I have a few questions for people who understand this issue better than I do:
1) When was it first suspected that man is playing a major role in changing the climate of the earth?
2) How large is the sample set for collecting data to prove or disprove that man is at least partly responsible for climate change? How old is climate science? How accurate is it when it first began? How much has the instrumentation improved since it began?
1. it's been decades
2. you are focusing on a distraction aimed at misleading the public ... if i make a toxic substance and people develop cancer - do i need to wait 2 centuries to determine it's link? ... instrumentation has improved in every facet of our lives ... what other sciences uses the same methods from a century ago?
global warming and all it's complexities basically boils down to whether or not you believe in the greenhouse effect ... it wouldn't take someone 20 minutes to learn it, question it and come to a conclusion ... seriously, all you skeptics have to do is learn the greenhouse effect ...
stop listening to fox news and all these op-ed pieces ... do you folks ever question why only in america is global warming doubted as much? ...
again - this should not be a partisan issue ... don't get your information from msnbc or fox or media outlets ...
let me know when someone is prepared to discuss the science ...
I asked the question here with no real bias, side, or even a pre-conceived opinion. I am asking as someone who wants to know more about this to make a decent judgement, and for the record, I've never been a fan of "mainstream" news outlets since they've given up on reporting the news with integrity. These are common sense questions to me, I didn't need them to be spoonfed to me by Bill O'Reilly or Rachel Maddow. The concept of greenhouse gasses, holes in the ozone layer has been taught to us throughout school here since first grade. I am prepared to discuss the science, and science has taught me that to make any real conclusions, I need a decent and accurate sample set.
do you allow that the planet is warming as a matter of course? that she is still coming out of the last ice age we experienced and as a consequence it only makes sense that the earth is warming?? that what we are experiencing is to the most degree cyclic?
coming out of an ice age does not equate to warming ... if i took an ice cube from a freezer and put it on the kitchen table ... it would melt (unless the kitchen was sub-freezing) ... the ice cube would melt regardless of whether the temperature in the kitchen was in an overall warming cycle or not ...
there are cyclical things in nature for sure however, the link between our emissions to temperature are evident ... even if we are to say that we are indeed part of a warming cycle, the speed of which this warming is occurring is unprecedented ...
but the ice cube melts because the surrounding air is warmer than the ice cube, no? so receding ice shelves and glaciers makes sense in that regard do they not?
no there are not 'cyclic things' in nature.. nature itself is cyclic. the seasons, the water cycle, the ocean currents... all nature has been going about her thing longer than mankind has been in existence... mankinds very being is cyclic. its the way it was, the way it is and the way it will continue to be.
i dont doubt humans have a level of complicity in the warming of the planet.. my question has always been to what degree.
hear my name
take a good look
this could be the day
hold my hand
lie beside me
i just need to say
I asked the question here with no real bias, side, or even a pre-conceived opinion. I am asking as someone who wants to know more about this to make a decent judgement, and for the record, I've never been a fan of "mainstream" news outlets since they've given up on reporting the news with integrity. These are common sense questions to me, I didn't need them to be spoonfed to me by Bill O'Reilly or Rachel Maddow. The concept of greenhouse gasses, holes in the ozone layer has been taught to us throughout school here since first grade. I am prepared to discuss the science, and science has taught me that to make any real conclusions, I need a decent and accurate sample set.
sorry - you were the first post i responded to today and the beginning of my post was answering your questions ... the latter was to address the continued posting of the same talking points we hear in all these threads ... it wasn't meant for you personally, which is why i wrote "you folks" ...
in any case - there are a plethora of scientific journals that will address your need for statistical significance ...
but the ice cube melts because the surrounding air is warmer than the ice cube, no? so receding ice shelves and glaciers makes sense in that regard do they not?
no there are not 'cyclic things' in nature.. nature itself is cyclic. the seasons, the water cycle, the ocean currents... all nature has been going about her thing longer than mankind has been in existence... mankinds very being is cyclic. its the way it was, the way it is and the way it will continue to be.
i dont doubt humans have a level of complicity in the warming of the planet.. my question has always been to what degree.
then let me ask you this ... do you think cancer is part of some cyclical thing in nature!? ... and that because the planet has been here far longer than man that it is just part of some natural cycle?
as for the degree ... again, it can simply be answered by studying the greenhouse effect ... and whether you choose to believe in it or not ... obviously, the degree to which it influences can be debated but the consensus is that the primary cause of global warming are man-made ...
why don't you just post the original link you copy and pasted the text from? ... this would make it easier as the body of your text doesn't say a whole lot ... and the graph you posted just shows the earth is warming ... the revised link you sent shows grid temperature data for around the world and doesn't in any way support your theory ...
okay ... nevermind ... i googled it and found where you copied it from ... i will take a look and respond ...
okay ... i read the post from jackdog on that forum and he's using rate of change from land-ocean temperature and trying to correlate it to CO2 in hawaii ... a place in the middle of the pacific ... unfortunately, he is also copying and pasting from someone's blog and there needs to be more details ...
but it should be noted that increase in CO2 emissions take way longer than 6 months to realize a change in temperature ...
Has the IPCC has not determined the impact of solar activity? which is the heat source of the warming.
If so, how is it tested/compared to previoius time periods?
The AR4 does not explain why atmospheric CO2 increase lags temperature increase, when in fact, the whole idea of anthropogenic global warming is based on GHG (mainly CO2) as being the catalyst of the warming.
Also the AR4 speaks in terms of "likely" and "very likely" which are not facts/scientific.
where did you copy this from?
the IPCC has addressed solar activity ... prior to 2007 they actually had the influence of solar activity at about 40% but revised it to 20% in 2007 ...
also, it should be noted that solar activity has decreased over the past decade despite our record temperatures ...
0
brianlux
Moving through All Kinds of Terrain. Posts: 42,435
For those of you who really want to understand climate change, I urge you to read through the many scientific posts on this site:
This is not a place to go for a quick glance at climate science. It will require a good deal of reading and some of it will seem rather technical-- but climate science is, after all, a science, and you generally will not get the truth about climate change by reading major media blips about weather and climate. Spend some time at realclimate and I think you will likely see that climate change is both real and-- for the most part at this time in history-- anthropogenic.
"Pretty cookies, heart squares all around, yeah!" -Eddie Vedder, "Smile"
but the ice cube melts because the surrounding air is warmer than the ice cube, no? so receding ice shelves and glaciers makes sense in that regard do they not?
no there are not 'cyclic things' in nature.. nature itself is cyclic. the seasons, the water cycle, the ocean currents... all nature has been going about her thing longer than mankind has been in existence... mankinds very being is cyclic. its the way it was, the way it is and the way it will continue to be.
i dont doubt humans have a level of complicity in the warming of the planet.. my question has always been to what degree.
then let me ask you this ... do you think cancer is part of some cyclical thing in nature!? ... and that because the planet has been here far longer than man that it is just part of some natural cycle?
as for the degree ... again, it can simply be answered by studying the greenhouse effect ... and whether you choose to believe in it or not ... obviously, the degree to which it influences can be debated but the consensus is that the primary cause of global warming are man-made ...
of course cancer is a part of nature and it does have its own cycle. the fact that it destroys living organisms doesnt make it anyless a part of nature. there are many destructive elements within nature.. disease is one of them.
hear my name
take a good look
this could be the day
hold my hand
lie beside me
i just need to say
of course cancer is a part of nature and it does have its own cycle. the fact that it destroys living organisms doesnt make it anyless a part of nature. there are many destructive elements within nature.. disease is one of them.
ok great ... so ... knowing that cancer has probably existed since the dawn of the human race ... do you not think that increasing rates of cancer are related to the toxins we've put into our food, water and air? ... not to mention cigarettes we smoke or anything else?
0
brianlux
Moving through All Kinds of Terrain. Posts: 42,435
of course cancer is a part of nature and it does have its own cycle. the fact that it destroys living organisms doesnt make it anyless a part of nature. there are many destructive elements within nature.. disease is one of them.
ok great ... so ... knowing that cancer has probably existed since the dawn of the human race ... do you not think that increasing rates of cancer are related to the toxins we've put into our food, water and air? ... not to mention cigarettes we smoke or anything else?
So true. Human produced toxins and activity have been the cause of increased disease of all sorts as well as the acceleration of climate change. But as a species, we're generally too arrogant to admit this, or find it too inconvenient to our lifestyle to do so because that involves doing something different. Kurt Vonnegut once said, "we could have saved the world as we knew it but we were too damn cheap," meaning it is just too easy to keep doing things that don't work and change to ways that do.
"Pretty cookies, heart squares all around, yeah!" -Eddie Vedder, "Smile"
Warmist Cargo Cult Science Returns
By Timothy Birdnow
Michael Mann, Pennsylvania State University climate Svengali, a member of the CRU (he figured prominently in the e-mail scandals at East Anglia), and great Pittsburgh Penguins fan (he created the famed "hockey stick graph" that was so influential on the 2007 IPCC Climate Change report) has stepped in it again, this time co-authoring a new study (Kemp et. al) that claims to show a massive acceleration in sea level rise in North Carolina that coincides with the industrial era.
This study claims to reconstruct 2,000 years of sea levels. (It actually extrapolates from a study of shallow salt marshes with an historical reconstruction going back 300 years and based on the prevalence of foraminifera fossils to reconstruct the past sea levels. These reside in the very shallow, sandy pools and die in deeper waters, so theoretically we can see where sea levels were in the past.) They used tide gauge data to calibrate. By observing agreement between direct observations and this proxy reconstruction they can estimate the rate of rise and extrapolate into the past. Or so they claim.
They were exhaustive in their methodology; choosing a whopping two points (Sand Point and Tump Point) to study the fossils and calibrating from data from two other points (Wilmington and Hampton Roads). Their conclusion? Sea level rise has accelerated, and this "correlates" to the industrial era.
According to the abstract:
Sea level was stable from at least BC 100 until AD 950. Sea level then increased for 400 y at a rate of 0.6 mm/y, followed by a further period of stable, or slightly falling, sea level that persisted until the late 19th century. Since then, sea level has risen at an average rate of 2.1 mm/y, representing the steepest century-scale increase of the past two millennia. This rate was initiated between AD 1865 and 1892.
Louisiana comes to mind.
Louisiana has lost considerable coastal marshland as a result of human intervention. Flood control dams and levees prevent swollen rivers from picking up silt, and dredging to keep the coastal waterways open move the silt from its natural place, leading to erosion of the coastal shallows. According to this Tulane.edu paper:
The main forms of human disturbance are the river-control structures such as dams and levees, the dredging of canals, and draining and filling.
[...]
A large part of the sediment gathered by existing marshes is accumulated during seasonal flooding. Flood overtopping and overbank sedimentation, both vital to the survival of existing marshes, were dramatically reduced as large areas ceased to be flooded. River water also helped to reduce marsh salinity and provide nutrients, and its loss has resulted in the breakup and dispersal of large amounts of nutrient-starved marshlands.
And without the extra silt brought from floodwaters, the shallows are subject to erosion and breakup. This would clearly warp the fossil record, but would also warp the tidal gauge record as well; the sea would appear to be rising when in fact the land is sinking, being washed away.
Writing in Wattsupwiththat, Willis Eschenbach provides us with a map of the North Carolina sites from 1733 juxtaposed with a satellite photo from 1990. Notice the radical difference between the two.
Clearly, erosion is a problem here, yet the authors of the paper fail to give it any credence. Of course the fossil record will show sea level rise!
As to the "correlation" between the industrial era and this increase in rise rate, well, the rate increase appears to begin around 1880, well before the rise in industrial emissions. It would not be before increases in land-use change that would contribute to erosion.
The only plus in this work is that Mann signs off on the Medieval Warming Period and Little Ice Age -- something he steadfastly refused to do while defending his "hockey stick graph." This paper admits that both occurred, and the authors should have realized that this also explains why there was sea-level rise increase during the 19th century, but it seems to go over their heads.
Of course, older tide gauge data is likely to be poor, too, and the older data is suspect.
And it's not even consistent with itself. According to Willis Eschenbach:
The first conclusion is that as is not uncommon with sea level records, nearby tide gauges give very different changes in sea level. In this case, the Wilmington rise is 2.0 mm per year, while the Hampton Roads rise is more than twice that, 4.5 mm per year. In addition, the much shorter satellite records show only half a mm per year average rise for the last twenty years.
So they have taken two, count them, two records and averaged them!
This also contradicts all other studies that show a far lower sea-level rise.
This is in no way, shape, or form science; it is advocacy in costume. It's a play with sets, props, actors pretending to be a work of science. There was a predetermined outcome, the sites of study were chosen with that outcome in mind, and the authors issued a big, glossy press release before the publication of the paper in order to make a splash with the salivating dogs of the mainstream media. They knew this would be analyzed to death, but wanted it to get before the public first. Likely the public would hear that, yes, sea levels are rising faster and would get little of the rebuttal.
Despite this, people like Mann continue their climatological malpractice, and are even accorded respect. Such shoddy workmanship in any other field would put the principal into another line of work.
But not in climatology; being a charlatan hack seems to be de rigueur.
During the Second World War Allied airfields brought wonderful treasures to New Guinea, and when the war ended the natives, believing the airplanes were from the gods, built their own airports, hoping to use sympathetic magic to bring back the planes and their wondrous treasures. Richard Feynman coined the phrase "cargo cult science" to illustrate a form of pseudo-science, something that looked like science but was not -- like the "airports" of the islanders.
"The really important thing is not to live, but to live well. And to live well meant, along with more enjoyable things in life, to live according to your principles."
— Socrates
of course cancer is a part of nature and it does have its own cycle. the fact that it destroys living organisms doesnt make it anyless a part of nature. there are many destructive elements within nature.. disease is one of them.
ok great ... so ... knowing that cancer has probably existed since the dawn of the human race ... do you not think that increasing rates of cancer are related to the toxins we've put into our food, water and air? ... not to mention cigarettes we smoke or anything else?
yes. however increased incidents of cancer doesnt mean we brought it into being. people were dying from cancer since before it was given that name. weve just accelerated it through foolhardy actions, thats all. dont forget even the life giving sun gives us cancer. our existence is a double edged sword that we as a species seem not to have learnt to wield without our actions having some detrimental effect on us and the planet. whether it will end up killing us all is open for discussion.
hear my name
take a good look
this could be the day
hold my hand
lie beside me
i just need to say
0
brianlux
Moving through All Kinds of Terrain. Posts: 42,435
Looks like we have some die-hard climate change denialists here. For those of you who still believe climate change/global warming is a scam I'll suggest, yet again, that you will find far better information on the subject from organizations like realclimate.org (http://www.realclimate.org/) and 350.org. (http://www.350.org/) than you will from major media sources. The information found on these sites requires intelligent reading and is neither glamorous, pretentious nor popular. No smoke and mirrors-- just sensible, well studied, intelligent, scientific research. Be smart, be well informed.
"Pretty cookies, heart squares all around, yeah!" -Eddie Vedder, "Smile"
interesting.......
honest science? conflict of interest? or flat out bought and paid off by climate change opponents??? either way this is pretty fishy...
Climate sceptic Willie Soon received $1m from oil companies, papers show
Documents obtained by Greenpeace show prominent opponent of climate change was funded by ExxonMobil, among others
One of the world's most prominent scientific figures to be sceptical about climate change has admitted to being paid more than $1m in the past decade by major US oil and coal companies.
Dr Willie Soon, an astrophysicist at the Solar, Stellar and Planetary Sciences Division of the Harvard-Smithsonian Centre for Astrophysics, is known for his view that global warming and the melting of the arctic sea ice is caused by solar variation rather than human-caused CO2 emissions, and that polar bears are not primarily threatened by climate change.
But according to a Greenpeace US investigation, he has been heavily funded by coal and oil industry interests since 2001, receiving money from ExxonMobil, the American Petroleum Insitute and Koch Industries along with Southern, one of the world's largest coal-burning utility companies. Since 2002, it is alleged, every new grant he has received has been from either oil or coal interests.
In addition, freedom of information documents suggest that Soon corresponded in 2003 with other prominent climate sceptics to try to weaken a major assessment of global warming being conducted by the UN's leading climate science body, the Nobel prize-winning Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change.
Soon, who had previously disclosed corporate funding he received in the 1990s, was today reportely unapologetic, telling Reuters that he agreed that he had received money from all of the groups and companies named in the report but denied that any group would have influenced his studies.
"I have never been motivated by financial reward in any of my scientific research," he said. "I would have accepted money from Greenpeace if they had offered it to do my research." He did not respond to a request from the Guardian to comment.
Documents provided to Greenpeace by the Smithsonian under the US Freedom of Information Act (FoIA) show that the Charles G Koch Foundation, a leading provider of funds for climate sceptic groups, gave Soon two grants totalling $175,000 (then roughly £102,000) in 2005/6 and again in 2010. In addition the American Petroleum insitute (API), which represents the US petroleum and natural gas industries, gave him multiple grants between 2001 and 2007 totalling $274,000, oil company Exxon Mobil provided $335,000 between 2005 and 2010, and Soon received other grants from coal and oil industry sources including the Mobil Foundation, the Texaco Foundation and the Electric Power Research Institute.
As one of very few scientists to publish in peer-reviewed literature denying climate change, Soon is widely regarded as one of the leading sceptical voices. His scientific position and the vehemence of his views has made him a central figure in a heated political debate that has informed the US right wing and helped to undermine public trust in the science of global warming and UN negotiations.
"A campaign of climate change denial has been waged for over 20 years by big oil and big coal," said Kert Davies, a research director at Greenpeace US. "Scientists like Dr Soon, who take fossil fuel money and pretend to be independent scientists, are pawns."
Soon has strongly argued that the 20th century was not a uniquely extreme climatic period. His most famous work challenged the "hockey stick" graph of temperature records published by Michael Mann, which showed a relatively sharp rise in temperatures during the second half of the 20th century. A paper published with Sallie Baliunas in 2003 in the journal Climate Research which attacked the hockey stick on flimsy evidence led to a group of leading climate scientists including Mann deciding to boycott the journal. In a letter to the Guardian in February 2004, Soon wrote that the authors had been open about their sources of funding. "All sources of funding for our research were fully disclosed in our manuscript. Most of our funding came from federal agencies, including the Air Force Office of Scientific Research and Nasa," he wrote.
He has also questioned the health risks of mercury emissions from coal and in 2007 co-wrote a paper that down-played the idea that polar bears are threatened by human-caused climate change
The investigation is likely to embarrass Exxon, the world's largest oil company, which for many years funded climate sceptics but in 2008 declared it would cut funds to lobby groups that "divert attention" from the need to find new sources of clean energy. According to the documents, Exxon provided $55,000 for Soon to study Arctic climate change in 2007 and 2008, and another $76,106 for research into solar variability between 2008 and 2010.
Exxon spokesman Alan Jeffers said this week the company did not fund Soon last year, and that it funds hundreds of organisations to do research on climate and the environment.
Southern gave Soon $120,000 starting in 2008 to study the Sun's relation to climate change, according to the FIA documents. Spokeswoman Stephanie Kirijan said the company has spent about $500m on funding environmental research and development ,and that it did not fund Soon last year.
In one 2003 email released to Greenpeace, that Soon sent, it is believed, to four other leading sceptics, he writes: "Clearly [the fourth assessment report] chapters may be too much for any one of us to tackle them all ... But as a team, we may give it our best shot to try to anticipate and counter some of the chapters ..." He adds: "I hope we can ... see what we can do to weaken the fourth assessment report."
In 2003 Soon said at a US senate hearing that he had "not knowingly been hired by, nor employed by, nor received grants from any organisation that had taken advocacy positions with respect to the Kyoto protocol or the UN Framework Convention on Climate Change."
"You can tell the greatness of a man by what makes him angry." - Lincoln
I watched 60 minuits last night about this stuff....very interesting, America is the 3rd largest pollution contributer on the planet with china being at the top and are # 3 because of one company "DUKE ENERGYS"
who burn 100 train loads a day..that 100 loads (coal trailers) per day !!! anyway it was good show if any of you all saw it.
yes. however increased incidents of cancer doesnt mean we brought it into being. people were dying from cancer since before it was given that name. weve just accelerated it through foolhardy actions, thats all. dont forget even the life giving sun gives us cancer. our existence is a double edged sword that we as a species seem not to have learnt to wield without our actions having some detrimental effect on us and the planet. whether it will end up killing us all is open for discussion.
no one is saying flooding or droughts only existed because of global warming ... all we have done is increased it's likelihood of happening similar to my analogy with cancer ... like you said "accelerated it through foolhardy actions" ...
Looks like we have some die-hard climate change denialists here. For those of you who still believe climate change/global warming is a scam I'll suggest, yet again, that you will find far better information on the subject from organizations like realclimate.org (http://www.realclimate.org/) and 350.org. (http://www.350.org/) than you will from major media sources. The information found on these sites requires intelligent reading and is neither glamorous, pretentious nor popular. No smoke and mirrors-- just sensible, well studied, intelligent, scientific research. Be smart, be well informed.
dude ... they aren't going to read those websites ... all these sceptics do is copy and paste articles from their right wing websites that feed into an ideology that has become partisan ...
i can almost guarantee you that if the democrats started saying climate change was a fraud ... within 2 decades the republicans would say it wasn't ...
i've begged people here to go and read up on it instead of just regurgitating the same talking points they are being fed ... all it takes is a few minutes to learn about the greenhouse effect but they refuse ...
I wont post both in whole just a paragraph or 7
(from first part)
The average citizen is all too likely to conclude that if Mr. Gore can keep his lifestyle, the average American family can keep its SUV and incandescent bulbs. If Gore can take a charter flight, I don’t have to take the bus. If Gore can have many mansions, I can use the old fashioned kind of shower heads that actually clean and toilets that actually flush. Al Gore looks to the average American the way American greens look to poor people in the third world: hypocritically demanding that others accept permanently lower standards of living than those the activists propose for themselves.
(from second part)
They want to talk about science, not history, policy and the realities of international life. The science, they say, is “settled.” (Never mind that far better researched subjects, like human nutrition, are far from settled and that we are still watching governments build and deconstruct food pyramids as the “settled” scientific consensus continues to change.) Don’t tell me my solution is stupid, say the greens — the problem is real!
Mssrs. Kellog and Briand could have said the same thing: how can you be against our treaty campaign? Don’t you understand that War Is Bad? Are you some kind of war-denialist?
Mr. Gore’s work up to and including his latest Rolling Stone essay has taken a demagogic rather than intellectual approach. His method of arguing is to trumpet the science of climate change and to make ad hominem arguments against its opponents. The science is clear, it is settled, and the opposition against it is funded by people with an economic stake in denial. I am right about the science and my opponents are a bunch of evil opportunists in it only for the money.
That is Mr. Gore’s position, and it is his entire position. He says nothing about the feasibility of the proposed GGCT or its cost effectiveness. That, presumably, we must take on faith. There is nothing to discuss about policy. It is essentially the cry of Chicken Little: “The sky is falling and we must run and tell the king.”
There are a great many scientists and scientific journals who agree with Mr. Gore about climate change. Perhaps they are all frauds and mountebanks — but that is a tough case to make in the court of public opinion. Once the argument moves to science it goes into complex and tricky terrain from which the broad lay public will draw only uncertain conclusions. Gore does not win the scientific argument as decisively as he would like — but his opponents cannot deliver a political death blow there, either. The lay public perceives angry experts and dueling theories with a large but not totally convincing preponderance of evidence on Gore’s side.
To argue with these people about science is to miss the core point. Even if the science is exactly as Mr. Gore claims, his policies are still useless. His advocacy is still a distraction. The movement he heads is still a ship of fools.
"The really important thing is not to live, but to live well. And to live well meant, along with more enjoyable things in life, to live according to your principles."
— Socrates
... it's like clockwork ... it's kinda unbelievable tho ... you criticize a group of people for not being able to think critically and for just reposting/regurgitating op-eds from right wing websites and what do you get!?? ... more of it! ...
i do like how the above author doesn't want to get into the science ... which is pretty much all the skeptics on here ... is it because it's complex!? ... i suspect it's because it isn't the story they want to hear ...
as "settled" as the earth centric model of the universe and the coming ice age of the 60s and 70s
"The really important thing is not to live, but to live well. And to live well meant, along with more enjoyable things in life, to live according to your principles."
— Socrates
So this all comes down to what you personally will 'lose'?
Interesting example here of how the Conservative mind works. I rest my case.
:shock: where the heck did that come from Byrnzie ?,,are you looking to argue with me about my belief in God ?
don't drink too much of yer own kool-aid buddy.
:shock: where the heck did that come from Byrnzie ?,,are you looking to argue with me about my belief in God ? don't drink too much of yer own kool-aid buddy.
Godfather.
i think he's just reiterating the fact conservatives think foremost about themselves while liberals think of the collective ...
but to answer your question - what have you lost!? ... i suspect up until this point not a whole lot personally but if you have kids and they have kids ... you would have been part of a generation that has left the planet significantly worse off than when you arrived ... you will be part of the problem (like we all are) that has caused mass suffering in many parts of the world and continues to do so ... you will be part of an increasing resource problem ... as we all are ... the biggest difference tho is that you are not likely to be part of the solution ...
:shock: where the heck did that come from Byrnzie ?,,are you looking to argue with me about my belief in God ? don't drink too much of yer own kool-aid buddy.
Godfather.
i think he's just reiterating the fact conservatives think foremost about themselves while liberals think of the collective ...
but to answer your question - what have you lost!? ... i suspect up until this point not a whole lot personally but if you have kids and they have kids ... you would have been part of a generation that has left the planet significantly worse off than when you arrived ... you will be part of the problem (like we all are) that has caused mass suffering in many parts of the world and continues to do so ... you will be part of an increasing resource problem ... as we all are ... the biggest difference tho is that you are not likely to be part of the solution ...
all that because I believe in God ?? and why the negitive thoughts and predictions of children you don't know ?
and ...serious question..who here on the train is part of the solution ? because I or some other don't tend to share the ideas of others we are not part of the solution ?...what solution and whos idea is the right one ? maybe I misunderstood your post and I apoligize if this is the case.
all that because I believe in God ?? and why the negitive thoughts and predictions of children you don't know ? and ...serious question..who here on the train is part of the solution ? because I or some other don't tend to share the ideas of others we are not part of the solution ?...what solution and whos idea is the right one ? maybe I misunderstood your post and I apoligize if this is the case.
Godfather.
uhhh ... again, i am only speculating ... but it has NOTHING to do with your belief in god ... your question is "if i am wrong, what have i lost?" indicates that your only concern is yourself ... that is what he is highlighting in terms of a conservative viewpoint ... it's in line with how conservatives prefer less taxes and less social programs because they think of themselves more than the collective ...
and my comment about the children isn't specific to yours ... it's all future generations ... if we continue to abuse the planet now unnecessarily, we are leaving it worse off than when we got it ...
the primary part of being part of a solution is to actually acknowledge it exists ... it's possible that you are the greenest person on this board ... but i will go out on a limb and say probably not ...
the biggest difference tho is that you are not likely to be part of the solution ...
I think this is an unfair statement...I for one am not totally convinced...but myself I have energy efficient appliances, energy efficient furnace, A/C, hardly ever run the A/C, energy efficient light bulbs, only drive when necessary, drive a fuel efficient car, maintain my vehicles, don't buy bottled water, buy energy star products and much more.
Now I don't have a problem with plastic bags, there is process that allows these bags to be biodegradable...because I believe at 1 time they were made here...now those reusable bags are shipped from china.
I agree everybody has to be part of the solution...everybody has to do their bit...
it also starts with education...I work in a school...you know who the best recyclers are, the ones who always turn off their lights...the older teachers...the worst is the younger teachers...the kids have grown up with recycling...the bins are everywhere...yet the amount of plastic and paper that ends up in the garbage is amazing.
I have certain rules I live by ... My First Rule ... I don't believe anything the government tells me ... George Carlin
"Life Is What Happens To You When Your Busy Making Other Plans" John Lennon
I think this is an unfair statement...I for one am not totally convinced...but myself I have energy efficient appliances, energy efficient furnace, A/C, hardly ever run the A/C, energy efficient light bulbs, only drive when necessary, drive a fuel efficient car, maintain my vehicles, don't buy bottled water, buy energy star products and much more.
Now I don't have a problem with plastic bags, there is process that allows these bags to be biodegradable...because I believe at 1 time they were made here...now those reusable bags are shipped from china.
I agree everybody has to be part of the solution...everybody has to do their bit...
it also starts with education...I work in a school...you know who the best recyclers are, the ones who always turn off their lights...the older teachers...the worst is the younger teachers...the kids have grown up with recycling...the bins are everywhere...yet the amount of plastic and paper that ends up in the garbage is amazing.
well ... i said not likely part of the solution ... i would say that you are not the norm in this regard ...
how much of your motivation to do the things you do is planet and how much is related to saving money?
plastic bags don't biodegrade in landfills ... most things don't in landfills ...
Comments
I asked the question here with no real bias, side, or even a pre-conceived opinion. I am asking as someone who wants to know more about this to make a decent judgement, and for the record, I've never been a fan of "mainstream" news outlets since they've given up on reporting the news with integrity. These are common sense questions to me, I didn't need them to be spoonfed to me by Bill O'Reilly or Rachel Maddow. The concept of greenhouse gasses, holes in the ozone layer has been taught to us throughout school here since first grade. I am prepared to discuss the science, and science has taught me that to make any real conclusions, I need a decent and accurate sample set.
but the ice cube melts because the surrounding air is warmer than the ice cube, no? so receding ice shelves and glaciers makes sense in that regard do they not?
no there are not 'cyclic things' in nature.. nature itself is cyclic. the seasons, the water cycle, the ocean currents... all nature has been going about her thing longer than mankind has been in existence... mankinds very being is cyclic. its the way it was, the way it is and the way it will continue to be.
i dont doubt humans have a level of complicity in the warming of the planet.. my question has always been to what degree.
take a good look
this could be the day
hold my hand
lie beside me
i just need to say
sorry - you were the first post i responded to today and the beginning of my post was answering your questions ... the latter was to address the continued posting of the same talking points we hear in all these threads ... it wasn't meant for you personally, which is why i wrote "you folks" ...
in any case - there are a plethora of scientific journals that will address your need for statistical significance ...
then let me ask you this ... do you think cancer is part of some cyclical thing in nature!? ... and that because the planet has been here far longer than man that it is just part of some natural cycle?
as for the degree ... again, it can simply be answered by studying the greenhouse effect ... and whether you choose to believe in it or not ... obviously, the degree to which it influences can be debated but the consensus is that the primary cause of global warming are man-made ...
okay ... i read the post from jackdog on that forum and he's using rate of change from land-ocean temperature and trying to correlate it to CO2 in hawaii ... a place in the middle of the pacific ... unfortunately, he is also copying and pasting from someone's blog and there needs to be more details ...
but it should be noted that increase in CO2 emissions take way longer than 6 months to realize a change in temperature ...
where did you copy this from?
the IPCC has addressed solar activity ... prior to 2007 they actually had the influence of solar activity at about 40% but revised it to 20% in 2007 ...
also, it should be noted that solar activity has decreased over the past decade despite our record temperatures ...
http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/ar ... tart-here/
This is not a place to go for a quick glance at climate science. It will require a good deal of reading and some of it will seem rather technical-- but climate science is, after all, a science, and you generally will not get the truth about climate change by reading major media blips about weather and climate. Spend some time at realclimate and I think you will likely see that climate change is both real and-- for the most part at this time in history-- anthropogenic.
-Eddie Vedder, "Smile"
of course cancer is a part of nature and it does have its own cycle. the fact that it destroys living organisms doesnt make it anyless a part of nature. there are many destructive elements within nature.. disease is one of them.
take a good look
this could be the day
hold my hand
lie beside me
i just need to say
ok great ... so ... knowing that cancer has probably existed since the dawn of the human race ... do you not think that increasing rates of cancer are related to the toxins we've put into our food, water and air? ... not to mention cigarettes we smoke or anything else?
So true. Human produced toxins and activity have been the cause of increased disease of all sorts as well as the acceleration of climate change. But as a species, we're generally too arrogant to admit this, or find it too inconvenient to our lifestyle to do so because that involves doing something different. Kurt Vonnegut once said, "we could have saved the world as we knew it but we were too damn cheap," meaning it is just too easy to keep doing things that don't work and change to ways that do.
-Eddie Vedder, "Smile"
By Timothy Birdnow
Michael Mann, Pennsylvania State University climate Svengali, a member of the CRU (he figured prominently in the e-mail scandals at East Anglia), and great Pittsburgh Penguins fan (he created the famed "hockey stick graph" that was so influential on the 2007 IPCC Climate Change report) has stepped in it again, this time co-authoring a new study (Kemp et. al) that claims to show a massive acceleration in sea level rise in North Carolina that coincides with the industrial era.
This study claims to reconstruct 2,000 years of sea levels. (It actually extrapolates from a study of shallow salt marshes with an historical reconstruction going back 300 years and based on the prevalence of foraminifera fossils to reconstruct the past sea levels. These reside in the very shallow, sandy pools and die in deeper waters, so theoretically we can see where sea levels were in the past.) They used tide gauge data to calibrate. By observing agreement between direct observations and this proxy reconstruction they can estimate the rate of rise and extrapolate into the past. Or so they claim.
They were exhaustive in their methodology; choosing a whopping two points (Sand Point and Tump Point) to study the fossils and calibrating from data from two other points (Wilmington and Hampton Roads). Their conclusion? Sea level rise has accelerated, and this "correlates" to the industrial era.
According to the abstract:
Sea level was stable from at least BC 100 until AD 950. Sea level then increased for 400 y at a rate of 0.6 mm/y, followed by a further period of stable, or slightly falling, sea level that persisted until the late 19th century. Since then, sea level has risen at an average rate of 2.1 mm/y, representing the steepest century-scale increase of the past two millennia. This rate was initiated between AD 1865 and 1892.
Louisiana comes to mind.
Louisiana has lost considerable coastal marshland as a result of human intervention. Flood control dams and levees prevent swollen rivers from picking up silt, and dredging to keep the coastal waterways open move the silt from its natural place, leading to erosion of the coastal shallows. According to this Tulane.edu paper:
The main forms of human disturbance are the river-control structures such as dams and levees, the dredging of canals, and draining and filling.
[...]
A large part of the sediment gathered by existing marshes is accumulated during seasonal flooding. Flood overtopping and overbank sedimentation, both vital to the survival of existing marshes, were dramatically reduced as large areas ceased to be flooded. River water also helped to reduce marsh salinity and provide nutrients, and its loss has resulted in the breakup and dispersal of large amounts of nutrient-starved marshlands.
And without the extra silt brought from floodwaters, the shallows are subject to erosion and breakup. This would clearly warp the fossil record, but would also warp the tidal gauge record as well; the sea would appear to be rising when in fact the land is sinking, being washed away.
Writing in Wattsupwiththat, Willis Eschenbach provides us with a map of the North Carolina sites from 1733 juxtaposed with a satellite photo from 1990. Notice the radical difference between the two.
Clearly, erosion is a problem here, yet the authors of the paper fail to give it any credence. Of course the fossil record will show sea level rise!
As to the "correlation" between the industrial era and this increase in rise rate, well, the rate increase appears to begin around 1880, well before the rise in industrial emissions. It would not be before increases in land-use change that would contribute to erosion.
The only plus in this work is that Mann signs off on the Medieval Warming Period and Little Ice Age -- something he steadfastly refused to do while defending his "hockey stick graph." This paper admits that both occurred, and the authors should have realized that this also explains why there was sea-level rise increase during the 19th century, but it seems to go over their heads.
Of course, older tide gauge data is likely to be poor, too, and the older data is suspect.
And it's not even consistent with itself. According to Willis Eschenbach:
The first conclusion is that as is not uncommon with sea level records, nearby tide gauges give very different changes in sea level. In this case, the Wilmington rise is 2.0 mm per year, while the Hampton Roads rise is more than twice that, 4.5 mm per year. In addition, the much shorter satellite records show only half a mm per year average rise for the last twenty years.
So they have taken two, count them, two records and averaged them!
This also contradicts all other studies that show a far lower sea-level rise.
This is in no way, shape, or form science; it is advocacy in costume. It's a play with sets, props, actors pretending to be a work of science. There was a predetermined outcome, the sites of study were chosen with that outcome in mind, and the authors issued a big, glossy press release before the publication of the paper in order to make a splash with the salivating dogs of the mainstream media. They knew this would be analyzed to death, but wanted it to get before the public first. Likely the public would hear that, yes, sea levels are rising faster and would get little of the rebuttal.
Despite this, people like Mann continue their climatological malpractice, and are even accorded respect. Such shoddy workmanship in any other field would put the principal into another line of work.
But not in climatology; being a charlatan hack seems to be de rigueur.
During the Second World War Allied airfields brought wonderful treasures to New Guinea, and when the war ended the natives, believing the airplanes were from the gods, built their own airports, hoping to use sympathetic magic to bring back the planes and their wondrous treasures. Richard Feynman coined the phrase "cargo cult science" to illustrate a form of pseudo-science, something that looked like science but was not -- like the "airports" of the islanders.
This is cargo cult science at its most onerous.
http://www.americanthinker.com/2011/06/ ... turns.html
— Socrates
Al Gore can suck it.
yes. however increased incidents of cancer doesnt mean we brought it into being. people were dying from cancer since before it was given that name. weve just accelerated it through foolhardy actions, thats all. dont forget even the life giving sun gives us cancer. our existence is a double edged sword that we as a species seem not to have learnt to wield without our actions having some detrimental effect on us and the planet. whether it will end up killing us all is open for discussion.
take a good look
this could be the day
hold my hand
lie beside me
i just need to say
-Eddie Vedder, "Smile"
honest science? conflict of interest? or flat out bought and paid off by climate change opponents??? either way this is pretty fishy...
Climate sceptic Willie Soon received $1m from oil companies, papers show
Documents obtained by Greenpeace show prominent opponent of climate change was funded by ExxonMobil, among others
http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2 ... illie-soon
One of the world's most prominent scientific figures to be sceptical about climate change has admitted to being paid more than $1m in the past decade by major US oil and coal companies.
Dr Willie Soon, an astrophysicist at the Solar, Stellar and Planetary Sciences Division of the Harvard-Smithsonian Centre for Astrophysics, is known for his view that global warming and the melting of the arctic sea ice is caused by solar variation rather than human-caused CO2 emissions, and that polar bears are not primarily threatened by climate change.
But according to a Greenpeace US investigation, he has been heavily funded by coal and oil industry interests since 2001, receiving money from ExxonMobil, the American Petroleum Insitute and Koch Industries along with Southern, one of the world's largest coal-burning utility companies. Since 2002, it is alleged, every new grant he has received has been from either oil or coal interests.
In addition, freedom of information documents suggest that Soon corresponded in 2003 with other prominent climate sceptics to try to weaken a major assessment of global warming being conducted by the UN's leading climate science body, the Nobel prize-winning Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change.
Soon, who had previously disclosed corporate funding he received in the 1990s, was today reportely unapologetic, telling Reuters that he agreed that he had received money from all of the groups and companies named in the report but denied that any group would have influenced his studies.
"I have never been motivated by financial reward in any of my scientific research," he said. "I would have accepted money from Greenpeace if they had offered it to do my research." He did not respond to a request from the Guardian to comment.
Documents provided to Greenpeace by the Smithsonian under the US Freedom of Information Act (FoIA) show that the Charles G Koch Foundation, a leading provider of funds for climate sceptic groups, gave Soon two grants totalling $175,000 (then roughly £102,000) in 2005/6 and again in 2010. In addition the American Petroleum insitute (API), which represents the US petroleum and natural gas industries, gave him multiple grants between 2001 and 2007 totalling $274,000, oil company Exxon Mobil provided $335,000 between 2005 and 2010, and Soon received other grants from coal and oil industry sources including the Mobil Foundation, the Texaco Foundation and the Electric Power Research Institute.
As one of very few scientists to publish in peer-reviewed literature denying climate change, Soon is widely regarded as one of the leading sceptical voices. His scientific position and the vehemence of his views has made him a central figure in a heated political debate that has informed the US right wing and helped to undermine public trust in the science of global warming and UN negotiations.
"A campaign of climate change denial has been waged for over 20 years by big oil and big coal," said Kert Davies, a research director at Greenpeace US. "Scientists like Dr Soon, who take fossil fuel money and pretend to be independent scientists, are pawns."
Soon has strongly argued that the 20th century was not a uniquely extreme climatic period. His most famous work challenged the "hockey stick" graph of temperature records published by Michael Mann, which showed a relatively sharp rise in temperatures during the second half of the 20th century. A paper published with Sallie Baliunas in 2003 in the journal Climate Research which attacked the hockey stick on flimsy evidence led to a group of leading climate scientists including Mann deciding to boycott the journal. In a letter to the Guardian in February 2004, Soon wrote that the authors had been open about their sources of funding. "All sources of funding for our research were fully disclosed in our manuscript. Most of our funding came from federal agencies, including the Air Force Office of Scientific Research and Nasa," he wrote.
He has also questioned the health risks of mercury emissions from coal and in 2007 co-wrote a paper that down-played the idea that polar bears are threatened by human-caused climate change
The investigation is likely to embarrass Exxon, the world's largest oil company, which for many years funded climate sceptics but in 2008 declared it would cut funds to lobby groups that "divert attention" from the need to find new sources of clean energy. According to the documents, Exxon provided $55,000 for Soon to study Arctic climate change in 2007 and 2008, and another $76,106 for research into solar variability between 2008 and 2010.
Exxon spokesman Alan Jeffers said this week the company did not fund Soon last year, and that it funds hundreds of organisations to do research on climate and the environment.
Southern gave Soon $120,000 starting in 2008 to study the Sun's relation to climate change, according to the FIA documents. Spokeswoman Stephanie Kirijan said the company has spent about $500m on funding environmental research and development ,and that it did not fund Soon last year.
In one 2003 email released to Greenpeace, that Soon sent, it is believed, to four other leading sceptics, he writes: "Clearly [the fourth assessment report] chapters may be too much for any one of us to tackle them all ... But as a team, we may give it our best shot to try to anticipate and counter some of the chapters ..." He adds: "I hope we can ... see what we can do to weaken the fourth assessment report."
In 2003 Soon said at a US senate hearing that he had "not knowingly been hired by, nor employed by, nor received grants from any organisation that had taken advocacy positions with respect to the Kyoto protocol or the UN Framework Convention on Climate Change."
"Well, you tell him that I don't talk to suckas."
who burn 100 train loads a day..that 100 loads (coal trailers) per day !!! anyway it was good show if any of you all saw it.
Godfather.
no one is saying flooding or droughts only existed because of global warming ... all we have done is increased it's likelihood of happening similar to my analogy with cancer ... like you said "accelerated it through foolhardy actions" ...
dude ... they aren't going to read those websites ... all these sceptics do is copy and paste articles from their right wing websites that feed into an ideology that has become partisan ...
i can almost guarantee you that if the democrats started saying climate change was a fraud ... within 2 decades the republicans would say it wasn't ...
i've begged people here to go and read up on it instead of just regurgitating the same talking points they are being fed ... all it takes is a few minutes to learn about the greenhouse effect but they refuse ...
http://blogs.the-american-interest.com/ ... -part-one/
http://blogs.the-american-interest.com/ ... part-deux/
I wont post both in whole just a paragraph or 7
(from first part)
The average citizen is all too likely to conclude that if Mr. Gore can keep his lifestyle, the average American family can keep its SUV and incandescent bulbs. If Gore can take a charter flight, I don’t have to take the bus. If Gore can have many mansions, I can use the old fashioned kind of shower heads that actually clean and toilets that actually flush. Al Gore looks to the average American the way American greens look to poor people in the third world: hypocritically demanding that others accept permanently lower standards of living than those the activists propose for themselves.
(from second part)
They want to talk about science, not history, policy and the realities of international life. The science, they say, is “settled.” (Never mind that far better researched subjects, like human nutrition, are far from settled and that we are still watching governments build and deconstruct food pyramids as the “settled” scientific consensus continues to change.) Don’t tell me my solution is stupid, say the greens — the problem is real!
Mssrs. Kellog and Briand could have said the same thing: how can you be against our treaty campaign? Don’t you understand that War Is Bad? Are you some kind of war-denialist?
Mr. Gore’s work up to and including his latest Rolling Stone essay has taken a demagogic rather than intellectual approach. His method of arguing is to trumpet the science of climate change and to make ad hominem arguments against its opponents. The science is clear, it is settled, and the opposition against it is funded by people with an economic stake in denial. I am right about the science and my opponents are a bunch of evil opportunists in it only for the money.
That is Mr. Gore’s position, and it is his entire position. He says nothing about the feasibility of the proposed GGCT or its cost effectiveness. That, presumably, we must take on faith. There is nothing to discuss about policy. It is essentially the cry of Chicken Little: “The sky is falling and we must run and tell the king.”
There are a great many scientists and scientific journals who agree with Mr. Gore about climate change. Perhaps they are all frauds and mountebanks — but that is a tough case to make in the court of public opinion. Once the argument moves to science it goes into complex and tricky terrain from which the broad lay public will draw only uncertain conclusions. Gore does not win the scientific argument as decisively as he would like — but his opponents cannot deliver a political death blow there, either. The lay public perceives angry experts and dueling theories with a large but not totally convincing preponderance of evidence on Gore’s side.
To argue with these people about science is to miss the core point. Even if the science is exactly as Mr. Gore claims, his policies are still useless. His advocacy is still a distraction. The movement he heads is still a ship of fools.
— Socrates
i do like how the above author doesn't want to get into the science ... which is pretty much all the skeptics on here ... is it because it's complex!? ... i suspect it's because it isn't the story they want to hear ...
— Socrates
So this all comes down to what you personally will 'lose'?
Interesting example here of how the Conservative mind works. I rest my case.
:shock: where the heck did that come from Byrnzie ?,,are you looking to argue with me about my belief in God ?
don't drink too much of yer own kool-aid buddy.
Godfather.
i think he's just reiterating the fact conservatives think foremost about themselves while liberals think of the collective ...
but to answer your question - what have you lost!? ... i suspect up until this point not a whole lot personally but if you have kids and they have kids ... you would have been part of a generation that has left the planet significantly worse off than when you arrived ... you will be part of the problem (like we all are) that has caused mass suffering in many parts of the world and continues to do so ... you will be part of an increasing resource problem ... as we all are ... the biggest difference tho is that you are not likely to be part of the solution ...
all that because I believe in God ?? and why the negitive thoughts and predictions of children you don't know ?
and ...serious question..who here on the train is part of the solution ? because I or some other don't tend to share the ideas of others we are not part of the solution ?...what solution and whos idea is the right one ? maybe I misunderstood your post and I apoligize if this is the case.
Godfather.
uhhh ... again, i am only speculating ... but it has NOTHING to do with your belief in god ... your question is "if i am wrong, what have i lost?" indicates that your only concern is yourself ... that is what he is highlighting in terms of a conservative viewpoint ... it's in line with how conservatives prefer less taxes and less social programs because they think of themselves more than the collective ...
and my comment about the children isn't specific to yours ... it's all future generations ... if we continue to abuse the planet now unnecessarily, we are leaving it worse off than when we got it ...
the primary part of being part of a solution is to actually acknowledge it exists ... it's possible that you are the greenest person on this board ... but i will go out on a limb and say probably not ...
I think this is an unfair statement...I for one am not totally convinced...but myself I have energy efficient appliances, energy efficient furnace, A/C, hardly ever run the A/C, energy efficient light bulbs, only drive when necessary, drive a fuel efficient car, maintain my vehicles, don't buy bottled water, buy energy star products and much more.
Now I don't have a problem with plastic bags, there is process that allows these bags to be biodegradable...because I believe at 1 time they were made here...now those reusable bags are shipped from china.
I agree everybody has to be part of the solution...everybody has to do their bit...
it also starts with education...I work in a school...you know who the best recyclers are, the ones who always turn off their lights...the older teachers...the worst is the younger teachers...the kids have grown up with recycling...the bins are everywhere...yet the amount of plastic and paper that ends up in the garbage is amazing.
"Life Is What Happens To You When Your Busy Making Other Plans" John Lennon
"Life Is What Happens To You When Your Busy Making Other Plans" John Lennon
well ... i said not likely part of the solution ... i would say that you are not the norm in this regard ...
how much of your motivation to do the things you do is planet and how much is related to saving money?
plastic bags don't biodegrade in landfills ... most things don't in landfills ...