worse is that we have multiple barrels going off at the same time
we are also killing the oceans
anaerobic stratification is commonly accepted as the cause of our most catastrophic extinctions

add that to the impending climate correction and with the plastic starvation event and you get an seemingly insurmountable overall worldwide die off

one I think we would have been better to avoid

cheers
B

i agree with you...

[blacksmith]

One thing to always keep in mind:
The people in government (virtually ALL governments)
have a primary focus on control. They look for any
justification for increasing the amount of control that
they have over the people in the country that they're in
charge of administrating (and -naturally- any other countries
that they can get a finger into). Global warming gives governments
everywhere an excellent reason to get an immense increase of
control over their population and business in their countries.
They just LOVE the concept of "global warming".
Note that they have no interest in stopping global warming even
if it existed and even if -by regulation- they could do so.
They'd be reducing their control as well as the amount of money
that they could make otherwise. How many politicians have that
kind of integrity? (or -for that matter- any integrity at all?).
HUGE bucks have already been invested in "carbon credit exchange"
to allow countries and companies to keep doing what they're already
doing by simply paying a fee/fine/operating cost. Naturally, that
will just be passed down to the consumer, so it's not a single buck
out of their profits. It does ends up being skin off the back of the working
middle class, and, eventually, they will be unable to keep buying
whatever it is that's being sold, but since modern business is driven
by quarterly profits, they could care less...once they've got a few
million, it's all a game.
Note: A sure way to get a lot of money coming your way:
come up with a "crisis" that can only be solved by bigger government.
Government research money (taxes) will come flowing to you by the truckload.
(Figure out how to justify an "air tax" and you'll be set for life).
A sure way to get funding cut (or never get it at all), point out that
increases in government regulation will not solve any given problem
(or that one of the "problems" doesn't exist).

These days, having money trumps having integrity.

One last note: focus on fake "crisis" keeps people from noticing what/where
the real problems are.

[hoytedow]

Originally Posted by blacksmith

One thing to always keep in mind:
The people in government (virtually ALL governments)
have a primary focus on control. They look for any
justification for increasing the amount of control that
they have over the people in the country that they're in
charge of administrating (and -naturally- any other countries
that they can get a finger into). Global warming gives governments
everywhere an excellent reason to get an immense increase of
control over their population and business in their countries.
They just LOVE the concept of "global warming".
Note that they have no interest in stopping global warming even
if it existed and even if -by regulation- they could do so.
They'd be reducing their control as well as the amount of money
that they could make otherwise. How many politicians have that
kind of integrity? (or -for that matter- any integrity at all?).
HUGE bucks have already been invested in "carbon credit exchange"
to allow countries and companies to keep doing what they're already
doing by simply paying a fee/fine/operating cost. Naturally, that
will just be passed down to the consumer, so it's not a single buck
out of their profits. It does ends up being skin off the back of the working
middle class, and, eventually, they will be unable to keep buying
whatever it is that's being sold, but since modern business is driven
by quarterly profits, they could care less...once they've got a few
million, it's all a game.
Note: A sure way to get a lot of money coming your way:
come up with a "crisis" that can only be solved by bigger government.
Government research money (taxes) will come flowing to you by the truckload.
(Figure out how to justify an "air tax" and you'll be set for life).
A sure way to get funding cut (or never get it at all), point out that
increases in government regulation will not solve any given problem
(or that one of the "problems" doesn't exist).

These days, having money trumps having integrity.

One last note: focus on fake "crisis" keeps people from noticing what/where
the real problems are.

I see you actually studied in civics class. Kudos.

[Boston]

Originally Posted by Marco1

Boston, you are refering to the effect on land by ancient civilisations, be it by deforestation, bad agricultural practices that lead to mass erosion and the like.
Do you imply that such changes actualy changed the climate? Very doubtfull and by minuscule amounts if at all. The changes would have to be at afull continental level and in a very short period of time. Both did not happen.

there is no real doubt that ancient civilizations effected there local environment or that deforestation alters rain patterns which in turn effects to some degree temp and yes, IE desertification. The changes were however relatively minor compared to what we are doing no with both methane and co2 pollution just as you suggest.

Originally Posted by hoytedow

When Yellowstone blows, say bye-bye, Boston, cause Denver ain't gonna be no more. Your statement about man's destruction of the environment surpassing that caused by the super caldera is laughable.

a close relative of mine is the USGS team leader at the Yellowstone observatory. Yellowstone will have a short term worldwide effect and a longer term local effect but all in all it would not throw the planet out of equilibrium. The caldera goes off about every half million years or so and looking back through the records there is no long term damage. Rapid global climate change on the other hand along with the eutrophocation of the oceans is however likely to have significantly long lasting effects.

[hoytedow]

It will mainly strip the upper states as far south as eastern Louisianna, according to what I saw on the History(?) Channel.

See also:http://www.earthmountainview.com/yel...ellowstone.htm

[blacksmith]

Thanks!
Unfortunately, they didn't teach me this stuff in civics class.
But it's pretty all pretty obvious if you watch what they do as
opposed to what they say....very seldom (if ever) does one have
anything to do with the other. Their rhetoric is designed to fool
as many people as possible into supporting one faction of the
"big government party over another.

Of course, step back and take a good look and you see that all
factions are implementing policies designed to make people more
enslaved than they were before. Is a person any less a slave to
a government than to a single man? Does it matter which party is
in charge when they ALL do everything possible to control your
actions, your money, and your life? And who can argue that the people
making the laws aren't influenced by the people with unimaginable
amounts of money behind the scenes? (Note: this is often called
"capitalism"...the fact is that it's anything BUT capitalism,
in fact, it's merchantalism, something much different.)

In this country, I know of exactly ONE politician that couldn't be
convicted on charges of treason (of course, he's portrayed as a
nut case" and "radical" for having the gall to imply that government
officials should abide by their oath of office and support the Constitutional
restrictions on government). Unfortunately, too many people who
live out of the taxpayer's pocket are all profiting from the status
quo and are neck deep in the "old boy" network, consequently even the
most blatent crimes seldom make it to the mass media (who are also
part of that network), let alone to court....

Apologies, I didn't join the forum to rant about politics...
Unfortunately though, these days politics is wound up tightly with every
aspect of our lives, and never -ever- with positive results for any
more than a very few people.
Bottom line: the "Global warming" "crisis" is a politician's dream-come-true.
(they hope)

[hoytedow]

Progressives in both major parties have nearly destroyed both parties. I wouldn't trust either party as far as I could throw them. Believe nothing you hear and only half of what you see. They are in politics so they can make the rules. Our best interests are not their best interests.

[Boston]

Originally Posted by hoytedow

It will mainly strip the upper states as far south as eastern Louisianna, according to what I saw on the History(?) Channel.

See also:http://www.earthmountainview.com/yel...ellowstone.htm

the largest of the eruptions left ash all the way to the Mississippi but the majority of the damage is mitigated within the first decade or so and that mostly localized to about a five hundred mile radius

I used to be asked countless questions concerning Yellowstone caldera by groups we took out on horseback throughout the greater Yellowstone area, I was also privileged to do fishing guides. Thing is nothing is likely to be quite as catastrophic as another big freeze and that does kinda look like what its leading up to. That or a major extinction event with large areas of desertification.

oh
and the oceans basically dying so the oxygen band will be reduced
that and the near shore environment will also be compromised in that toxic anaerobic algae's will find a great home within the old lungs
nice eh
nothing quite like walking into the garden of Eden
and lighting the place on fire

[Guillermo]

Some global warming alarmists suggest that the North Atlantic Thermohaline Circulation (NATC) or (Atlantic Meridional Overturning Circulation) will be disrupted by the melting of the Arctic ice cap, causing an ice age. This is known by scientists to be a bogus scenario.

This has mainly come about due to a general misunderstanding of the NATC and the Gulf Stream.

The simplistic view is illustrated in the first attached figure, which shows the Gulf Stream as a laminar flow and recirculating as a deeper stream as part of the NATC. [http://www.meteo.mcgill.ca/~tremblay...peClimate.ppt]

The actual Gulf Stream and its relation to the NATC is more complex. The Gulf Stream breaks up into various currents once it passes the Grand Banks. The following figures show the subsequent currents and gyres that result [http://kingfish.coastal.edu/gulfstream/p2.htm] “Along the east coast of Florida the current is fed by the Antilles Current, and the flow, now called the Gulf Stream, runs parallel to the coast until reaching Cape Hatteras where it leaves the coast and enters deeper water. While flowing in deep water the Stream often forms large meanders or fluctuations in its path. At approximately 50°W, the Gulf Stream splits into several currents the largest being the North Atlantic Current. The North Atlantic Current then feeds both the Norwegian Current which transports water northward along the west coast of Europe and the Canary Current which flows equator-ward on the eastern side of the Atlantic." See second attached figure.

The third figure (graph) show sea surface temperature (SST) anomaly graphs for five Gulf Stream areas as shown on the map in fourth figure [http://bobtisdale.blogspot.com/2009/...ture-sst.html]. Recent SST warming is well below the warming of the 1930’s-1940’s.

Even the science publications which typically are pro-alarmist have recently backed off on this scare scenario:

* Science: “False Alarm: Atlantic Conveyor Belt Hasn't Slowed Down After All” [http://www.sciencemag.org/cgi/conten...4/5802/1064a]: “A closer look at the Atlantic Ocean's currents has confirmed what many oceanographers suspected all along: There's no sign that the ocean's heat-laden "conveyor" is slowing”

* New Scientist: “No New Ice Age for Western Europe” [http://www.newscientist.com/article/mg19225763.900]: “New measurements have failed to show clear evidence that the current is weakening, and models of the North Atlantic show that a shutdown would not occur in the way oceanographers had expected.”


Cheers

[Guillermo]

Another part of the misunderstanding is the myth that the Gulf Stream heats Europe. A 2006 article by Richard Seager (senior research scientist at Columbia University's Lamont-Doherty Earth Observatory) in American Scientist (“The Source of Europe's Mild Climate” subtitle “The notion that the Gulf Stream is responsible for keeping Europe anomalously warm turns out to be a myth”) [http://www.americanscientist.org/iss...ild-climate/1] provides a good explanation of how the oceans warm the land on the eastern side of the ocean.

“Average January air temperatures are warmer over oceans than they are over land, because the sea retains more summer heat, which can then be released to the overlying air in winter. Sites located close to the coasts thus tend to enjoy mild "maritime" climates. And because prevailing winds over the midlatitudes blow from west to east, coastal areas on the eastern side of ocean basins experience especially mild temperatures. Conversely, the coasts bordering the western side of ocean basins experience winters that are intermediate between typical maritime conditions and the frigid "continental" climates found in interior regions. The difference in January temperatures across the North Atlantic at the latitude of London, for example, amounts to between 15 and 20 degrees Celsius.”


Cheers.

[Guillermo]

And now a last (for today) comment on Boston's posted graph:



The worst manipulation about ice cores data was the arbitrary changing of the age of the gas trapped in the upper part of the cores, where the pressure changes were less drastic than in the deeper parts. In this part of cores taken from Siple, Antarctica, the ice was deposited in the year 1890, and the CO2 concentration in it was 328 ppmv (Friedli et al. 1986, Neftel et al. 1985), and not the 290 ppmv needed to prove the man-made warming hypothesis. The same CO2 concentration of 328 ppmv was measured in the air collected directly from the atmosphere at the Mauna Loa volcano, Hawaii, 83 years later in 1973 (Boden et al. 1990). So, it was shockingly clear that the pre-industrial level of CO2 was the same as in the second half of the 20th Century.

To solve this “problem,” these researchers simply made an ad hoc assumption (may I say a "Trick"?): The age of the gas recovered from 1 to 10 grams of ice was arbitrarily decreed to be exactly 83 years younger than the ice in which it was trapped! This was not supported by any experimental evidence, but only by assumptions which were in conflict with the facts. The “corrected” proxy ice data were then smoothly aligned with the direct atmospheric measurements from Mauna Loa.

See attached figure: THE MOTHER OF ALL HOCHEY STICK CURVES

Thus, falsified CO2 “hockey stick curves” were presented in all the IPCC reports and in the “Summary for Policymakers” in 2007. These hockey sticks were credulously accepted by almost everyone, together with other information on greenhouse gases determined in the ice cores, which were plagued by improper manipulation of data, an arbitrary rejection of high readings from old ice, and an arbitrary rejection of the low readings from the young ice, simply because they did not fit the preconceived idea of man-made global warming. It is a habit that become all too common in greenhouse gas and other environmental studies.


Cheers

[hoytedow]

Thanks, Guillermo. Lots of good information, that.

[blacksmith]

Yes, "progressives" of both parties have betrayed their constituancy:
democrat "socialists/leftists" have been betrayed,
republican "conservatives" have been betrayed,
the big "L" Libertarian party is in the process of betraying the Libertarians
(although the small "l" libertarians are still trying to fight the good fight)
and Americans -in general- have had their Constitution all but wiped out by the
people in power (of both parties) who use every possible excuse (and the best propaganda machine
in existance) to sell out their birthright. It's been going on for many decades
but has been moving faster and faster over the last few years. (Possibly because
the new goal is to run, not just the country, but the world in general.)

The bottom line is that money/power is talking. Virtually nobody in big-party politics
has any interest in representing anyone other than those who can route megabucks
and power their way.

This isn't new, it's been done many times in the last century: Nazi Germany, Stalin's Russia, Mao's China, etc. It's just that now, they're doing it here. Power over people is the focus. When it comes to getting it, anything goes in the book of the
psychotics that work their way up to where they can run the show. (When I was younger, I wondered how that sort of thing happened. Unfortunately we're now getting a good, close up look at the process.)

(Funny, as old as most of these guys are, you'd think that the centuries of fame that they'd get from supporting a policy of individual freedom would outweigh the money and power that they only have a few years left to enjoy, but sure doesn't seem to be the case.)

rant/off
(button isn't working very well today... :-) )

[fasteddy106]

Thanks G, on that note......................click on the image to enlarge

[Boston]

there is no real debate concerning the global current system other than the one presented by the usual suspects



this is also known as the "Guillermo threw up in the sink again scenario"

likely a result of some innocent and well meaning soul pointing out to him that ice permeability actually runs about a thousand years or so behind ice formation.

I did like how in one breath you claim there is no thermohaline deep circulation and in the other you present information supposedly concerning that deep circulation
nice

so
which is it
inquiring minds want to know

soon as you are done with the porcelain Goddess that is

love
B