25 replies to this topic

[Karlis]

www.mrc.org said:

New York Times environmental reporter Justin Gillis confessed his series on climate "was more or less a direct response to Climategate, which led to a lot of questions about the science." He saw no "scientific misconduct" in the trove of emails: "Points of contention exist within the science, as they should, but not about the basics of whether we have a problem. Read more...

[Hilander]

Its been so warm here this winter I never wore a coat, just a light sweater.  Our trees started budding by March and it was so warm I started wearing shorts.  March is generally pretty cool here, I've seen it snow in March but not in a  long time.  There would be times it would hit 70 in the past but only a day or two, not every day and even 80.  Which I know at the same time some places in the US have been getting snow like in the Rocky mountains.

A lot of people don't want to believe global warming is real and some people still don't believe in evolution.  It will always be that way but global warming is one of those things that could make living on earth a lot harder.  I'm hoping we find a solution before it is too late because, as with many things, there comes a point where it will be.

[socrates.junior]

Weather is different from climate change.

[Doug1o29]

socrates.junior, on 05 April 2012 - 04:28 AM, said:

Weather is different from climate change.

A practical distinction used in dendrochronology is that trees outlast weather and climate outlasts trees.  In practice, this means that to study climate you cannot use any detrending process that compares a tree's growth to an average of itself.  If you do this, then assemble the resulting series into a chronology, you get "climate changes" that aren't there - because you are trying to compare different averages from different trees - the apples-to-oranges thing.

But weather is a short-term phenomenon - you can detrend using averages without distorting short-term weather patterns.

I study ice storms:  I can use any detrending method that's convenient.  If I start studying temperature change, I'll have to detrend my entire 700-core collection all over again.
Doug

[JayMark]

There is nobody so far that has been able to demonstrate and prove that either we are not the main cause of the current warming or simply that global warming is a myth.

Knowing about the past climate changes helps in understanding that the past causes are either not in play (i.e. orbital change, intense volcanic activity), a lot less important (i.e. the sun) or in a diffrent way (i.e. greenhouse gases/T° relation vs time). There is a quite evident diffrence with the past here.

Knowing about radiative balance (solar irradiance and radiative forcing) helps to understand how the sun is not the main cause and how our acitvity raised the forcing (anthropogenic greenhouses gas sources and perturbated sinks).

Knowing about air/water currents dynamics helps to understand why not every place in the world is getting hotter and why some places undergo unusual cold/hot episodes etc. Some places are a lot more affected that others (like Siberia and North Pole).

Knowing about the effects on the biosphere and future scenarios helps to understand how it is threatening the life of a lot of species, including ours.

Knowing about all of the above helps in understanding how important the question is now and how urgent it is for us to make some critical choises and undergo radical changes.

The costs/losses of global warming will overpower the costs/losses needed to reduce it's progression. And in every way possible. Time is running out. There is a point that if reached, will provoke some irreversible phenomenons that will be devastating (i.e. sudden methane hydrate release). We do not precisely know what that point is and when we'll reach it but everything seems to point out that it is most probably goind to be reached before 2100.

Life is priceless, don't forget that.

Peace.

[Doug1o29]

JayMark, on 05 April 2012 - 04:36 PM, said:

There is nobody so far that has been able to demonstrate and prove that either we are not the main cause of the current warming or simply that global warming is a myth.

The proof is on the other side.  I have posted the proof of warming on UM previously.  I used Hansen's global temperature anomalies, but there are other data sets (at least six) that you could use.  The problem for the deniers is that there are no data sets that don't show warming.  They have no evidence to argue with.

I've got to get back to work, now.
Doug

[PeacefulAnarchy]

Listening to the reply's from AGW believers is very similar to the scientologist religion.

Extreme and sometimes quite personal in nature, sends a shiver down my spine.

CONCENTRATE ON REAL ISSUES LIKE REAL GLOBAL POLLUTION, DE-FORESTATION, STARVATION AND OVER POPULATION!!!

Surely if we sort these problems out, if AGW was real, it would sort it out. No money in that though  

Edited by PeacefulAnarchy, 09 April 2012 - 04:19 PM.

[Doug1o29]

PeacefulAnarchy, on 09 April 2012 - 04:18 PM, said:

Listening to the reply's from AGW believers is very similar to the scientologist religion.

Extreme and sometimes quite personal in nature, sends a shiver down my spine.

CONCENTRATE ON REAL ISSUES LIKE REAL GLOBAL POLLUTION, DE-FORESTATION, STARVATION AND OVER POPULATION!!!

Surely if we sort these problems out, if AGW was real, it would sort it out. No money in that though  

Global warming is a consequence of POLLUTION!  Carbon dioxide, methane, soot, CFCs - in the atmosphere at greater than natural levels, they ALL have detrimental effects on living things.  And that is the definition of pollution.

De-forestation:  one of the consequences of de-forestation is a reduction in the soil's ability to hold carbon.  Remove the tree cover and you increase CO2 in the atmosphere - and warming.  Here in the US we have reforested most everything that can be reforested.  There are still some odd areas that could be restored - like fields too small to farm efficiently, or too badly eroded.  What we need to do is refrain from clearing new land.  If you want to know what is going on with US forests, google the USFS' Forest Inventory and Analysis website.

I used to make my living planting trees - I was a contractor for State and Private Forestry.  So there is money in it.  Most of my work was for private landowners.

In other parts of the world, deforestation is a consequence of over-population.  People clear land to grow food to feed themselves.  If we want to protect the forests, we have to figure out how to feed the people.

I don't think forests have as much potential as carbon sinks as the popular press does.  

Starvation:  the major cause of starvation is war.  It interferes with both production and distribution of food.

All these issues are part of the same problem.  I think it's a soluble problem.
Doug

[THE MATRIX]

Every time I hear and see a natural disaster like tornadoes or devastating hurricanes hitting and destroying the towns of those skeptics all I can do is smile. Like last week when all those tornadoes hit a town in Rick Perry's Texas.

[and then]

THE MATRIX, on 09 April 2012 - 07:22 PM, said:

Every time I hear and see a natural disaster like tornadoes or devastating hurricanes hitting and destroying the towns of those skeptics all I can do is smile. Like last week when all those tornadoes hit a town in Rick Perry's Texas.

Yeah!! I guess that'll show 'em.   I get what you mean but it still seems petty to enjoy someone being harmed for any reason.  For those who take Global warming as absolute, proven truth (I'm not sure) I say we're in trouble because people do not change quickly and in some cases will refuse to change at all until forced by catastrophe.  Folks get angry because the US didn't commit economic suicide by signing onto Kyoto yet China and India - far worse polluters - refused to sign as well.  And when I see people talking about carbon tax credits I just smile and think of P.T. Barnum.

[Doug1o29]

and then, on 09 April 2012 - 08:26 PM, said:

Yeah!! I guess that'll show 'em.   I get what you mean but it still seems petty to enjoy someone being harmed for any reason.  For those who take Global warming as absolute, proven truth (I'm not sure) I say we're in trouble because people do not change quickly and in some cases will refuse to change at all until forced by catastrophe.  Folks get angry because the US didn't commit economic suicide by signing onto Kyoto yet China and India - far worse polluters - refused to sign as well.  And when I see people talking about carbon tax credits I just smile and think of P.T. Barnum.

The Bush administration actually decided not to sign on to Kyoto two weeks before it asked its panel of "experts" if it should.  When that panel didn't back them up, they made sure not to ask them again - politics.  The Bush people said they'd put together a carbon-reduction plan that would work better; then did nothing.

I have my doubts about whether Kyoto could have accomplished much anyway.  Japan tried mightily to make its goals even without the US, and still fell 15% short.

And carbon taxes won't work either - because politicians wright too many exceptions into the laws.  Cap-and-trade won't work because all those brokers, inspectors and dealers have to be paid and that will just inflate the costs.

Here's a better idea:  a carbon depletion fee, charged at the point of origin or where the product enters the country, based on its life-time carbon footprint.  All such fees go into a central fund which is then sent EQUALLY to every citizen (Children get a half-share.).  The carbon depletion fee increases gradually over time to give people, businesses, etc. time to adjust their spending.

The "tax" approach gives too many opportunities for mis-use of the money.  A tax is a disincentive; people have to see they are benefitting and a monthly check or credit to a debit card is a pretty definite benefit.

This way we can use the free market to help solve the problem instead of being the problem.
Doug

[PeacefulAnarchy]

The reason why I won't buy into AGW is simple, I do not trust man when it comes to the amounts of money involved in the whole AGW theory. There has been too much misinformation and incorrect statements regarding the whole situation.

I agree that the weather is erratic, but it always has been. How can we presume to make such massive life changing decisions based on a theory we have developed over the last twenty or so years, we are just not that good.

My family and I live a very green life. We have solar panels, compost containers, water butts, soak-away, re-cycling bins and I grow my own vegetables and fruit and have chickens. I teach my 3 children to respect and love nature, but how man has jumped onto AGW and turned it into a trillion $/£ business scares me, something does not add up!

[JayMark]

PeacefulAnarchy, on 10 April 2012 - 12:53 PM, said:

The reason why I won't buy into AGW is simple, I do not trust man when it comes to the amounts of money involved in the whole AGW theory. There has been too much misinformation and incorrect statements regarding the whole situation.

I agree that the weather is erratic, but it always has been. How can we presume to make such massive life changing decisions based on a theory we have developed over the last twenty or so years, we are just not that good.

My family and I live a very green life. We have solar panels, compost containers, water butts, soak-away, re-cycling bins and I grow my own vegetables and fruit and have chickens. I teach my 3 children to respect and love nature, but how man has jumped onto AGW and turned it into a trillion $/£ business scares me, something does not add up!

AGW is a proven fact. Period. Whether you like it or not or think it's just another "conspiracy" dosen't change the facts. Over 2500 scientists have worked on the IPCC report and over 95% of the concerned scientists in climatology agree on the fact that we are warming and that we are the main cause.

If your primary source of doubt is concerning money, you should read the report that was published by the World Bank about development and climate changes. They are well aware of the situation. They give you the current costs/losses due to AGW and costs/losses that would occur if we decide to do something about it.

Their conclusion is quite simple. We need to undergo massive changes because otherwise, we will go through a global ecomonical crisis. They have estimated the "monetary point of non-return" to be as soon as we go over 2°C of warming. After that, we will be in big monetary do-do.

The fact is that even if we stopped polluting tomorrow, chances are will will get over 2°C anyways. If we get over 5°C though (could happen before 2100 if nothing is done) chances are we won't survive that.

I'll bring the book with me tomorrow and try to give you some numbers.

Peace.

Edited by JayMark, 10 April 2012 - 01:58 PM.

[BFB]

PeacefulAnarchy, on 10 April 2012 - 12:53 PM, said:

The reason why I won't buy into AGW is simple, I do not trust man when it comes to the amounts of money involved in the whole AGW theory. There has been too much misinformation and incorrect statements regarding the whole situation.

I agree that the weather is erratic, but it always has been. How can we presume to make such massive life changing decisions based on a theory we have developed over the last twenty or so years, we are just not that good.

My family and I live a very green life. We have solar panels, compost containers, water butts, soak-away, re-cycling bins and I grow my own vegetables and fruit and have chickens. I teach my 3 children to respect and love nature, but how man has jumped onto AGW and turned it into a trillion $/£ business scares me, something does not add up!

The AGW theory is not really the problem. The problem is people like Al Gore and the CO2 trade scheme!

[JayMark]

BFB, on 10 April 2012 - 01:55 PM, said:

The AGW theory is not really the problem. The problem is people like Al Gore and the CO2 trade scheme!

I agree. I think that the whole carbon tax/trade issue is a major source of doubt among people. They think that AGW could simply be a false claim to impose a tax and make money. That's why you need to get into the scientific work to understand the AGW facts.

A carbon tax is something but sincerly, we wouldn't have to think about doing it if concerned people decided to attack the AGW problem in an intelligent way and especially if the most concerned people did what they need to do. A carbon tax is mostly seen as another way to "force" people in adopting behaviors.

I think there is plenty more that could be done without us, normal people, having to pay for it right off the bat.