Get ready for extreme weather

[Guest]

Wow, i know this.

Agian, what can we do? As a environmental scientist its your job to come up with the solutions. Show me some realistic solutions.

The technical solutions all already exist. It is a matter of the complexity of the system and the lack of political will to implement them which is the issue. Do not blame the scientists for the failings of the politicians and the general public to implement effective change.

Emissions have continued to rise steadily since the original commitments made by the politicians at the Kyoto protocol. The scientists are not to blame for the fact that they have warned us and advised us and we have chosen to ignore them.

Frog in beaker of heating water springs to mind here.

We could start by shifting all subsidies for fossil fuels to energy conservation and alternative's with a significant R&D budget to improve those technologies. The level of effort required is on a par with the roll out of electricity, railways and roads across the world. It is perfectly doable if there wasn't so much vested interests creating huge inertia within the system. It may hurt our economies to make the transitions, but it will eventually destroy our economy if we do not.

Br Cornelius

Edited November 21, 2011 by Guest

[Von Bismarck]

The technical solutions all already exist. It is a matter of the complexity of the system and the lack of political will to implement them which is the issue. Do not blame the scientists for the failings of the politicians and the general public to implement effective change.

Emissions have continued to rise steadily since the original commitments made by the politicians at the Kyoto protocol. The scientists are not to blame for the fact that they have warned us and advised us and we have chosen to ignore them.

I am not blaming the general climate scientists, I am blaming the environmental scientist. If their solutions were realistic we wouldn't have any problems. Do you really think the politicians wouldn't make the changes, if they were realistic? Do you really think politicians have secret meetings on how to not make our environment better?

Why can't we do anything about it, at the moment?

Its because non of the solutions, given by environmental scientist, are realistic.

Frog in beaker of heating water springs to mind here.

We could start by shifting all subsidies for fossil fuels to energy conservation and alternative's with a significant R&D budget to improve those technologies. The level of effort required is on a par with the roll out of electricity, railways and roads across the world. It is perfectly doable if there wasn't so much vested interests creating huge inertia within the system. It may hurt our economies to make the transitions, but it will eventually destroy our economy if we do not.

Br Cornelius

Do you really believe that would be realistic given our current financial state?

Edited November 21, 2011 by BFB

[Guest]

I am not blaming the general climate scientists, I am blaming the environmental scientist. If their solutions were realistic we wouldn't have any problems. Do you really think the politicians wouldn't make the changes, if they were realistic? Do you really think politicians have secret meetings on how to not make our environment better?

Why can't we do anything about it, at the moment?

Its because non of the solutions, given by environmental scientist, are realistic.

Do you really believe that would be realistic given our current financial state?

We have wasted trillions of funny money bailing out the banks. All that money was available to develop alternative infrastructure - if the will was there. Keeping a dodgy banking system rolling along took a higher priority. That is a matter of politics and corruption. No politician wins votes by telling the hard truths - so they don't. They keep the lobbyist gravy train rolling and take their cut.

The solutions are realistic, but the public and politicians prefer to listen to the soft whispers of the lala land lobbyists that say it will all be just fine without any change.

Taker for example the case of Ireland - which has just paid out slightly less than a billion to the bond holders in Allied Irish banks, for about 2billion Ireland could be a net exporter of electricity to Europe (look into "Spirit of Ireland"). So for twice the amount it took to pay a bunch of speculative gamblers we could be a long way down the track of making Ireland self-sufficient in Green energy. Tell me that the politicians have the will to solve the real issues of the world.

Br Cornelius

[Von Bismarck]

We have wasted trillions of funny money bailing out the banks. All that money was available to develop alternative infrastructure - if the will was there. Keeping a dodgy banking system rolling along took a higher priority. That is a matter of politics and corruption. No politician wins votes by telling the hard truths - so they don't. They keep the lobbyist gravy train rolling and take their cut.

The solutions are realistic, but the public and politicians prefer to listen to the soft whispers of the lala land lobbyists that say it will all be just fine without any change.

Taker for example the case of Ireland - which has just paid out slightly less than a billion to the bond holders in Allied Irish banks, for about 2billion Ireland could be a net exporter of electricity to Europe (look into "Spirit of Ireland"). So for twice the amount it took to pay a bunch of speculative gamblers we could be a long way down the track of making Ireland self-sufficient in Green energy. Tell me that the politicians have the will to solve the real issues of the world.

Br Cornelius

You got it. This is exactly what i wanted you to say.

The solutions are not realistic given how we run things. Its up to the environmental scientists to create solutions our government will listen to.

Take the ball into their court, play the game like they do. That is exactly what environmental scientists are doing wrong. They think that government will listen to them, just because they know best.

But that is not how it works.

Come up with solutions where governments can profit by changing.

The majority of environmental scientists are left-wing people who thinks that everyone cares about our planet and how we treat it. News flash, a lot of people dont give a s***

Come up with solutions which pumps more money into their account and you would see every country in the world making the changes.

Edited November 21, 2011 by BFB

[Guest]

You got it. This is exactly what i wanted you to say.

The solutions are not realistic given how we run things. Its up to the environmental scientists to create solutions our government will listen to.

Take the ball into their court, play the game like they do. That is exactly what environmental scientists are doing wrong. They think that government will listen to them, just because they know best.

But that is not how it works.

Come up with solutions where governments can profit by changing.

The majority of environmental scientists are left-wing people who thinks that everyone cares about our planet and how we treat it. News flash, a lot of people dont give a s***

Come up with solutions which pumps more money into their account and you would see every country in the world making the changes.

The system is the cause of the environmental crisis. The solution to that crisis cannot be found in a system which relies on inflationary funny money and perpetual expansion/growth. You are unfortunately asking for the impossible.

I predict that the whole culture will collapse under its own internal contradictions. There is no way down from the sorry mess we have built for ourselves. No one is in control of the situation (it is a self organising system) and so no one has enough power over the system to correct its fundamental errors of vision and objective.

It may seem negative and gloomy - but it is my analysis of the situation as an environmental scientist who understands that nothing can life beyond the means at its disposal without an inevitable crash. Climate change is just one of the many outward symptoms of a system which doesn't actually work. The financial crisis is the more immediate result of the system over inflating itself and believing that money has intrinsic worth

Its one mad ****ed up world we live in (for the moment). And that's a scientific opinion

Its time to face the music.

Br Cornelius

Edited November 21, 2011 by Guest

[Damrod]

Please explain the cause.

Also do you have any evidence?

Well the cause is increased solar activity. The evidence can be found at http://spaceweather.com/ as well as a dozen or so other solar dedicated websites...not hard to find unless you just don't want to look and see.

It's really that simple. I'm not arguing for or against man made global warming...I am simply pointing out that we are in the midst of certain atmospheric and environmental changes that can be tracked right back to the cyclical behavior of the sun....man might have added to it...maybe not...irrelevant.

oh and btw...

that does not mean it's going to be "ok and pleasant"...it just means that some crap is happening...it can be proven...man may or may not have contributed to it...but that is irrelevant...atmospheric/climatological changes are taking place and they are going to get really crappy before the cycle winds it's way through,

I completely understand why the conservatives wish to ignore the obvious...it's pricey and hinders profitability...but that does not change the fact that something unusual is astray....perhaps something every few millenia...keep on sucking down that fossil fuel and pretend it's all ok....as I said...I don't know just how much...if any...mankind has contributed to this...but it is happening....

stop being the toad in the slowly rising water temperature....you are going to boil and never realize it...

Edited November 21, 2011 by Damrod

[Guest]

Well the cause is increased solar activity. The evidence can be found at http://spaceweather.com/ as well as a dozen or so other solar dedicated websites...not hard to find unless you just don't want to look and see.

It's really that simple. I'm not arguing for or against man made global warming...I am simply pointing out that we are in the midst of certain atmospheric and environmental changes that can be tracked right back to the cyclical behavior of the sun....man might have added to it...maybe not...irrelevant.

oh and btw...

that does not mean it's going to be "ok and pleasant"...it just means that some crap is happening...it can be proven...man may or may not have contributed to it...but that is irrelevant...atmospheric/climatological changes are taking place and they are going to get really crappy before the cycle winds it's way through,

I completely understand why the conservatives wish to ignore the obvious...it's pricey and hinders profitability...but that does not change the fact that something unusual is astray....perhaps something every few millenia...keep on sucking down that fossil fuel and pretend it's all ok....as I said...I don't know just how much...if any...mankind has contributed to this...but it is happening....

stop being the toad in the slowly rising water temperature....you are going to boil and never realize it...

May I point you to;

http://www.skepticalscience.com/solar-activity-sunspots-global-warming-advanced.htm

Solar activity has been in decline for the last 30yrs or so, which is exactly the time over which climate change has been accelerating.

We maybe about to enter another sun spot minima, but every indication is that this will just slow down the inexorable rise of temperatures.

Almost all scientists will freely admit that the sun has played a part in the warming of the last century - it has never really been in serious doubt.

I can also point you to a refutation of the fact that global warming is taking place across the universe - but if you search that site you can find it for yourself.

Br Cornelius

Br Cornelius

[Von Bismarck]

Well the cause is increased solar activity. The evidence can be found at http://spaceweather.com/ as well as a dozen or so other solar dedicated websites...not hard to find unless you just don't want to look and see.

It's really that simple. I'm not arguing for or against man made global warming...I am simply pointing out that we are in the midst of certain atmospheric and environmental changes that can be tracked right back to the cyclical behavior of the sun....man might have added to it...maybe not...irrelevant.

Thanks.

I would wish it was so simple.

If the enhanced greenhouse gas theory was ever to be replaced as the main force of our warming. It would be by the cosmic ray theory, in my opinion.

This year tons of new evidence has been found supporting cosmic rays. Lets hope there will be further studying into the cosmic ray connection, in the upcoming years.

The Sun has displayed unexplanied behaviour on a longer timescale. We have well supported evidence suggesting the strength of the solar wind and the magnetic flux it carries have more than doubled during the last century. This extra shielding has reduced the intensity of cosmic rays reaching the Earths atmosphere by about 15% (10-25%) on a global scale.

Cosmic ray flux is weaker today at its maximum during the sunspot cycle than it was at its minimum around 1900. (Many AGW sceptics have been under fire because they were said to cherry pick data to fit their agenda. But the same people trying to discard AGW sceptics, because of cherry picking, does exactly the same)

But let us not get over excited. Before we can atribute cosmic rays to GW there are some requirement steps the theory has to go through.

1. Cosmic rays have to induce aerosols.

Have been well supported, no one can disagree with this.

2. These aerosols needs to grow sufficiently to form cloud condensation nuclei - 3. The cloud condensation nuclei needs to lead to an increased cloud formation

Still needs further studying, but there are well supported evidence for the changes in the nucleation rate due to changes in cosmic rays, but not as great so it can account for the 2% change in cloud cover observed by Marsh and Svensmark. This by no means disproves the connection between cosmic rays and climate. Not all models have been used to test the connections between cosmic rays and CCN. Also another mechanism which might need to be implied is the ion-aerosol near-cloud mechanism. But strategies to test this have yet to be developed.

So people who believes they can disprove the connection between cosmic rays and global warming are ignorant.