Our Oceans are Under Attack

See if you can spot the difference. If yes, then we can proceed to the next point.


Human body:




Earth:

 

Yeah. The big ol earth can withstand a temperature rise that would kill little old me.
But a couple degrees F ain't dangerous to either earth or me

 

Not me.
I'm not the one claiming CO2 drives climate.
I'm just pointing out, treating climate factors as mathematics, which to make mathematical computer models, you are doing, then CO2 drives climate isn't a logical axiom.
I'm defending an earlier statement claiming it wasn't logical. So I explained why it isn't.
In propositional logic, you can have all kinds of inconsistencies, but mathematics is never propositional.

What you are saying, I agree with.
CO2 is only one factor affecting climate, to a greater or lesser degree at times, and may be null in some instances.

That's a far distant thing from CO2 DRIVES climate.

So why isn't anybody testing CO2 as null input in a climate model, just to see if the projections closer approximate reality?

 

A simple explanation:

Consider a partially melted tray of ice cubes. A little bit warmer, they all melt. A little bit cooler, they all freeze.

Earth is like that partially melted tray of ice cubes.

 

Yes we know, but you have nothing to back that suspicion. The reason nobody bothers modelling without CO2 any more is very simple: after accounting for all other factors, there is still a signal which can only be accounted for by CO2. Therefore, modelling without CO2 would be pointless.

To put it another way, what you propose has already been done, and discarded because it doesn't fit the data.

To put it yet another way, with reference to some of your other posts: CO2 inducing change is not an axiom. It is an observation.

 

Thankyou and imaginarynumber for correcting me on the fallacious quote. I deleted it.

In this sales pitch for Agenda 21, he mentions agenda 21 nine times. Rather than post someone else's possibly erroneous opinion, I'm working through agenda 21 and will post my own erroneous assessment.
Here is what M.Strong actually said at Rio, abridged of verbosity. you can see at the link all that I abridged, for brevity sake.

http://www.mauricestrong.net/index.php/opening-statement6
"The concentration of population growth in developing countries and economic growth in the industrialized countries (abridged) are unsustainable, (abridged) Since 1972 world population has grown by 1.7 billion people, equivalent to almost the entire population at the beginning of this century. 1.5 billion of these live in developing countries which are least able to support them. (abridged)

During the same 20 year period, world GDP increased by $20 trillion. Yet 15 per cent of the increase accrued to developing countries. Over 70 per cent went to the already rich countries, (abridged) every child born in the developed world consumes 20 to 30 times the resources of the planet than a third world child.

(abridged) This growth model, and the patterns of production and consumption which have accompanied it, is not sustainable for the rich; nor can it be replicated by the poor. To continue along this pathway could lead to the end of our civilization.

Vicious circle of poverty

(abridged) relieving the vicious circle of poverty in which they are caught up. Their right to development cannot be denied; (abridged) The rich (abridged) reducing substantially their impacts on the environment, leaving environmental 'space' for developing countries to grow. The wasteful and destructive lifestyles of the rich cannot be maintained at the cost of the lives and livelihoods of the poor, and of nature."

" No place on the planet can remain' an island of affluence in a sea of misery. We're either going to save the whole world or no-one will be saved"

 

I don't believe that. Do YOU? REALLY?

 

I'm thinking about inequities, of the sort M.Strong laments.
And the sort liberals lament.
I've been to various countries in Africa, and Asia, and South and Central America, and island nations around the world.
And I've been all over the USA with exception of Alaska. Spent couple years in Hawaii.
I've seen some people struggling, seen those not trying, and those parasites feeding off the necks of others.
Did the West earn it's position in the world?
Did we contribute technology and time and money making the world better?
I think so, and got paid for it.
Is the workman worth his hire?
Does anybody else have a legitimate claim on his wages? No. course not.
Is it justice for individuals that work and sacrifice and struggle to get ahead, be held back, robbed, saddled with the lazy and incompetent and parasites?
Nations of such stalwart individuals, is it any more just to saddle them with more ancient poorly nations that accomplished little in thousands of years,
Only because they envy the rich, gives them rights to take?.
How do you separate the deserving from the undeserving?
How do you insure that your efforts to help get to those deserving of help, and isn't siphoned off by crooks and other parasites?
I don't think you can make these distinctions.
Then how should industrialized nations help the rest of the world?
The same as we always have.
Inventing new technologies that improve lives everywhere.
There are cars and TVs all over the planet, for example.
Programing needs improvement.Badly.
First world invests lives and money in courageous projects the timid won't tackle, like going to the moon.
That spawned trillions of dollars worth of new technologies. including the electronics that allowed computers.
We can continue to do these things, a benefit to all the world, IF, we don't succumb to the stupidity that it's somebody else's turn.
They had their turn same time we did.
They didn't get off their rumps. We did!
if we took a back seat, and let developing nations have the road. Will they accomplish things comparable to the West accomplished?
Probably not. They could have been inventing the same time we were but didn't. They're suddenly going to change?
The idea everybody is supposed to finish equal is socialist idiocy.
The world is better off if the west keeps trying to excel and succeeding.

 

A provable observation? hmm.
Then how come it generates a slew of other unprovables exactly as if it were an unprovable axiom?

 

Absolutely!
I refer you back to my recent post on the effects of volcanism. One good-sized belch and the resulting cooling causes crop failures world wide.

On the other hand, it doesn't take much warming to induce at least local long-term drought conditions, which has been the demise of a number of civilizations: Mayan, Harappan (India), a number of Bronze-age cultures, the Mesopotamian, and of course the short-lived but very disruptive American Dust Bowl of the 1930s.

Furthermore, we know that only a small (and now inevitable) amount of sea level rise will doom many current coastal cities, such as Miami (and here).


Why a few degrees of global warmings matter

 

US east coast cities face frequent flooding due to climate change | THE GUARDIAN

 

Interesting and transparent Climate modeling. http://www2.cgd.ucar.edu/

Okay. Let me try a thought experiment begging your co-operation.

In some cannibal cultures, they believed they added the strength of their enemy to their own, by consuming him.

Rather than seek to discredit or destroy your adversary's for their pita-ness, suborn them to your own ranks. Assimilate like Borgs.

Apostle Paul was a fanatical persecutor of the early church, became even more fanatical after converting to Christianity. Not introducing religion, only the most passionately fanatical personality I know of, as an example.

The most fanatical of "skeptics" should be serious targets for assimilation campaigns.

There is a huge danger of getting burned in this tactic.
Not that turncoats are untrustworthy or vacillate. Not fanatic types, they commit heart and soul.
The danger is their commitment, energy and fanatical FIRE may conquer YOU from within! and take your movement beyond where you want to go.

Okay, here is the experiment.
Assume for giggles, I'm such a charismatic fanatic.
Assume for a moment you converted me.
Where are you going to direct my zeal and energy and focus, so I'm totally absorbed and not left frustrated and impatient and at liberty to launch my OWN agenda within your caucus?
Forget the talk and debate. What would you do with a man of action?

 

Interesting idea. As you've pointed out numerous times, we in the US aren't going to get very far in enacting climate change-related legislation until a much larger proportion of the population agrees that AGW is a serious concern.

The reason I keep batting away at this topic on BD.net is in hope of influencing more people to take AGW seriously. I watch the VIEWS counter for these threads and I conclude that more people are reading this thread than are posting to it. My hope is that some of them will find these discussions useful.

You've already said that you have reduced your personal carbon footprint (except meat eating! ). Great! We all need to do what we can. But equally important is for those who have the gift of exhortation to follow the Apostle Paul's example and preach salvation to the gentiles.

 

Maybe you and others need time to consider what you would do if a cadre of firebreathers suddenly converted to your doctrine.

Don't worry, you have as much time as you need.

Because until you have an explainable action plan, you have zero chance of seducing your adversaries.

That's been one of my big mistrusts of AGW's mission.

The sermon "Trust and join us. Help save the planet. We'll do great things together. Don't have any idea WHAT or HOW! But they'll be GREAT!" falls on extremely skeptical ears.

Do you know what leadership is, boiled down to it's essence?
The man with the plan.
Providing the plan has merit or appeal.

M.Strong's attempt to tie a War on Poverty, socialist egalitarianism, AGW, and Climate Change to a guilt trip on Western nations for being successful, failed.
Will continue to fail.
Pride in accomplishment doesn't become shame, because of the wagging finger and tongue of a wealthy contrarian hypocrite.

 

It has long been argued that a carbon tax is the most environmentally effective, economically efficient, easiest to administer, and capitalist free-market-friendly method of reducing CO2 emissions. But to enact such a plan requires that legislators be on-board. For legislators to be on-board it requires that the constituents of legislators be willing. And constituents are not going to be willing unless they understand and believe that AGW is real, imminent, and solvable. That's why we need grass-roots AGW "evangelists".

In the West-African countries that are being hardest hit by the Ebola outbreak, many of the citizens were skeptical that Ebola really was a deadly disease that required altering personal habits and customs to prevent becoming infected. Some of the governments eventually started putting up signs saying "EBOLA IS REAL"



Maybe someone with deep pockets would want to put up billboard signs around the US saying "Global Warming Is Real!" along with website addresses for more information. Would be pretty provocative, but maybe it would start useful conversations.

http://www.bluelinemedia.com/billboard-advertising

http://fitsmallbusiness.com/how-much-does-billboard-advertising-cost/