PDA

View Full Version : A real discussion on Climate change



2MeterTroll
09-26-2009, 01:37 PM
this is the link and access to the full report: http://www.unep.org/Documents.Multilingual/Default.asp?DocumentID=596&ArticleID=6326&l=en

here is the link directly to the report in full: http://www.unep.org/compendium2009/

this is peer reviewed and i don't think after reading it that any one is currently playing games.

To me this says we are in deep dark doodoo and its time to have some real discussion.

many folks say "why put it up on this forum?". i'll tell you why; cause we are sailors and it is in our best interests to think about this. there are also a bunch of folks here who have lots of brains and experiance. setting aside the politics might give some answers and insight into this thing.

read it and please discuss without the usual right and left spins.

isla
09-26-2009, 02:36 PM
I think it would be very difficult to leave politics out of this issue, although it could be discussed on a non-partisan basis. The problems arise when governments try to implement change. It would take a great deal of political will to implement strategies to deal with climate change, and that's where your left-right arguments start. Anyway, I'm willing to try..discuss away and I'll comment where I feel qualified.

Andrew Craig-Bennett
09-26-2009, 03:38 PM
If our political forms do not allow proper action to be taken, we are doomed, so it may be best to consider changes to the forms of politics. It's that serious.

2MeterTroll
09-26-2009, 03:44 PM
I kinda figured that. However; i have some hope that the folks here will look at the data and at least Try to keep that part out of it for now.
Personally after reading this and going through as many of the base papers as i could. I feel like someone has curb stomped my head with caulk's.

In the back of my mind i guess i had always retained the hope that things would suddenly be OK. This data is pretty graphic that this is not in fact possible with out some kind of miracle.

Peerie Maa
09-26-2009, 03:50 PM
Yep, Too much vested interest, too much stifling information, too much political inertia, too complicated a problem, will be too little too late.

Bruce Hooke
09-26-2009, 04:04 PM
When it comes to climate change, as I see it there are really a few different discussions:

1. Is it real and is it really a problem? Looked at from a scientific perspective it really seems like this question has been pretty well settled although there are still people who try to debate it. This topic can be discussed without politics but it is not easy, especially since really digging into the details calls for a fairly high level of scientific knowledge.

2. Closely related to this is the question of just what the impacts of climate change will be. This again is in theory at least a scientific matter, but most people seem to have a very hard time keeping it in that realm, again probably in part because to really debate this on a scientific plane requires a much higher level of scientific knowledge and experience in the field than most of us posses. Debating it amongst non-scientists becomes a matter of people citing dueling studies and reports and it is very hard for anyone not trained in the field to figure out who is more likely to be correct.

3. Finally there is the question of what to do about climate change. How should the global community and smaller subsets of that community (right down to the individual level) respond? It seems to me this is almost inherently a political discussion since it very quickly gets into questions of what role governments (and other forms of collective "political" action) should play in the solution. Even if someone decided to hold the position that government should stay out of the problem (that is certainly not my view) this is still a political decision since it is a decision to explicitly exclude government.

PeterSibley
09-26-2009, 05:22 PM
this is the link and access to the full report: http://www.unep.org/Documents.Multilingual/Default.asp?DocumentID=596&ArticleID=6326&l=en

here is the link directly to the report in full: http://www.unep.org/compendium2009/

this is peer reviewed and i don't think after reading it that any one is currently playing games.

To me this says we are in deep dark doodoo and its time to have some real discussion.

many folks say "why put it up on this forum?". i'll tell you why; cause we are sailors and it is in our best interests to think about this. there are also a bunch of folks here who have lots of brains and experiance. setting aside the politics might give some answers and insight into this thing.

read it and please discuss without the usual right and left spins.

I suspect my tag line says it all ,"you're not going to learn what you don't want to know ".

An awareness that GW is real and a threat is life changing .It cannot be business as usual ,it requires change on a massive level and so far the right people haven't worked out how to make sufficient money from it .

Here in Australia we have some very ,very small steps forward but the parliamentary process being what it it has become a football .:(:mad:

In our case leaders on both sides are publicly well aware and commited to change , the results of bills suggest otherwise however .

2MeterTroll
09-26-2009, 06:05 PM
then the question becomes what damage control steps can be taken independent of the command structure.

how do folks deal with things that are heading down the pipe.

those things would fall into short term, mid term and long term.

short term IMO is to try and figure out just what is heading for us in our areas.

we are seeing a little bit of it as we see floods, islands being washed away, drought, and displaced animal populations. I also think that we are seeing human movements as well. currently they are a trickle but i would expect that the flood is on its way.
The paper at the beginning of this thread has a few ideas of what.

At this point continuing to try to slow it in our small way is good. we also need to be able to deal with it as it comes. (what ever IT is) I dont think reacting is going to do a whole lot of good.

PeterSibley
09-26-2009, 07:12 PM
Yeah , the reacting in Oz will be coal powered air con .Go figure .

We notice this kind of thing down here , the trouble is air con is the short term solution ,oh yeah , my state NSW exported 300 million tons of coal last year , I might have that number wrong , but there appears to be a small problem of differing interests .

PeterSibley
09-26-2009, 08:57 PM
Are we prepared to pay more for energy sources that do not effect the atmosphere negatively in the first place Milo ?

PeterSibley
09-26-2009, 09:43 PM
I'm personally quite happy to live at my grandparents level of energy consumption ,I'm also happy to pay double for my current consumption so that it can be sourced from ,for instance , the sun via one technology or another .

The technologies to very substantially reduce our CO2 emmissions already exist all that is needed is the will to implement them .

PeterSibley
09-26-2009, 09:55 PM
I don't think we are in disagreement .Reducing the additions is parmount ,if you can suggest other ideas as well ,fine .But stopping sh!tting in our nest would be an obvious first step ...........as I said it's technically possible right now .

As to 1990 levels , I think I mentioned my grandparents , that's 1930 levels .

PeterSibley
09-26-2009, 10:38 PM
You may well be right but doing additional strange things to our atmosphere or reflective foil etc seems to be something that is even less welcome than reducing CO2 .

Perhaps if the right people could make more money out reducing CO2 than they currently do from adding it ?

But then the general population would need to pay them for that service wouldn't we ?

Boston
09-26-2009, 11:09 PM
interesting thread guys
way to be a realistic bunch
refreshing if grim to see some folks taking the subject seriously

now for the depressing part
basically if anyone has read much on climate change there probably familiar with the term tipping point
as it is the most obvious tipping point will be ice melt
and at the moment about 99% of all glassiers are melting
fast
be that as it may what does all that melting ice do
it floods the marine system with fresh water
that water has a vastly differing density
which screws up the oceanic circulatory system of currents

in the last two major extinction events this failure of the vertical currents and its subsequent anoxic event triggered events leading to 90% of land species and 75% of all marine species dying off

there has in the last few years been a measurable and significant decrees in the strength of key currents like the gulf stream
in some years as much as 40%
and
there have been die offs of marine species in areas were upwelling currents failed completely
the pacific northwest for instance

we are in deep
and its just about time to pay the piper
one of my personal faves

we mandated laws governing "visible" pollutants
which were in a sick kinda way protecting us from excessive warming because they tend to block sunlight
in Israel were they have records to compare lummens reaching the surface this number was down by as much as 30%
but we failed to regulate to an equally significant degree "invisible" pollutants
which tend to be the greenhouse gasses

turns out at least a portion of the resent increase in the rate of climate warming can be directly attributed to an effort to clean up the air

long story short we are already in one of the most devastating extinction events in history
tens of thousands of species are being lost
amphibians are on the brink
one third are endangered
one third are threatened
and one third are in decline

our oceans fish are another good example
our large fish populations have been reduced by 90%+ of there historic populations
of the 17 major fisheries
10 have collapsed
6 are at 100%+ exploited and cannot survive
1
the Alaskan fishery is presently sustainable

in essence nearly every single large fish species is already ecologically extinct
that basically means that they no longer exist in sufficient numbers to make an impact on there environment

case in point
green sea turtles
not more than 40 years ago there were 150 million adult green sea turtles floating around in the gulf of Mexico
but they died
for a while the cause was unknown
then it was discovered they tend to eat ( and choke to death on ) plastic bags
we accidentally killed them down to a few thousand
so what happens when you remove such a key species
well they ate turtle grass
so now we have millions of tons of rotting turtle grass
makes great jellyfish food
and since there are no more turtles to eat the jellyfish ( which they downed at every opportunity )
we now have an explosion of jellyfish
which eat fish fry
which is decimating one of the breading grounds of key species like the blue fin tuna

in the end we may have passed a point of no return

no major fishery has ever recovered despite moratoriums being in place for decades let alone years

and the face of the entire ecosystem has been changed

if you follow this link you will see the director of marine research at scripts give a brutal speech concerning thes issues

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-ZkwewR69w8&feature=player_embedded

2MeterTroll
09-26-2009, 11:34 PM
I belive the term for it is overshoot. its when we get into and exponential feed back loop.

if you read those papers the UN study is based on you pretty much find out we have done.

it's like taking a brass knuckle punch to the gut.

but since it is what it is then we deal with it. the fact of it happening is now off the table. what remains is what do we do? I have to tell you ive been in 90 foot seas with wind so strong the spray couldn't fly. its not a fun experiance but as the currents slow and stop those storms that move along will move way slower, they will grow, waves will build and move. when the storm gets large enough it will move in its own direction (we have seen this in the last few years). those waves will circle the globe like normal but they will be bigger. I think we may need to build with a touch more reserve buoyancy.

ishmael
09-26-2009, 11:41 PM
Is the climate science settled? I know this is an unpopular stance these days, but there are strong, serious voices who disagree. You don't hear about them, in part because catastrophe is what makes the papers. Give me dancing girls and disaster! To discount those who object out of hand is hubris, not science.

2MeterTroll
09-26-2009, 11:43 PM
You may well be right but doing additional strange things to our atmosphere or reflective foil etc seems to be something that is even less welcome than reducing CO2 .

Perhaps if the right people could make more money out reducing CO2 than they currently do from adding it ?

But then the general population would need to pay them for that service wouldn't we ?

Milo i think we all get it.
what most of us dont understand. is why continue to piss in our drinking water?

Boston
09-26-2009, 11:51 PM
Is the climate science settled? I know this is an unpopular stance these days, but there are strong, serious voices who disagree. You don't hear about them, in part because catastrophe is what makes the papers. Give me dancing girls and disaster! To discount those who object out of hand is hubris, not science.


I must strenuously disagree
the climate science is defiantly settled with 97% of climate scientists agreeing
there are no serious dissenting voices and there are no contending theories that can even remotely stand up to scrutiny

it can be realistically shown that those rare few who have credentials and disagree with the science on this one do so as agnolologists
and not in any effort to seriously refute the science

I dont mean to come off to harshly but the science is in and there never was much of a debate on this one
it was obvious

watch Naomi Oreskies lecture
"the american denial of climate change"
its another eye opener

cheers
B

2MeterTroll
09-26-2009, 11:58 PM
Is the climate science settled? I know this is an unpopular stance these days, but there are strong, serious voices who disagree. You don't hear about them, in part because catastrophe is what makes the papers. Give me dancing girls and disaster! To discount those who object out of hand is hubris, not science.

Ish there are no strong anyones saying its a blip. the folks opposing the loudest you can run down the list and check them off as to A.total wanker not even remotely in the same realm of research, B.those getting paid really well to make claims they cant back up and C. total nut ball that has no idea of the scope of the problem. if there was even one tiny credible voice out i would be pointing it out to all and sundry. Hell i'll even look at a computer modeler and look his data over. what you are seeing is a multidisciplinary, multinational (including those that hate the our guts) group of the top beekers in there fields saying Listen up.

i read this stuff as research papers and i dig for opposing views. then i look for the folks trying to find ways to lessen the impact. what i am finding is Nada. there are a few bits that i can see as being able to contest but those do not change the over all picture.

Boston
09-27-2009, 12:17 AM
there is an MIT professor who is avidly against the idea of any unusual climate change but was found to be taking $10,000 a day from the oil and gas industry to expound on "his" views
course the funny thing is like most of the deniers this guy doesn't actually study climate change
he is a meteorologist and he studies ( or studied I think he got fired for lying about taking the money ) local weather patterns
not the overall system

so there is the rare nutter who is in it for the money and there are industry PR people who will "encourage" these deniers to the tune of hundreds of thousands of dollars each

but basically there is no viable dissent
the science has been settled for almost 50 years actually
there is no real debate to be had

although there are some who simply refuse to face the grim truth
cheers
B

PeterSibley
09-27-2009, 01:19 AM
Would you take it unkindly of me if I just called you froggy from now on? Maybe just went ribbit ribbit ribbit periodically, you know just to get it out of my system.

Ribbit. Froggy in the pot. Ribbit.

Milo ,I have no objection to be called froggy should you feel the need , but be aware old mate ,that I'm actually on your side here .You are in favour of sophisticated technical fixes which have a snow flake's chance in hell of being publicly accepted ....not until they are too late to do anything at all .The population will panic at that point and probably burn scientists for not telling them what was going to happen .

At least I agree with you that there is a problem and a huge one at that .I suggest you will find just a litle more disagreement from your fellow Americans ,even some here on this board .

Never underestimate the stupidity of the general public .Mortgages and superannuations first .GW a very distant 23 rd .

your friend the frog .

WX
09-27-2009, 01:31 AM
You can forget carbon reductions on anything resembling realistic levels, no government is actually going to do it. Australia alone is increasing coal exports and spending big on port infrastructure to load the stuff.
Carbon sequestration is not being actively pursued on any level beyond R&D.
Major fishing countries are not reigning back on their quotas and with many countries now deploying FATS they are actually pushing many major fisheries to the point of extinction.
Incentives to install and use Alternative energy sources are if anything being reduced in this country. Even if you do install a few Kilowatts of solar panels on your roof, any carbon credits will go to a major polluter so they can keep polluting.
As ACB said, maybe we should be looking at other forms of politics.

Boston
09-27-2009, 01:49 AM
carbon sequestration is not going to work either
and the government subsidies to encourage overfishing are all to real
basically we're screwed
the one most important tipping point is the one involving awareness
once it becomes obvious to all that the ecosystem is in free fall
then maybe you will get the necessary reaction from the politicians
problem is will that tipping point come sooner than all the others
until then
industry rules
and industry is only concerned with the almighty buck
as I said
we're screwed
I know its a defeatist attitude but I think its hopeless
few if any want meaningful change and those that do are shouted down as environmentalists
rather than realists
a woman named Rachel Carlson many years ago wrote a book called "silent spring" in it she pretty much nailed what's going on right now
this was predictable
problem is
it was also profitable
and the corporate oligarchy rules

does anyone else realize that right now the Japanese are hording frozen blue fin
fishing em as fast as they can in anticipation of a moratorium on yet another species
there is no stopping this
and
its happening faster than you might think
scripts marine sciences lab recently put out a conglomerate of models that all predict the oceans going anaerobic within the next decade or two
we are likely to see the end of the oceans
something that is shown to preclude each of the major extinction events

welcome to reality kids
can I get another drink over here please
oh and some more of this yummy sashimi

PeterSibley
09-27-2009, 01:50 AM
It's hard trying to be a good cancer cell ,the host still dies .

2MeterTroll
09-27-2009, 02:16 AM
I think in this case it might be the thing to rebuild the organs. thats what a cancer cell was supposed to do till its instructions got changed.

sorry the politics must be set aside because there is not help from that quarter. Carbon sequestration as far as i know wont come on line for a decade or more. so to me th answer is to plant trees lots of trees. encourage algae to grow (this might actually be the only quick way to reduce carbon) hmm i just had a thought oils is made of fern trees and cycads, i wonder if they take up carbon faster than woody trees? &c. only problem is we dont know how much energy we have to soak up nor how much carbon. so plan b is try and get the world turned onto getting off this rock and into space where we have our selves to blame if our environment is screwed up.

I dont want to see foot long roaches running around.

Boston
09-27-2009, 02:36 AM
what your saying is
although hopeful just not practical
it took mankind bending its entire industrial might to dig up and burn as much fossil fuels as we could manage for the last few hundred years to bring us to the point were we are now
and thats just concerning the co2 portion of the problem

we know exactly how much carbon man has placed in the atmosphere
just about 29% of the nearly 390 count
way more than can be drawn out any time soon by any known means
putting it in the oceans is a bad plan as it alters the PH of the water to such a degree that it kills the oceans
we simply do not have the industrial might or the technology to scrub that much anything from the entire atmosphere
and
co2 has a natural cycle of about 200 years
although this number an approximation
between 100 and 350 is about right
so the carbon; even if we halted all emissions right now, is with us for a long time
at issue here is the tipping point of self perpetuation in the carbon cycle
land recently thawed out gives off tons of co2 and methane
leading to warmer temps
melting more permafrost
exposing more ground
giving off more co2 and methane

we may have already reached that point
as we may have also reached the arctic ice cover tipping point
these next few years are critical

but
other than halt all burning of fossil fuels
or
halting all fishing
or pollution
or farm run off
or any of the other of the thousands of things that need to change
our time is limited to less than what you might think
before its glaringly obvious we have made a big big error

B

2MeterTroll
09-27-2009, 02:48 AM
Boston
We ain't dead yet... till that day, theres no telling what might be done.

Dont know if you have ever had an impossible job to do. All ive ever found is the impossible simply takes a bit longer.

PeterSibley
09-27-2009, 02:55 AM
The problem 2MT ,is the mass of folk who seem to have no conception of the scale of the problem .Turning aircom down 2 degrees is not really going to work :(.

Boston is unfortunately spot on .

Boston
09-27-2009, 02:57 AM
2meter
well I certainly prefer you were right and I was wrong
and its not like Ive given up completely
I just completed a lecture series on conservation issues
so I suppose I still put in some effort
but
Im pretty hep to whats new in terms of climate change and none of it is good news
the new industrial nations are absolutely pounding out pollutants and the only end in site is not in the plus column

trying to lock large amounts of co2 into the oceans beyond what they can normally carry can only result in higher PH values
not sure if you have been keeping up on that issue but PH is becoming a huge concern
ever wonder why corals are in such trouble
its up for grabs but there is a growing school of folks who believe its the rising PH

in short
I certainly hope you are right on this one

2MeterTroll
09-27-2009, 03:22 AM
Oh i have
its part of my work as well.

You are right that what we got on the table and in R&D is a small sponge for a flood.

yep the coral problem as far as i have heard is defiantly PH. I dont think it would be practical to grow algae and leave it in the sea. however we do have some awfully big holes that could use some compost; up on dry land. might make the super fund clean ups a bit nicer as well. wonder how many bags of oyster mushroom spawn it would take to seed some of those old strip mines

skuthorp
09-27-2009, 03:34 AM
A drastic cut in world population would solve the problem, universal access to contraception for women would probably solve it. But I think it will be far more brutal than that. Re the extinction event taking place at present, there's an even chance that our species is on the list too. If ice melt is the 'tipping point' then we are well past it now, as a species we will probably survive in some remote corner, but maybe not the dominant one.

Boston
09-27-2009, 03:36 AM
algae is something we got plenty of but it locks up far more nitrogen than co2
although the c from carbohydrates in photosynthesis comes from co2

but removing algae from the oceans is extremely costly and just the energy to transport millions of tons of the stuff off the beach let alone inland any distance is far more costly to the environment than any benefit gained

once again unless a natural system can be found that consumes vast quantities of co2 significantly faster than what presently known natural systems do

we got nothing

problem is if we have to put any energy at all into the process its to much
given the scale of the problem
whatever we come up with needs to be basically a set it and forget it approach

a friend of mine is in microbiology
says there is a bacteria somewhere that will eat anything
its just a mater of digging him up
I hope she is right

B

skuthorp

ever heard of the snowball earth theory
apparently about 600 million years ago an ocean event triggered an over reaction in the climate system similar to what we are seeing now and it resulted in the freezing of the entire planet
absolutely every land animal down to bacteria died
I suppose its possible we could go underground
but
that event lasted millions of years

thing is we wouldnt have time to build anything
and the changes may happen pretty fast
one year winter might simpley not go away
or summer for a few years
then the crash in temps
we really done know what will happen but
science does know the basic scenario has happened before and with less obvious triggers than what we are recording now
given that
the reaction of the climate system is likely to be equally as dramatic then it becomes obvious there wont be much time when the big changes occur

just this year there seems to have been a blip in arctic sea ice
1st year ice is at a high
question is
is it just a blip
or the start of a trend
1st year ice tends to be mushy and prone to just melting off
there is still a smaller than normal ice pack and there is still high average temps and there is still an unprecedented level of melt off the glassier's
it was more a fortuitous series of weather patterns that precipitated the formation of a lot of sea ice
but its more likely to melt off than those the same weather patterns persist in an area known for relative consistency
I think it was just a blip but I hope Im wrong

problem is this
before the start of the industrial age the system was slated to cool off
if you look at the ice core data going back 600,000 years there is a clear pattern to temp and co2
the system shows a tendency to spend a very short time at the highest point and drop off quickly as it descends again into the average temp range
what the build up of co2 has done is prolong our time at the top of the graph while the natural forces that induce the fall to more average temps are building up
once the "unnatural" balance is broken the natural fall into the normal range may be more like a plunge
carrying us far past the balance point again this time to the cold side
essentially the mechanisms that kept all within a habitable range may work against us and force another extinction event

a drastic cut in world population "would" have solved the problem a few hundred years ago
today
it would not make much difference
the co2 is here for at least another ~200 years
and the oceans ecosystems are already so depleted its not likely they will ever return to a semblance of normal anytime soon

2MeterTroll
09-27-2009, 03:41 AM
true however it might just be a fungus or a combination of the two. Got me some ideas so ill go play in the library in the next couple days see what develops.

i only got one problem with fire and forget solutions. What happens when the problem goes away?

Boston
09-27-2009, 04:07 AM
the solution should go away as well

I think your referring to an enzyme and a bacteria similar to whats used in celulitic fermentation
although who knows
could be a fungus that does the trick

and your right
its better to look and have the chance of finding
than not look and hope someone else does

PeterSibley
09-27-2009, 04:13 AM
With the right solution ,it goes away too .

Paul G.
09-27-2009, 04:22 AM
personally I dont believe climate change is as serious as some of the posters claim and I also dont believe its due to mans activities.

I am not here to debate that.

What i will say is that if its too late.......dont worry be happy!

There is nothing you can do and hand wringing and gnashing of teeth wont fix it either. We live in the golden age of mankind, we have never ever in all our history had this standard of living, culture, scientific understanding etc. We are at the apex of all the civilisations that have gone before. So if that means we are all going to die, so what! What a glorious legacy!

For me Id rather pay less tax, go sailing, drive a V-8, burn plastic waste in the incinerator in my backyard and generally relax. There is nothing you can do to stop this so why even bother? I think a lot of this "global conciousness" and moral majority stuff about saving the planet and doing what is right is driven by subtle religious nut indoctrination from childhood.

"It" doesnt matter! What does mater is how we respond in relation to our character building process. You cant make the world soft to walk on but you can buy a good pair of shoes. If it floats your boat to be a tree hugger, I dont have a problem with that, but dont tax me or include me in your stupid plans to save the world

PeterSibley
09-27-2009, 04:46 AM
pass

purri
09-27-2009, 06:20 AM
Wogergnomic UNZUDDER ; EOS.

John Smith
09-27-2009, 07:00 AM
interesting thread guys
way to be a realistic bunch
refreshing if grim to see some folks taking the subject seriously

now for the depressing part
basically if anyone has read much on climate change there probably familiar with the term tipping point
as it is the most obvious tipping point will be ice melt
and at the moment about 99% of all glassiers are melting
fast
be that as it may what does all that melting ice do
it floods the marine system with fresh water
that water has a vastly differing density
which screws up the oceanic circulatory system of currents

in the last two major extinction events this failure of the vertical currents and its subsequent anoxic event triggered events leading to 90% of land species and 75% of all marine species dying off

there has in the last few years been a measurable and significant decrees in the strength of key currents like the gulf stream
in some years as much as 40%
and
there have been die offs of marine species in areas were upwelling currents failed completely
the pacific northwest for instance

we are in deep
and its just about time to pay the piper
one of my personal faves

we mandated laws governing "visible" pollutants
which were in a sick kinda way protecting us from excessive warming because they tend to block sunlight
in Israel were they have records to compare lummens reaching the surface this number was down by as much as 30%
but we failed to regulate to an equally significant degree "invisible" pollutants
which tend to be the greenhouse gasses

turns out at least a portion of the resent increase in the rate of climate warming can be directly attributed to an effort to clean up the air

long story short we are already in one of the most devastating extinction events in history
tens of thousands of species are being lost
amphibians are on the brink
one third are endangered
one third are threatened
and one third are in decline

our oceans fish are another good example
our large fish populations have been reduced by 90%+ of there historic populations
of the 17 major fisheries
10 have collapsed
6 are at 100%+ exploited and cannot survive
1
the Alaskan fishery is presently sustainable

in essence nearly every single large fish species is already ecologically extinct
that basically means that they no longer exist in sufficient numbers to make an impact on there environment

case in point
green sea turtles
not more than 40 years ago there were 150 million adult green sea turtles floating around in the gulf of Mexico
but they died
for a while the cause was unknown
then it was discovered they tend to eat ( and choke to death on ) plastic bags
we accidentally killed them down to a few thousand
so what happens when you remove such a key species
well they ate turtle grass
so now we have millions of tons of rotting turtle grass
makes great jellyfish food
and since there are no more turtles to eat the jellyfish ( which they downed at every opportunity )
we now have an explosion of jellyfish
which eat fish fry
which is decimating one of the breading grounds of key species like the blue fin tuna

in the end we may have passed a point of no return

no major fishery has ever recovered despite moratoriums being in place for decades let alone years

and the face of the entire ecosystem has been changed

if you follow this link you will see the director of marine research at scripts give a brutal speech concerning thes issues

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-ZkwewR69w8&feature=player_embedded
For what it's worth, I lived through a time when the waters my parents sailed on were quite safe for swimming in and saw that change to where swimming was not recommended.

Meanwhile, radio talk show folks, Limbaugh towards the end of that period, telling their audience that the human race is not capable of polluting the planet.

Seems to me that there's not so much dispute over climate changing as their is dispute in regards to man's responsibility, and what, if anything, man is able to do to reverse the trend.

There are areas of New York where insurance companies are not writing home insurance. These areas are expected to have flooding problems in the near future.

Seems to me that if the only thing we can do is to move people from these areas, it will be something.

I'm quite doubtful that we'll be able to do more than maybe slow things down a bit.

I sure don't see a lot of urgency here, though I'd expect some. New mpg standards take place when?

Milo Christensen
09-27-2009, 07:22 AM
The problem is . . . the mass of folk who seem to have no conception of the scale of the problem. . . .

Obviously true. When I look at it from my perspective, which is that we can alter the atmosphere to suit our human needs, the problem is the mass of leaders, political and scientific, who will not even allow a discussion of the kind I'd like to see take place. Funding the necessary research into short term insolation reduction solutions isn't taken seriously in the fight for money. The CO2 has got to go group is, at this point in time not really part of the solution, so therefore, the current crop of environmentalists and climatologists are actually as much a part of the problem as everybody else who won't even admit there's a problem.

Boston has briefly touched on an area that tends to set off one of my rant buttons. Burning coal produces particulates and sulfates, both of which make burning coal almost GHG neutral. But burning coal is "visible" pollution and the push is on to make coal into the bad boy in the problem. Unbelievable political pressures are being applied to make coal the bad boy, these pressures are succeeding. So unbelievable political pressures are actually being applied to make burning coal an even greater part of the problem. It's just so frustrating to see the real science being ignored for political ideology.

PeterSibley
09-27-2009, 07:46 AM
Indeed , it must be frustrating to be the only one to see the truth .

Milo Christensen
09-27-2009, 08:29 AM
Indeed , it must be frustrating to be the only one to see the truth .

That's not even a remotely fair assessment of the situation. But if it suits the agenda to assign me to the dustbin of crackpots, so be it.

skuthorp
09-27-2009, 09:17 AM
Quote John Smith; "Meanwhile, radio talk show folks, Limbaugh towards the end of that period, telling their audience that the human race is not capable of polluting the planet."
Isn't Rush one of the 'Last Days' mob? It might suit his agenda.

Boston
09-27-2009, 11:55 AM
actually Milo I think you have a point about coal
volcano's are net neutral mostly for the exact reason you mention
thing is once you overcome that issue there is still the issue of acid rain associated with coal use
basically we need carbon neutral fuels like wood pellets
they burn incredibly clean and had we used em from the start
we wouldnt have this problem

Paul
any position intolerant of debate
is bound to be a pretty weak position
if you'd prefer not to discuss it thats fine but you might just consider the following

if man has had nothing to do with the rise in co2 then were did it come from
you would have to find a source that mirrors the industrial age

if man has nothing to do with the rise in co2
why does the Isotopic signature of co2 match that of fossil fuels

if its not as serious as some people claim why all the extinctions
we're losing species left and right
significantly faster than the norm over the last 600,000 years
buy your right about one thing
it could be worse
there is another theory that says that oil and coal deposits are not laid down gradually but suddenly
in various extinction events
theory is that so much biological mater hits the ground so fast it just cant all rot before it gets covered by more
essentially everything drops dead in its tracks
so things have and could be dying a lot faster than they are

but failing to recognize or acknowledge the signs and increasing rates of extinctions is just like putting your head in the sand

if nothing else you cant deny that the oceans are running out of fish and that a significant portion of the population subsists on this protein source
when its gone and that wont be long what then

all Im saying is if we were to make meaningful alterations now we could avoid the obvious

we know the oceans have become aerobically stratified before
we know what happens when they do
extinction events
and it looks like we know the mechanics of it and how fast it can happen
only part we're not so sure about is the recognizing the tipping points in the present climate system

Milo Christensen
09-27-2009, 12:05 PM
Tipping points, ie: massive multimegatonne methane releases from warming permafrost, are one of the reasons I feel that we should be ready with a short term, 10 year degrades to 0, deployable insolation reduction system. We really can't predict them until they happen and if we have no defense, then we're in real trouble.

Boston
09-27-2009, 12:37 PM
well that could definitely be one part of a feed back mechanism
and a catastrophic one at that
but I think its more likely that we see the anaerobic stratification of the oceans before we see large methane eruptions
and that will be a wake up call to mankind if there ever was one
at which point there wont be much fixing it

better safe than sorry
I say we put an end to industries rampage over the environment
and start using sensible fuels
even if it means having to step back a little and get a grip on the problems

PeterSibley
09-27-2009, 04:35 PM
Boston has briefly touched on an area that tends to set off one of my rant buttons. Burning coal produces particulates and sulfates, both of which make burning coal almost GHG neutral.

I'm sorry Milo ,while coal may produce enough visible polution to temporarily mask the effect of the CO2 is burning releases ,it remains the problem .Coal is the problem ,there is no way around it .

As to humanity being able to modify the atmosphere as we chose , I think not .There was no conscious choice , just a gradual takeup of a primitive fuel with no concept of the result .

There is a well placed horror of modifying the atmosphere even futher .

Flying Orca
09-27-2009, 05:13 PM
Tipping points, ie: massive multimegatonne methane releases from warming permafrost, are one of the reasons I feel that we should be ready with a short term, 10 year degrades to 0, deployable insolation reduction system. We really can't predict them until they happen and if we have no defense, then we're in real trouble.

I think you're right about insolation reduction, Milo, and I like hearing you advocate it. I don't know whether it will be atmospheric, space-based, or both, but I've been thinking for a couple of years now that if anything can save us from the grimmer possible eventualities, that's it.

pefjr
09-27-2009, 06:00 PM
http://www.lvrj.com/news/geothermal-gamble-pays-off-for-casino-62190012.html

Brian Palmer
09-27-2009, 07:34 PM
I am a member of the Air and Waste Management Association, and about 10 years ago I heard a talk by Tony Broccoli, a climate scientist at Rutgers University. His first words in his 45 minute talk on anthopogenic climate change were along the lines of, "Well, we have really made a mess of things."

His one positive comment was that he did not think that we could pump enough carbon back into the atmosphere to recreate the climate present at the time of the dinosaurs (which of course spans many tens of millions of years.)

Brian

Milo Christensen
09-27-2009, 10:14 PM
. . . There is a well placed horror of modifying the atmosphere even futher .

I'm sorry Peter, there exists within me an even greater horror of the arithmetic of 6,790,062,216 - 2,073,363,421 = the number of dead to return to your preferred 1930's energy usage, during which time about half the 2 billion were barely at subsistence food levels.

oznabrag
09-27-2009, 10:24 PM
I'm sorry Peter, there exists within me an even greater horror of the arithmetic of 6,790,062,216 - 2,073,363,421 = the number of dead to return to your preferred 1930's energy usage, during which time about half the 2 billion were barely at subsistence food levels.

And your horror lies at the root of our problems. Before we came along, there was no dominant species. When we started out, we were at the mercy of the planet. That means that, if we got to be too many, disease or predation or starvation took our numbers back into balance with the ability of our ecosystem to sustain us.

Our fear of death is what has got us into this mess, and the ironic thing is that we all have to die. If this planet needs to shrink our numbers by half, She will. She has the power, and it is in her best interests to exercise that power.

What good is another Mozart or Einstein or Aunt Becky, if there are no other creatures here?

Boston
09-27-2009, 10:26 PM
interesting point but conditions were radically different then than now
the land mas had only recently broken up from the super continent of Pangaea into two large masses and strange as it seams, temps were moderated, being roughly the same at the polls as it was in the equatorial regions. a sercumstance still not understood today. Throughout the era the land masses continued to break apart until they began to resemble what we have today which would not have allowed ocean currents to stabilize until late in the cretaceous. The atmosphere at the time of the dinosaurs was markedly different that today, prehistoric fliers of the Mesozoic period do not correlate with those of today in terms of mass/wing loading indicating the atmospheric density was very different and oxygen levels have been found to have been ~50% higher. Temp was an average ~10 deg C higher and there is evidence to suggest co2 concentrations were ridiculously high at about 1800 ppm for at least some of this time period but there is also conflicting evidence to the contrary. basically there are conflicting evidenced concerning make up of the mesozoic atmosphere and its relationship to data, for instance, there were no ice ages during the Mesozoic but there were rapidly changing ocean levels
how'd that happen kids
there was also nothing but a large land mass in the lower Triassic
and land doesnt regulate heat as well as water so the interior was bound to be desert like, but the paleoclimate data does not match predictions.
bla bla bla

but in the end the age of the dinosaurs was in no way comparable to that of today for many reasons

and no
we probably couldn't pump as much co2 into the atmosphere as there was in the age of the dinosaurs but
we wouldn't have survived very well then either

oznabrag
09-27-2009, 10:31 PM
An interesting point perhaps, but if you're responding to me, it seems to have gone past you. :)

Maybe you weren't talking to me. :p

Edited to add:

Aha! You were responding to Brian Palmer's post #50.

Carry on!

PeterSibley
09-27-2009, 10:56 PM
I'm sorry Peter, there exists within me an even greater horror of the arithmetic of 6,790,062,216 - 2,073,363,421 = the number of dead to return to your preferred 1930's energy usage, during which time about half the 2 billion were barely at subsistence food levels.

Silly generalisations like that Milo rather detract from the points you are trying to convey .

IIRC people were alive and well in 1930 and their per capita energy use was at least 70% less than the current per capita use ...and no ,I don't have a link .

Dan McCosh
09-28-2009, 08:39 AM
I'm personally quite happy to live at my grandparents level of energy consumption ,I'm also happy to pay double for my current consumption so that it can be sourced from ,for instance , the sun via one technology or another .

The technologies to very substantially reduce our CO2 emmissions already exist all that is needed is the will to implement them .

My grandmother used a wood stove, and heated the house in Chicago with coal. Her kid eventually drove a car that got about 15 mpg. I wouldn't mind that energy consumption at today's efficiency levels myself. One might also consider the overall pollution levels in Grandma's environment.

High C
09-28-2009, 09:32 AM
....the climate science is defiantly settled with 97% of climate scientists agreeing
there are no serious dissenting voices and there are no contending theories that can even remotely stand up to scrutiny

it can be realistically shown that those rare few who have credentials and disagree with the science on this one do so as agnolologists
and not in any effort to seriously refute the science....the science is in and there never was much of a debate on this one...

It's irresponsible arrogance like this that is causing the public to look away in disbelief.

There is a very real debate, and those who fail to engage in said debate by ducking and running as in the style of the above nonsense are losing it in a big hurry.

Milo Christensen
09-28-2009, 11:02 AM
It's irresponsible arrogance like this that is causing the public to look away in disbelief.

There is a very real debate, and those who fail to engage in said debate by ducking and running as in the style of the above nonsense are losing it in a big hurry.

With respect, it's irresponsible ignorance and arrogance like yours that is unbelievable. Worse it verges on the criminal.

Boston seems to have a very firm understanding of the science and is obviously very current on the research. The same cannot be said for those, like yourself, who are GCC/GW deniers.

There's an interesting wikipedia article (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_scientists_opposing_the_mainstream_scienti fic_assessment_of_global_warming)on the GCC/GW "opposition". Now if you're going to maintain that any one or more of the paltry 45 or so scientists in the opposition constitutes a "very real debate" then you, once again, display your lack of a basic understanding of science.

There is a very real "political" debate and you're obviously on the side of those whose only possible remaining tactic is to unscientifically attempt to cast doubt on the science.

Boston
09-28-2009, 01:15 PM
It's irresponsible arrogance like this that is causing the public to look away in disbelief.

There is a very real debate, and those who fail to engage in said debate by ducking and running as in the style of the above nonsense are losing it in a big hurry.

there is no competing theory
there is no viable and coherent upcoming hypothesis
there is no refuting the vast majority of the data
there is no debate

97% of climate scientists in several poles all answered critical questions in the affirmative
97% is about the largest consensus of any scientific theory in the history of consensus opinions
evolution doesn't have a 97% consensus nor does the big bang theory

there is no scientific debate
what there is is a confused public who's more belligerent members are being egged on by industry misinformation in an effort to slow the necessary change required by the present situation
in a circumstance so glaringly obvious its even erned itself a name
agnotology *

Ill post a link to Naomi's lecture on this debate non issue

cheers
B

*
Agnotology, formerly agnatology, is a neologism (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Neologism) for the study of culturally-induced ignorance or doubt, particularly the publication of inaccurate or misleading scientific data. The term was coined by Robert N. Proctor (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Robert_N._Proctor),[1] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Agnotology#cite_note-0)[2] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Agnotology#cite_note-1) a Stanford University (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stanford_University) professor specializing in the history of science and technology.[3] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Agnotology#cite_note-2) Its name derives from the Greek (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ancient_Greek) word ἀγνῶσις, agnōsis, "not knowing"; and -λογία, -logia (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/-logy).[4] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Agnotology#cite_note-Palmer-3) More generally, the term also highlights the increasingly common condition where more knowledge of a subject leaves one more uncertain than before.
A prime example of the deliberate production of ignorance cited by Proctor is the tobacco industry (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tobacco_industry)'s conspiracy to manufacture doubt (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Artificial_controversy) about the cancer (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cancer) risks of tobacco use (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tobacco_use). Under the banner of science, the industry produced research about everything except tobacco hazards to exploit public uncertainty.[4] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Agnotology#cite_note-Palmer-3)[5] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Agnotology#cite_note-4) Some of the root causes for culturally-induced ignorance (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ignorance) are media neglect, corporate or governmental secrecy (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Secrecy) and suppression (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Suppression), document destruction, and myriad forms of inherent or avoidable culturopolitical selectivity, inattention, and forgetfulness.[6] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Agnotology#cite_note-2005conf-5)
Agnotology also focuses on how and why diverse forms of knowledge do not "come to be," or are ignored or delayed. For example, knowledge about plate tectonics (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Plate_tectonics) was delayed for at least a decade because key evidence was classified military information (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Classified_information) related to underseas warfare (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Submarine_warfare).[4] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Agnotology#cite_note-Palmer-3)

Hot Air
09-28-2009, 03:16 PM
Yes there is debate
Yes there are competing theories
Yes there is plenty of refuting of the so-called data

Mann-made Warming Confirmed [Chris Horner (http://planetgore.nationalreview.com/author/?q=NDE2OA==)]

It turns out that trees can scream.

A colleague in the climate-realist blogosphere sends along the following narrative which all Planet Gore readers, even the muttering monitors over at Team Soros, should find very interesting. The inescapable and powerful conclusion (http://www.climateaudit.org/wp-content/uploads/2009/09/rcs_chronologies1.gif) is that Mann-made warming is real, while man-made warming remains at best a theory, more likely a hypothesis. Really (http://www.climateaudit.org/wp-content/uploads/2009/09/rcs_merged.gif).

This story deserves to be told.

1: In 1998, a paper is published by Dr. Michael Mann, then at the University of Virginia, now a Penn State climatologist, and co-authors Bradley and Hughes. The paper is named: Northern Hemisphere Temperatures During the Past Millennium: Inferences, Uncertainties, and Limitations. The paper becomes known as MBH98.

The conclusion of tree ring reconstruction of climate for the past 1,000 years is that we are now in the hottest period in modern history, ever.

See the graph http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/paleo/image/mann/manna_99.gif (https://ex03.mindshift.com/exchweb/bin/redir.asp?URL=http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/paleo/image/mann/manna_99.gif)

Steve McIntyre, a Canadian mathematician in Toronto, suspects tree rings aren't telling a valid story with that giant uptick at the right side of the graph, implicating the 20th century as the "hottest period in 1000 years," which alarmists latch onto as proof of AGW. The graph is dubbed the "Hockey Stick" and becomes famous worldwide. Al Gore uses it in his movie An Inconvenient Truth in the famous "elevator scene."

2: Steve attempts to replicate Michael Mann's tree ring work in the paper MBH98, but is stymied by lack of data archiving. He sends dozens of letters over the years trying to get access to data but access is denied. McIntyre and Ross McKitrick, of the University of Guelph publish a paper in 2004 criticizing the work. A new website is formed in 2004 called Real Climate, by the people who put together the tree ring data and they denounce the scientific criticism:

http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2004/12/false-claims-by-mcintyre-and-mckitrick-regarding-the-mann-et-al-1998reconstruction/ (https://ex03.mindshift.com/exchweb/bin/redir.asp?URL=http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2004/12/false-claims-by-mcintyre-and-mckitrick-regarding-the-mann-et-al-1998reconstruction/)

3: Years go by.McIntyre is still stymied trying to get access to the original source data so that he can replicate the Mann 1998 conclusion. In 2008 Mann publishes another paper in bolstering his tree ring claim due to all of the controversy surrounding it. A Mann co-author and source of tree ring data (Professor Keith Briffa of the Hadley UK Climate Research Unit) used one of the tree ring data series (Yamal in Russia) in a paper published in the Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society in 2008, which has a strict data archiving policy. Thanks to that policy, Steve McIntyre fought and won access to that data just last week.

4: Having the Yamal data in complete form, McIntyre replicates it, and discovers that one of Mann's co-authors, Briffa, had cherry picked 10 tree data sets out of a much larger set of trees sampled in Yamal.

5: When all of the tree ring data from Yamal is plotted, the famous hockey stick disappears. Not only does it disappear, but goes negative. The conclusion is inescapable. The tree ring data was hand-picked to get the desired result.

These are the relevant graphs from McIntyre showing what the newly available data demonstrates.

http://www.climateaudit.org/wp-content/uploads/2009/09/rcs_chronologies1.gif (http://www.climateaudit.org/wp-content/uploads/2009/09/rcs_chronologies1.gif)

http://www.climateaudit.org/wp-content/uploads/2009/09/rcs_merged.gif (http://www.climateaudit.org/wp-content/uploads/2009/09/rcs_merged.gif)”
So now the question is, if tree rings scream and their message is one that few want to hear, does their message get heard?

High C
09-28-2009, 03:33 PM
With respect, it's irresponsible ignorance and arrogance like yours that is unbelievable. Worse it verges on the criminal.....

Your mind is closed. True science doesn't allow for closed minds. To pretend that there is no legitimate debate on this topic is absurd, and has been demonstrated here and elsewhere countless times.

Keith Wilson
09-28-2009, 03:43 PM
To pretend that there is no legitimate debate on this topic is absurdSorry, not any more. It's getting more like evolution every day; only debated by those for whom ideology or religion trumps evidence. What we ought to do about it - sure, there's plenty of debate about that.

PeterSibley
09-28-2009, 03:57 PM
Your mind is closed. True science doesn't allow for closed minds. To pretend that there is no legitimate debate on this topic is absurd, and has been demonstrated here and elsewhere countless times.

There is most certainly a political debate ,but there is no debate what so ever regarding the science .There are increases in data , rewriting and reexamination of data ,inclusion of new inputs ( solar activity ).That's science ,it is not religion ,there is no dogma just a continuing process .

2MeterTroll
09-28-2009, 04:25 PM
interesting!

you might be interested in this: http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/paleo/globalwarming/paleolast.html

theres 12 reconstructions to look at.

here is the beginning of it so you can look around. http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/paleo/globalwarming/instrumental.html

you can also find more if you look.

one small point. there are other studies on tree rings that do not use the same base materials as the paper this fella is arguing about. for some reason they keep showing correlation.

Kaa
09-28-2009, 04:32 PM
...but there is no debate what so ever regarding the science .... That's science ,it is not religion ,there is no dogma just a continuing process .

Methinks you're contradicting yourself :-) in the same paragraph, no less...

Kaa

PeterSibley
09-28-2009, 04:53 PM
Of course ,why not ? But perhaps you can see my point ? No ? A pity .

Wedge9
09-28-2009, 05:43 PM
Your mind is closed. True science doesn't allow for closed minds. To pretend that there is no legitimate debate on this topic is absurd, and has been demonstrated here and elsewhere countless times.

... this just in while wiping a coffee mist from my screen and keyboard.

If one were to simply detach for a moment from the inevitable hysteria that is about to ensue, they could take a look at this comment and wonder, out loud, as to why this sort of position was never enunciated by the esteemed person making it.... for any of the other two dozen, or so, science related topics that have been brought to the sloshy pit...?

Dude, do you realize just how ironic a philosophy you present when you say, "Your mind is closed. True science doesn't allow for closed minds"?

If one only waits around long enough, the espousers of hard line ideology will always step on their own tongues.

Funny stuff, High-C. On this Monday, in particular, the moment of hilarity was appreciated.

High C
09-28-2009, 05:57 PM
Simply amazing. Those of you who speak with such certainty need only look back a bit to see how much scientific "certitude" has fallen away just in our lifetimes, how many absolutes have been reversed, how much has been misunderstood. The certainty to which you all subscribe is built on leap after leap after leap, all of it profitable for those making those leaps, and much of it funded by power hungry governments.

You guys are welcome to believe what you want. No one is challenging your right to your views, but it is laughable for you to claim that your peculiar version of things is the only way, that your experts are the omnipotent ones while the rest be fools. History is not on your side.

Boston
09-28-2009, 05:59 PM
yes there is always anomalous data
no there is no scientific debate
as I said the vast majority of data is irrefutable and 97% is the largest consensus in the history of scientific consensus

please see

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2T4UF_Rmlio

uneducated laymen and the rare few disgruntled scientists who's pet bits of anomalous data are rejected as such are the only people who are actively attempting to engage a debate
the scientific community as a whole considers it a laughable attempt

if there is a competing theory
lets hear it
if there is a competing hypothesis
start singing
if you have a rare few tidbits of data
that are nearly all considered anomalous
and they have been rejected by the scientific community as a whole
dont bother
these incoherent bits of conflicting data in a sea of correlating and confirmed data; are not worthy of debate

the solution is highly debatable and no
we should not let it include bilking the public out of even more of there hard earned cash
nor should that solution include any more unfunded mandates
what it should do is make the businesses responsible for the problem
clean it up

I have not the time of the energy to waste on some rare few who either are incapable of understanding the basics of climate change or refuse to do so

the only dagmatic adherence to a religious like belief I see
is clearly on the part of those who reject the science and the logic
for a fairytale belief that everything is just hunky dory

its not
there are to many of us
we have eaten out the biosphere, thoroughly polluted the planet and squandered our children's future

if you cant see that, its cause you prefer not to
plain and simple

cheers
B

I will unlikely post again for a week or so as I simply chose not to waste my personal time teaching people
who refuse to learn

there is no debate

if there is please show us all the coherent competing theory fully peer reviewed in all its particulars buy members of the community
and published by major non industry publications

check your sources cause Im pretty savvy with who the agnotists are and what there backgrounds have been in the community

do not try and pass off some few tidbits of incongruous data
but a coherent theory

you cant
there isnt one

best of luck
B

High C
09-28-2009, 06:11 PM
....there is no debate

if there is please show us all the coherent competing theory fully peer reviewed in all its particulars buy members of the community
and published by major non industry publications....

Yawn. You're a newbie here, Boston, and your challenge will not be met for the same reasons you say you won't waste your time educating the ignorant, or however you put it. This horse has been beaten to death here. Countless pages of articles from hundreds of highly credentialed individuals have been presented that clearly show that there is indeed debate. The response was always the same as yours. "Those guys are frauds".

Gee, that was easy. :rolleyes: You're failing to convince the public with this arrogant approach. You're losing the debate you don't recognize exists.

Kaa
09-28-2009, 06:17 PM
Sorry, not any more. It's getting more like evolution every day; only debated by those for whom ideology or religion trumps evidence. What we ought to do about it - sure, there's plenty of debate about that.

Um, not exactly.

There's no debate about the fact that the planet has been warming up recently.

There is some debate about what the climate was hundreds and thousands years ago.

There is a LOT of debate about what's going to happen in the future, which statistical models are useful, which are not, what are the appropriate assumptions and parameters for them, etc. etc.

And there is no consensus with regard to what should be done about global warming, and that's not a issue for science, anyway.

Kaa

oznabrag
09-28-2009, 06:26 PM
Yawn...
Gee, that was easy. :rolleyes: You're failing to convince the public with this arrogant approach. You're losing the debate you don't recognize exists.

When 70% of this hallowed 'public' of yours is dead from the phenomenon you deny, the 'debate' will seem pretty silly. I suppose you'll be derisive and bitter towards those who didn't warn you, if you live.

Kaa
09-28-2009, 06:56 PM
When 70% of this hallowed 'public' of yours is dead from the phenomenon you deny, the 'debate' will seem pretty silly.

Do you, perhaps, have some backing for that 70% number or you're just engaging in hysterics?

Kaa

Hot Air
09-28-2009, 07:08 PM
Why stop at 70%? 90% is a much more scary figure. That will get High C's attention.

oznabrag
09-28-2009, 07:10 PM
Actually, 70% may be conservative. I didn't want to alarm anyone.

ChaseKenyon
09-28-2009, 07:12 PM
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FOLkze-9GcI&feature=related

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vN06JSi-SW8&NR=1


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iCXDISLXTaY&NR=1

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bpQQGFZHSno&NR=1 (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bpQQGFZHSno&NR=1)

:(

Kaa
09-28-2009, 07:21 PM
Actually, 70% may be conservative. I didn't want to alarm anyone.

Psst... I'll let you in on a secret!

100% of people will die! Everyone! Every single one!

Given the 100% mortality rate we must pay ANY PRICE to stop global warming NOW!!1!eleven!

Kaa

oznabrag
09-28-2009, 07:26 PM
Psst... I'll let you in on a secret!

100% of people will die! Everyone! Every single one!

Given the 100% mortality rate we must pay ANY PRICE to stop global warming NOW!!1!eleven!

Kaa

OOOOOOH! You have the most delicious secrets!

See my post #52, and maybe I'll give you back your pink pony.

Kaa
09-28-2009, 07:33 PM
OOOOOOH! You have the most delicious secrets!

See my post #52, and maybe I'll give you back your pink pony.

Did you steal it from pony-thief Popeye? :D

I don't see anything profound in post #52, though. I keep on wondering how do you know what's in the planet's best interests and what these interests are, anyway...

In any case, if you're claiming that choosing to adapt to global warming will cause massive loss of life compared to choosing to stop it, I call bull**** and invite you to submit your reasoning. :-)

Kaa

2MeterTroll
09-28-2009, 07:45 PM
We cant stop whats already happening. the time lag makes it impossible to accurately predict.
IMO what we have now is a situation of what do we do to lessen the impact?

as a note the CO2 impacts are just the point of the dagger as the planet heats up and the things that keep places like Europe and the eastern seaboard warm stop moving. what do we do? at this point we can maybe slow CC or shorten its duration these would be good things. but till we do that how does the human sphere deal with the massive movements of population, changes in growing areas, changes in distribution of marine life, rising sea levels, &c?

this is the grim grimy bit. politics aside the the problems will hit the person before they hit the population.

oznabrag
09-28-2009, 07:59 PM
Did you steal it from pony-thief Popeye? :D

I don't see anything profound in post #52, though. I keep on wondering how do you know what's in the planet's best interests and what these interests are, anyway...

In any case, if you're claiming that choosing to adapt to global warming will cause massive loss of life compared to choosing to stop it, I call bull**** and invite you to submit your reasoning. :-)

Kaa

No, I bought it from him for a quarter. You can have it back for 1K$.

Nothing any more profound in #52 than your assertion that we're all gonna die. The fact that you presented this banality as some sort of 'secret' does reveal you.

If you take the fact that 'global warming' is just a prelude to a 'mass extinction event', then you're looking at adapting to no food. Maybe Jenny Craig is for you, Kaa! No, wait...Jenny actually gives you something to eat.

Poor Kaa.

oznabrag
09-28-2009, 08:16 PM
We cant stop whats already happening. the time lag makes it impossible to accurately predict.
IMO what we have now is a situation of what do we do to lessen the impact?

as a note the CO2 impacts are just the point of the dagger as the planet heats up and the things that keep places like Europe and the eastern seaboard warm stop moving. what do we do? at this point we can maybe slow CC or shorten its duration these would be good things. but till we do that how does the human sphere deal with the massive movements of population, changes in growing areas, changes in distribution of marine life, rising sea levels, &c?

this is the grim grimy bit. politics aside the the problems will hit the person before they hit the population.

I think you are correct as to the unpredictability. I really think the chaos has begun, and no computer model could possibly deal with the insane number of variables required. In my opinion the only constant will be that, now that this imbalance is in play, the Earth will do what is required to regain equilibrium.

We have come to an end of the longest demonstrable period of reasonably predictable seasons in the history of this planet. About 10,000 years ago, the Earth finally settled into a slow parade of days, and about 10,000 years ago Man began farming. Coincidence? I don't think so. We were the same species with the same appetites and the same knowledge as before, the difference was that we could count on the seasons. Nowadays, we have the daily caloric requirements of millions being met by highly-specialized crops that utterly depend on the regular progression of the seasons for their coming to fruit. Disruptions in the conditions they have been bred/engineered to thrive in will mean their failure.

So, not only have we killed and/or eaten practically everything in the oceans, we are on the edge of an era when corn and wheat and soybeans are no longer reliable crops.

Hungry?

Boston
09-28-2009, 08:30 PM
actually I will respond to this one


You're failing to convince the public with this arrogant approach. You're losing the debate you don't recognize exists.

this represents the classic semantic argument aimed at confusing an already bewildered public
there is once again no debate within the scientific community
what there is is a public relations campaign within the public domain ( and specifically not the scientific ) funded by the oil and gas industry to subvert and delay meaningful change,
change that although necessary for the well-being of the planet would cut into corporate profits
the battle is one of public opinion
not scientific debate
personally I just finished a summer long lecture series on this very subject
which included audiences from NOAA and NCAR
so your attempts to distract from the realization that there is no scientific debate are simply going to be shown exactly that
attempts at distraction
an effort to delay the necessary changes because you dont want to have to change your ways

there is no scientific debate
it is lack of fundamental understanding concerning the wealth of information dedicated to this subject that leads to these kind of claims


Countless pages of articles from hundreds of highly credentialed individuals have been presented that clearly show that there is indeed debate.

certainly there may be hundreds of articles
but typically most of it can be atributed to undustry misinformation printed in industry rags
of the few that are from honest scientists
those few are drowning in a sea of tens of thousands of corroborating and detailed reviewed articles accepted and cited by the community at a whole and colated into a coherent theory that has stood the tests of prediction and time

there is simple no competing theory
nor is there even a competing hypothesis

I couldnt help but notice that you were not willing to present any theories
but instead only claim that anomalous data exists
yes
anomalous data always exists
the preponderance of anomalous data is whats relevant
and in the case of climate change
there is only a small percentage of such anomalous data
~3% to be precise

arguing the value of such anomalous data is hardly presenting a coherent and detracting argument, nor does it represent a detailed hypothesis for the scientific community to consider

what you are doing is clinging to a few tidbits of data
and ignoring the ware houses full of research that all agree
climate change is real
science is not debating this issue
what its doing is actively measuring the rate of change
and plugging that new data into the whole
what its not doing is wasting time with a few hold outs who still think the world is flat

cheers
B

2MeterTroll
09-28-2009, 08:33 PM
IMO and from reading; what makes this into a nightmare situation is things like the last time we had this level of CO2 there was one continent and it was about a quarter of the globe. all else was water, a great big slow thermal battery. what we have now is 1/3 of the globe is land and all the stuff that over time was sequestered in the seas, under the permafrost and under ground are starting to come up.

think about this CO2 is the lightweight of green house gases. Methane is not a lightweight and much of it is contained as Ices under the sea and permafrost. We are currently seeing some of those ices melting and putting off greater amounts of methane. the methane ices under sea are stabilized by temperatures and pressure. currently we have them gassing out in 400 meters of water. a couple fractions raise in sea temp puts us down to 500 meters. and we dont know how much heat the oceans have absorbed to date, all we have is an idea. we know that the more methane the more heat we hold the more CO2 the more heat we hold &. looks like the feed back loop is going to happen at this point.

its not hopeless but it is nessisary to be thinking along the lines of what do we do when.

Kaa
09-28-2009, 08:38 PM
If you take the fact that 'global warming' is just a prelude to a 'mass extinction event',

"the fact"..?

You use the word "fact" in a very strange way. Now, I've seen such use before, but I am still surprised to see it once again... Guess I'm not very adaptable :-(

Kaa

oznabrag
09-28-2009, 08:48 PM
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eScDfYzMEEw


Ahhhh, the modern prophets..

;)

Indeed.

Milo Christensen
09-28-2009, 08:53 PM
Several posters have expressed an interest in learning more about the emerging science of geoengineering-the deliberate large-scale manipulation of the planetary environment to counteract anthropogenic climate change.

The Royal Society released an in depth review report earlier this month. The announcement (http://royalsociety.org/document.asp?tip=0&id=8770)is here. The link to the 4.6 Meg PDF full report is at the bottom of the page. A press release summary (http://royalsociety.org/news.asp?id=8734) is here.

The pessimism is starting to grow among the scientists that the politicians will get it right in time:


Professor John Shepherd, who chaired the Royal Society's geoengineering study, said, "It is an unpalatable truth that unless we can succeed in greatly reducing CO2 emissions we are headed for a very uncomfortable and challenging climate future, and geoengineering will be the only option left to limit further temperature increases. Our research found that some geoengineering techniques could have serious unintended and detrimental effects on many people and ecosystems - yet we are still failing to take the only action that will prevent us from having to rely on them. Geoengineering and its consequences are the price we may have to pay for failure to act on climate change."

I think Shepherd's statement says what I've been trying to say all along. I wish I could express my thinking on this issue as clearly as he has.

Milo Christensen
09-28-2009, 09:03 PM
Interesting report from the Royal Society here (http://royalsociety.org/document.asp?tip=0&id=8569) on ocean acidification as the oceans attempt to absorb excess CO2. This is an area I've been ignoring while focused on the atmosphere. Time for me to get caught up, so toodle-o for now - hi ho, hi ho, it's off to read the boffins I go, hi ho, hi ho, hi ho.

My kids used to call me Johnny 5 - the silly self aware robot whose only goal was input. Input!

Kaa
09-28-2009, 09:04 PM
The sky, she's faaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaling ! :D

Kaa

Milo Christensen
09-28-2009, 09:09 PM
Ya know what Milo??

I think I'll stick with George Carlin....

No offence.

;)

Since I have absolutely no conception of what the seven words you can't say on TV has to do with GCC/GW, I can only guess that you're swearing at me, but perhaps I've missed something by not watching or listening to a foul mouth?

oznabrag
09-28-2009, 09:27 PM
Poor Kaa. The sky is falling.

Kaa
09-28-2009, 10:38 PM
Or maybe she sees a "wolf"

:rolleyes:

Rather hears the cries of "wolf! wolf!"

...and has been hearing them for quite a while by now...

Kaa

ChaseKenyon
09-28-2009, 10:42 PM
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9fCP_nHRjP8&feature=related

PeterSibley
09-28-2009, 10:49 PM
Kaa , how about a contribution rather than just sniping ?

Kaa
09-28-2009, 10:51 PM
Kaa , how about a contribution rather than just sniping ?

What kind of a contribution do you have in mind?

Kaa

PeterSibley
09-28-2009, 10:56 PM
It has to be in your mind mate , it doesn't seem right for me to tell you what to think .:D

jbelow
09-28-2009, 11:43 PM
First it was called Global Cooling then Global Warming and now Climate Change.

As for me , I will call it Global Coolaid Drinking.

You big dummies ! Climate Changes take place by the day , year , century , eons ....... ect.

PeterSibley
09-29-2009, 12:07 AM
Thank you for that pearl of wisdom .

Kaa
09-29-2009, 09:42 AM
It has to be in your mind mate , it doesn't seem right for me to tell you what to think .:D

Well then, let me offer a contribution. Since all y'all are so dark and gloomy and omfg-we-all-are-gonna-die, I've chosen appropriate pictures. As a free bonus, you can find here the symbolism of Mother Gaia easily triumphing over man and man's efforts. :D

I recommend reading Ecclesiastes while looking at the images.

An old graveyard near Edinburgh. Twilight.


http://i296.photobucket.com/albums/mm161/kaa_photobucket/Cem_1a.jpg


http://i296.photobucket.com/albums/mm161/kaa_photobucket/Cem_3a.jpg


http://i296.photobucket.com/albums/mm161/kaa_photobucket/Cem_2a.jpg

Kaa

Keith Wilson
09-29-2009, 09:55 AM
Um, not exactly. Hey, whaddaya want for a one-liner? ;)

There's no debate about the fact that the planet has been warming up recently.Not among rational people , anyway. Nor is there significant debate that one major cause is human-generated increases in atmospheric CO2 concentrations

There is some debate about what the climate was hundreds and thousands years ago.Yes.


There is a LOT of debate about what's going to happen in the future, which statistical models are useful, which are not, what are the appropriate assumptions and parameters for them, etc. etc.Yes, although the debate among those who know what they're talking about ranges between "warmer" and "a lot warmer".


And there is no consensus with regard to what should be done about global warming, and that's not a issue for science, anywayThat's what I said.

And the apocalyptic "we're all gonna die" folks seriously underestimate the intelligence and adaptability of the human species. Fer chrissake, give us a little credit. Human beings live in almost every climate on the planet, from jungles to deserts to Arctic sea ice. We'll deal. That doesn't mean we should be stupid and ignore the problem, though.

oznabrag
09-29-2009, 11:30 AM
... Since all y'all are so dark and gloomy and omfg-we-all-are-gonna-die,...
Kaa

You think I'm sitting here freaking out about this?

Don't get me wrong, miss, I'm perfectly capable of considering the possibility that 70% or more of the human population will be thinned out without going into a tizzy.

Big freakin' deal, man. 5 billion bodies is a lot of carbon sequestration!

oznabrag
09-29-2009, 11:49 AM
...
And the apocalyptic "we're all gonna die" folks seriously underestimate the intelligence and adaptability of the human species. Fer chrissake, give us a little credit. Human beings live in almost every climate on the planet, from jungles to deserts to Arctic sea ice. We'll deal. That doesn't mean we should be stupid and ignore the problem, though.

I don't know whether you're referring to me here, but I never said 'we're all gonna die'.

What I meant to say was that at least 70% of us would get thinned from the herd.

Sure, we are adaptable and clever, but without food, we die. Period.

There can be no serious question that we have been 'living beyond our means' since we began burning fossil fuels in earnest. By living beyond our means, I mean that oil allowed us to harvest more fish than could grow back, as one tiny example.

So no, I don't consider myself to be a wild-eyed freak who's terrified of the 'End of Days' or some such BS. I consider myself to be a hard-nosed realist who understands just how deep in the **** we've managed to dig ourselves.

It is absolutely clear, to me anyway, that we have used oil to extend our influence over this biosphere in an extractive, exploitative, disharmonious and unsustainable fashion. The only logical consequence of this greedy, oil-drunk spree is a population 'correction'.

Sorry, but part of adapting to a world without food, will be learning to get along without so many people.

Kaa
09-29-2009, 11:50 AM
Don't get me wrong, miss ... Big freakin' deal, man.

You seem to be suffering from some gender confusion... :D


5 billion bodies is a lot of carbon sequestration!

http://farm2.static.flickr.com/1426/1176944724_891225619e.jpg?v=0

Kaa

oznabrag
09-29-2009, 12:38 PM
You seem to be suffering from some gender confusion... :D

Kaa

Confused about your gender. Pugwash misled me with his post #96.

I certainly apologize if my misconception offended you.

Kaa
09-29-2009, 12:41 PM
Confused about your gender. Pugwash misled me with his post #96.

I think you got infected with this confusion from Popeye when he sold you that fake pink pony. Popeye just *loves* referring to me as "she". I rather suspect he thinks of it as an insult.

I find it quite funny :-)

Kaa

switters
09-29-2009, 12:44 PM
climate change is going to happen, anthropogenic or no. So for the guilt free lets say that temps are rising because of the 26,000 year solar cycle and not GHG. Same result, sea levels rise. Hypothetically, assume that we know the sea level will rise 1 meter in the next 10 years. The question that should be asked now is,

when do you start to move people inland?
How do you do it?
What laws do you make to enforce it? is enforcement necessary?
Who decides how much elevation gain is necessary?

These are some questions I would like to see the answers to, out of curiosity. I'm at 5,000 feet, and I'm not giving up my spot.

oznabrag
09-29-2009, 12:48 PM
Uhh...The pony is real, man. I think it may be diseased though. That would explain why I got it for a quarter. Some kind of horn-like growth is sprouting from it's forehead now.

Kaa
09-29-2009, 12:56 PM
Uhh...The pony is real, man. I think it may be diseased though. That would explain why I got it for a quarter. Some kind of horn-like growth is sprouting from it's forehead now.

Well, the pony may be real, but I strongly doubt it's the pink pony that pony-thief Popeye stole from me.

As to the weird growth, beware! Maybe the pony learned of your plans for pony steak during the times of famine and mass extinction and is now rapidly evolving to deal with the threat. I wouldn't turn my err.. back to him.

Kaa

2MeterTroll
09-29-2009, 12:59 PM
ok i am now sure i stutter.

yep we live on a hill that will be free of the flood but much of portland will be under flood waters in the winter and spring. many of the coastal towns will be inundated; Coosbay/north bend, Coquille, bandon, reedsport, winchester bay, etc. are all within a few meters of the water.

I think most folks will move as the water eats a house or two. however we will end up paying for them. the insurance companies would like to take the human cause of GW off the table because it negates the act of god clause.

i dont think you need a bunch of laws just one that says no new building with in 150 vertical feet of sea level ought to do it. however this covers lots of the land mass in north america.

RodSBT
09-29-2009, 02:00 PM
Just a few who disagree with the kyoto protocol:

http://www.petitionproject.org/


Something else to consider:

1. Without Co2, life on earth would not exist. Plants thrive on it and the more the better. And no, plants don't die of heart attacks from over eating, they just get bigger and make more oxygen, a good thing.

2. Co2 is a terrible insulator. Compared to equal volumes of water vapor, it has hundreds of times less insulating value because it has so little mass in comparison and mass is what holds the heat.

3. The sun and internal heat (volcanoes) causes the water to evaporate. More heat, more water vapor. More water vapor, more retained heat in the atmosphere.

4. Independent scientific studies have shown that the temp. rises through recorded ( make a note, RECORDED history, which doesn't go back very far, geologically speaking) have occurred before the Co2 levels rose, i.e. CO2 levels increased in response to the warming, not causing it.

5. Al Gore and company stand to make billions of $'s from their cap and trade schemes in the carbon credit arena. They have taken advantage of the industrialized worlds' feelings of guilt caused by their success and are having a hay day in manipulating that guilt.

6. There won't be any actual reduction in Co2, just a shift in who has the "right" to create it (that being the self proclaimed elite) while the rest of us who have lost the "right", will scrounge in our newly acquired third world existence trying to feed our faces on a daily basis.

7. Cool aide is cheap, the money is in the packaging.

2MeterTroll
09-29-2009, 03:08 PM
Please provide links to the papers and research for each of the arguments you are presenting.

High C
09-29-2009, 03:10 PM
....the insurance companies would like to take the human cause of GW off the table because it negates the act of god clause....

Insurance companies already do not cover flooding. There is a single flood insurer in the US, the Federal government. Insurance companies have no dog in this race.

oznabrag
09-29-2009, 03:18 PM
[quote=RodSBT;2335643]...
"2. Co2 is a terrible insulator. Compared to equal volumes of water vapor, it has hundreds of times less insulating value because it has so little mass in comparison and mass is what holds the heat."

__________

The insulative properties of CO2 are not what is at issue.

What is at issue is the fact that CO2 gas is transparent to light, but reflects heat. Sunlight passes through the atmosphere and hits the Earth, converting light energy into heat energy. The heat radiates outward from it's point of impact, with a lot of it headed for space. When this heat hits atmospheric CO2, it is reflected, rather than escaping into space.

The fact that you are ignorant of this basic, incontrovertible scientific fact (a fact established in the 1890s, for Pete's sake) robs the rest of your assertions of any credibility.

It would appear that your position is politically biased, and this thread was not intended for politics, but for 'A real discussion on Climate change'.

isla
09-29-2009, 04:01 PM
I have mentioned the The Proudman Oceanographic Laboratory (POL) (http://www.pol.ac.uk/) in a previous thread on this subject. They are part of the Natural Environment Research Council, and they conduct research in:

* estuary, coastal and shelf sea circulation & ecosystem dynamics
* wind-wave dynamics & sediment transport
* global sea level and geodetic oceanography
* marine technology & operational oceanography

They have some very interesting data on global sea levels over the last hundred years or so. Here are a few sample charts:

http://www.islawoodcraft.co.uk/charts/boston.jpg
http://www.islawoodcraft.co.uk/charts/charleston.jpg
http://www.islawoodcraft.co.uk/charts/anchorage.jpg
http://www.islawoodcraft.co.uk/charts/osaka.jpg
http://www.islawoodcraft.co.uk/charts/sheerness.jpg

There seems to be little doubt that sea levels around the world are rising, and the implications for countries like Bangladesh, which is regularly flooded, are frightening. Not just because of the loss of life, but also because of the inevitable loss of agricultural capacity resulting in famine and mass migrations of people. The world is having a hard time dealing with the current levels of population movement, how much more can it stand? This problem will also be exacerbated by relatively small temperature rises in countries which are already on the threshold of habitability. Sudan and Ethiopia spring immediately to mind, but there are many more countries where a small climate change could make the difference between agricultural land and desert.

Dan McCosh
09-29-2009, 05:51 PM
[quote=RodSBT;2335643]...
"2. Co2 is a terrible insulator. Compared to equal volumes of water vapor, it has hundreds of times less insulating value because it has so little mass in comparison and mass is what holds the heat."




__________

The insulative properties of CO2 are not what is at issue.

What is at issue is the fact that CO2 gas is transparent to light, but reflects heat. Sunlight passes through the atmosphere and hits the Earth, converting light energy into heat energy. The heat radiates outward from it's point of impact, with a lot of it headed for space. When this heat hits atmospheric CO2, it is reflected, rather than escaping into space.

The fact that you are ignorant of this basic, incontrovertible scientific fact (a fact established in the 1890s, for Pete's sake) robs the rest of your assertions of any credibility.

It would appear that your position is politically biased, and this thread was not intended for politics, but for 'A real discussion on Climate change'.

FWIW, CO2 does not reflect heat, it absorbs it--i.e. infrared energy heats it up, rather than passing through it. That's the definition of a "greenhouse gas".

RodSBT
09-29-2009, 08:32 PM
Please provide links to the papers and research for each of the arguments you are presenting.


We're talking basic high school science here, not rocket science. I'm not being snide, but the physics involved is not overly complex.

I also have degree in geography, which helps a bit as well.

"FWIW, CO2 does not reflect heat, it absorbs it--i.e. infrared energy heats it up, rather than passing through it. That's the definition of a "greenhouse gas".

Dan McCosh is correct to a point but as stated earlier, CO2 is terrible at holding heat, Oznabrag's comments to the contrary. Without having the mass, like water vapor, it is of little consequence in heating up the earth's atmosphere let alone the surface.

A person needs to keep the data in context when dealing with this stuff. Actual temp. recordings, i.e. with thermometer only go back about 140 years in this country. Considering the earth is something like 4.5 billion years old, human existence is nothing more than a blip in the big scheme of things. Climate dynamics is just that, dynamic. Trying to prove with any accuracy what happened thousands, let alone millions of years ago is difficult at best. To reach into the future and say that X is going to happen when your rough data is only a few hundred thousand years old borders on arragance when your dealing with a system that is boulllions (think Carl Sagan) of years old. Human caused global warming is still a theory, it is not unarguable. Yes, there are many scientists who claim we are causing it, yet they refuse to sit down in any real debate. If they lose, their grant money, book deals etc. go down the tubes. There are many others who go along just to get along so as not to be antagonized by peer pressure. Remember, scientists are human too, with ugly emotions and all that goes with it.

The link I posted earlier dealing with scientists signing a petition against the Kyoto protocal is the real deal. There are something like 40 thousand of them, many of whom are real climatologists, phd's, etc. etc. If a person can't deal with this so be it, but don't try and claim to have a non political discussion about an unproven theory and then shoot down anyone who questions the validity of the theory.

As far as the accusation I am bringing a political agenda into the discussion, this entire subject is nothing but politics. It's politics that has brought us to this point mainly by the UN, which is nothing more than a political organization.

Are we experiencing global climate change? You bet, it's been going on for millenia. Lets just be a little more honest about the information we have and, as I said earlier, keep what information we do have in context.

PeterSibley
09-29-2009, 08:39 PM
Rod , if you only see politics you haven't been paying attention .Of course there is politics , it's what humans do, but behind it is a wealth of science and the science is very much in favour of the reality of man made GW .

Milo Christensen
09-29-2009, 08:55 PM
. . . dishonest material deleted. . .

Are we experiencing global climate change? You bet, it's been going on for millenia. Lets just be a little more honest about the information we have and, as I said earlier, keep what information we do have in context.

You first.

Dave Wright
09-29-2009, 08:57 PM
.......
The link I posted earlier dealing with scientists signing a petition against the Kyoto protocal is the real deal. There are something like 40 thousand of them, many of whom are real climatologists, phd's, etc. etc. If a person can't deal with this so be it, but don't try and claim to have a non political discussion about an unproven theory and then shoot down anyone who questions the validity of the theory. ....

Don't take this wrong, I appreciate your point of view, and I'm sure your intent to have a non political discussion is a genuine, heartfelt one one. Do you think the fact that the petition was started by the "Oregon Institute of Science and Medicine" has any bearing on this issue, political or scientific?

Just curious. Thanks.

RodSBT
09-29-2009, 09:03 PM
Peter, the "wealth of science" is only that which the politically driven media provides for us. When ever the "wealth of science" that refutes the man made claims the media either ignores it it or tries to demonize the messenger, kind of like what happens on these internet forums. As I said earlier, the data that many of these scientists are basing their theories on is in it's extreme infancy when you consider the magnitude of the rest of the data they don't have. We're talking about a system that is billions of years old. That's thousands of millions!!!!

I have friends that work on the drilling rigs that have been pulling out the ice cores which are at the center of much of the discussion. Several years ago, the Euro. team north of the US. drilling op. in Greenland hit rock after going down about 10 thousand feet through the ice. This represents IIRC, about 3-6 hundred thousand years of history. When the final sample was brought to the surface, pine needles were found in the dirt. This brings home the point that the planet has been much warmer than present. Old news I know, but the point is, again, the record only goes back a few hundred thousand years.

It would be nice if science were able to keep politics out of the equation but, human nature being what it is, we will need to be skeptical of extreme claims until the preponderance of evidence, from both sides, is laid out for all to see and debated openly. This unfortunately has not happened with the theory of man caused global warming.

Flying Orca
09-29-2009, 09:05 PM
Actual temp. recordings, i.e. with thermometer only go back about 140 years in this country.

True; what's your point?


Considering the earth is something like 4.5 billion years old, human existence is nothing more than a blip in the big scheme of things.

True. Again, what's your point?


Climate dynamics is just that, dynamic.

Oooooh, now you're getting into controversial territory. What are you going to try to tell us next, that water is wet?


Trying to prove with any accuracy what happened thousands, let alone millions of years ago is difficult at best.

Yep. Good thing science isn't about proving anything - it's about finding and testing the best explanation for the data. The best explanation for the data - past and present - is that human activities are causing global mean temperatures to rise. While there are a handful of scientists who disagree, most vocal opponents of the current scientific consensus are cranks, shills, or both.


To reach into the future and say that X is going to happen when your rough data is only a few hundred thousand years old borders on arragance when your dealing with a system that is boulllions (think Carl Sagan) of years old.

Interesting that the models seem to be working, isn't it? Oh, they have underestimated some effects, to be sure, but that's because the IPCC insists on a very conservative interpretation.


Human caused global warming is still a theory, it is not unarguable.

True. Got some serious, peer-reviewed, mainstream-published paper that demonstrates the current consensus is wrong?

No? I didn't think so.


Yes, there are many scientists who claim we are causing it, yet they refuse to sit down in any real debate.

Yeah, 'cause we all know that's where the serious science gets done, right? In debates? (Or, you know, maybe not. Maybe serious science is about peer-reviewed journal articles. You know, like in Science. Or Nature. Journal of Climate, maybe. That kind of thing.)


If they lose, their grant money, book deals etc. go down the tubes.

Dude, do you actually know any scientists? This argument, though oft repeated, is simply ludicrous. People don't do science to get rich, and very few scientists have book deals that the average working stiff would consider lucrative. As for grant money, there are plenty of organizations that would love to fund someone who had solid scientific evidence countering the consensus view on climate change. Problem is, nobody has come up with any.


There are many others who go along just to get along so as not to be antagonized by peer pressure.

Darn seventh-graders. It's all their fault. :p


Remember, scientists are human too, with ugly emotions and all that goes with it.

Tell it to the folks who think water is wet.


The link I posted earlier dealing with scientists signing a petition against the Kyoto protocal is the real deal. There are something like 40 thousand of them, many of whom are real climatologists, phd's, etc. etc.

You know, one can accept the scientific consensus on climate change and still think Kyoto is a bad idea. For a whole whack of reasons, even. You're conflating apples and tachyons here.


If a person can't deal with this so be it, but don't try and claim to have a non political discussion about an unproven theory and then shoot down anyone who questions the validity of the theory.

Again: theories are not proven - they are provisionally judged to be the best explanation for the data, and they are tested against more data, and refined so they explain more data, and tested some more, etc., etc.

If you have compelling scientific grounds for dismissing the consensus on climate change, publish it. If you are correct I guarantee you will make quite a name for yourself, and you'll be doing the world a great favour. Go for it. Let me know when you do, I'll make sure I get a copy of the journal.


As far as the accusation I am bringing a political agenda into the discussion, this entire subject is nothing but politics.

Uh... no, a lot of it is science. While you cannot entirely separate science and politics (they tend to creep into each other), they are not the same thing, and they are largely discernible from each other to almost anyone with a functioning forebrain.


It's politics that has brought us to this point mainly by the UN, which is nothing more than a political organization.

I think you'll find, if you bother to look into it, that the UN's various departments and programs do much more than just politics. The IPCC, while established under the UN's auspices, and while subject to political interference, is at its heart a scientific body.


Are we experiencing global climate change? You bet, it's been going on for millenia. Lets just be a little more honest about the information we have and, as I said earlier, keep what information we do have in context.

Oh, do let's. Please.

Milo Christensen
09-29-2009, 09:13 PM
. . . we will need to be skeptical of extreme claims until the preponderance of evidence, from both sides, is laid out for all to see and debated openly. This unfortunately has not happened with the theory of man caused global warming.

You, unfortunately, have no idea what you're talking about, everything you've posted reveals this. Everything you've said is nothing more than just parroting the deniers talking points.

2MeterTroll
09-29-2009, 10:00 PM
http://www.oism.org/ the web page.

http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=Oregon_Institute_of_Science_and_Me dicine

the explanation.

i think that a nice read would do you good. cause unlike the oism the material covering it has ref's. oh and you might want to take a particular look at what it has to say about plants. there are other papers on how verities of plants handle the increased CO2 levels but since you feel you are getting shut down. i will leave it up to you to do some basic research. along the way you might find it interesting to look at the largest carbon sink the planet has and see what your plant growth idea does to it.

RodSBT
09-29-2009, 10:02 PM
...I should have known, the world is flat, a "fact" proven on an internet forum....I must bow to the anointed ones....

Flying Orca
09-29-2009, 10:10 PM
...I should have known, the world is flat, a "fact" proven on an internet forum....I must bow to the anointed ones....

Nah, just bring some actual science. I dare you.

Keith Wilson
09-29-2009, 10:11 PM
Ah, yes. No research, no facts, no evidence to support your claims, but snide remarks about "the anointed ones". Orca had it 100% right:
If you have compelling scientific grounds for dismissing the consensus on climate change, publish it. If you are correct I guarantee you will make quite a name for yourself, and you'll be doing the world a great favour. Go for it. Let me know when you do, I'll make sure I get a copy of the journal.Go for it. The world is waiting. I'd much rather not have to think at all about reducing fossil fuel consumption; it would be much less trouble.

2MeterTroll
09-29-2009, 10:12 PM
here is a nice collection of papers that site Dr. Fakhri Bazzaz and seem to show in several of them that increased CO2 uptake has some adverse effects like higher insect predation.:http://www.sciencemag.org/cgi/content/abstract/243/4895/1198

and this one: that has implications if you read all the papers that site it that we may have a small problem with rood plants. due to decreased production and increased toxicity's.: http://arjournals.annualreviews.org/doi/abs/10.1146/annurev.arplant.48.1.609

Flying Orca
09-29-2009, 10:15 PM
Interesting. For a whole pile of reasons, I hope we don't see anything like 700 ppm; looks like 500 or 550 will be devastating enough.

2MeterTroll
09-29-2009, 10:48 PM
ya it gets worse as you dig. seems several types of grasses begin to decrease photosynthesis and produce lower leaf density including food grains.

this does not bode well.

PeterSibley
09-29-2009, 10:50 PM
Interesting. For a whole pile of reasons, I hope we don't see anything like 700 ppm; looks like 500 or 550 will be devastating enough.

500 and 550 are well into biofeedback land .:( Even 400 is very dangerous .

2MeterTroll
09-29-2009, 10:52 PM
it is worth noting that the body of research out is growing by the day including long term studies. however any firm conclusions are at this time preliminary.

oznabrag
09-29-2009, 11:39 PM
We're talking basic high school science here, not rocket science. I'm not being snide, but the physics involved is not overly complex.

I also have degree in geography, which helps a bit as well.

"FWIW, CO2 does not reflect heat, it absorbs it--i.e. infrared energy heats it up, rather than passing through it. That's the definition of a "greenhouse gas".

Dan McCosh is correct to a point but as stated earlier, CO2 is terrible at holding heat, Oznabrag's comments to the contrary. Without having the mass, like water vapor, it is of little consequence in heating up the earth's atmosphere let alone the surface....

I was incorrect in stating that the CO2 'reflects' heat. It does indeed absorb it, but because it can't hold heat, it re-radiates it, about half of it directed in the general direction of Earth.

Sound more accurate? :)

Hot Air
09-30-2009, 06:57 AM
Again, why the case for accelerated global warming might be based on weak/fraudulent annalysis.




By Bishop Hill


The story of Michael Mann's Hockey Stick reconstruction, its statistical bias and the influence of the bristlecone pines is well known. McIntyre's research into the other reconstructions has received less publicity, however. The story of the Yamal chronology may change that.
The bristlecone pines that created the shape of the Hockey Stick graph are used in nearly every millennial temperature reconstruction around today, but there are also a handful of other tree ring series that are nearly as common and just as influential on the results. Back at the start of McIntyre's research into the area of paleoclimate, one of the most significant of these was called Polar Urals, a chronology first published by Keith Briffa of the Climate Research Unit (CRU) at the University of East Anglia. At the time, it was used in pretty much every temperature reconstruction around. In his paper, Briffa made the startling claim that the coldest year of the millennium was AD 1032, a statement that, if true, would have completely overturned the idea of the Medieval Warm Period. It is not hard to see why paleoclimatologists found the series so alluring.
http://bishophill.squarespace.com/storage/keith.gif?__SQUARESPACE_CACHEVERSION=1254256593243 Keith BriffaSome of McIntyre's research into Polar Urals deserves a story in its own right, but it is one that will have to wait for another day. We can pick up the narrative again in 2005, when McIntyre discovered that an update to the Polar Urals series had been collected in 1999. Through a contact he was able to obtain a copy of the revised series. Remarkably, in the update the eleventh century appeared to be much warmer than in the original - in fact it was higher even than the twentieth century. This must have been a severe blow to paleoclimatologists, a supposition that is borne out by what happened next, or rather what didn't: the update to the Polar Urals was not published, it was not archived and it was almost never seen again.
With Polar Urals now unusable, paleclimatologists had a pressing need for a hockey stick shaped replacement and a solution appeared in the nick of time in the shape of a series from the nearby location of Yamal.
The Yamal data had been collected by a pair of Russian scientists, Hantemirov and Shiyatov, and was published in 2002. In their version of the data, Yamal had little by way of a twentieth century trend. Strangely though, Briffa's version, which had made it into print before even the Russians', was somewhat different. While it was very similar to the Russians' version for most of the length of the record, Briffa's verison had a sharp uptick at the end of the twentieth century -- another hockey stick, made almost to order to meet the requirements of the paleoclimate community. Certainly, after its first appearance in Briffa's 2000 paper in Quaternary Science Reviews, this version of Yamal was seized upon by climatologists, appearing again and again in temperature reconstructions; it became virtually ubiquitous in the field: apart from Briffa 2000, it also contributed to the reconstructions in Mann and Jones 2003, Jones and Mann 2004, Moberg et al 2005, D'Arrigo et al 2006, Osborn and Briffa 2006 and Hegerl et al 2007, among others.

When McIntyre started to look at the Osborn and Briffa paper in 2006, he quickly ran into the problem of the Yamal chronology: he needed to understand exactly how the difference between the Briffa and Hantemirov versions of Yamal had arisen. McIntyre therefore wrote to the Englishman asking for the original tree ring measurements involved. When Briffa refused, McIntyre wrote to Science, who had published the new paper, pointing out that, since it was now six years since Briffa had originally published his version of the chronology, there could be no reason for withholding the underlying data. After some deliberation, the editors at Science declined the request, deciding that Briffa did not have to publish anything more as he had merely re-used data from an earlier study. McIntyre should, they advised, approach the author of the earlier study, that author being, of course, Briffa himself. Wearily, McIntyre wrote to Briffa again, this time in his capacity as author of the original study in Quaternary Science Reviews and he was, as expected, turned down flat.
That was how the the investigation of the Yamal series stood for the next two years until, in July 2008, a new Briffa paper appeared in the pages of the Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society B, the Royal Society's journal for the biological sciences. The new paper discussed five Eurasian tree ring datasets, which, in fairly standard Hockey Team fashion, were unarchived and therefore not succeptible to detailed analysis. Among these five were Yamal and the equally notorious Tornetrask chronology. McIntyre observed that the only series with a strikingly anomolous twentieth century was Yamal. It was frustratingly therefore that he had still not managed to obtain Briffa's measurement data. It appeared that he was going to hit another dead end. However, in the comments to his article on the new paper, a possible way forward presented itself. A reader pointed out that the Royal Society had what appeared to be a fairly clear and robust policy on data availability:

As a condition of acceptance authors agree to honour any reasonable request by other researchers for materials, methods, or data necessary to verify the conclusion of the article...Supplementary data up to 10 Mb is placed on the Society's website free of charge and is publicly accessible. Large datasets must be deposited in a recognised public domain database by the author prior to submission. The accession number should be provided for inclusion in the published article.
Having had his requests rejected by every other journal he had approached, McIntyre had no great expectations that the Royal Society would be any different, but there was no harm in trying and he duly sent off an email pointing out that Briffa had failed to meet the Society's requirement of archiving his data prior to submission and that the editors had failed to check that Briffa had done so. The reply, to McIntyre's surprise, was very encouraging:

We take matters like this very seriously and I am sorry that this was not picked up in the publishing process.
Was the Royal Society, in a striking contrast to every other journal in the field, about to enforce its own data availability policy? Had Briffa made a fatal mistake?

Hot Air
09-30-2009, 06:58 AM
Continued....

Summer gave way to autumn and as October drew to a close, McIntyre had still heard nothing from the Royal Society. However, in response to some further enquiries, the journal sent McIntyre some more encouraging news -- Briffa would be producing most of his data, although not immediately. Most of it would be available by the end of the year, with the remainder to follow in early 2009.

The first batch of data appeared on schedule in the dying days of 2008 and it was something of a disappointment. The Yamal data, as might have been expected, was to be archived with the second batch, so there would be a further delay before the real action could start. Meanwhile, however, McIntyre could begin to look at what Briffa had done elsewhere. It was not to be plain sailing. For a start, Briffa had archived data in an obsolete data format, last used in the era of punch-cards. This was inconvenient, and apparently deliberately so, but it was not an insurmountable problem -- with a little work, McIntyre was able to move ahead with his analysis. Briffa had also thrown a rather larger spanner in the works though: while he had archived the tree ring measurements, he had not supplied any metadata to go with it -- in other words there was no information about where the measurements had come from. All there was was a tree number and the measurements that went with it. However, McIntyre was well used to this kind of behaviour from climatologists and he had some techniques at hand for filling in some of the gaps. Climate Audit postings on the findings followed in fairly short order, some of which were quite intriguing. There was, however, no smoking gun.

There followed a long hiatus, with no word from the Royal Society or from Briffa. McIntyre would occasionally visit Briffa's web page at the CRU website to see if anything new had appeared, but to no avail. Eventually, though, Briffa's hand was forced, and in late September 2009, a reader pointed out to McIntyre that the remaining data was now available. It had been quietly posted to Briffa's webpage, without announcement or the courtesy of an email to Mcintyre. It was nearly ten years since the initial publication of Yamal and three years since McIntyre had requested the measurement data from Briffa. Now at last some of the questions could be answered.

When McIntyre started to look at the numbers it was clear that there were going to be the usual problems with a lack of metadata, but there was more than just this. In typical climate science fashion, just scratching at the surface of the Briffa archive raised as many questions as it answered. Why did Briffa only have half the number of cores covering the Medieval Warm Period that the Russian had reported? And why were there so few cores in Briffa's twentieth century? By 1988 there were only 12 cores used, an amazingly small number in what should have been the part of the record when it was easiest to obtain data. By 1990 the count was only ten, dropping still further to just five in 1995. Without an explanation of how the selection of this sample of the available data had been performed, the suspicion of `cherrypicking' would linger over the study, although it is true to say that Hantemirov also had very few cores in the equivalent period, so it is possible that this selection had been due to the Russian and not Briffa.

The lack of twentieth century data was still more remarkable when the Yamal chronology was compared to the Polar Urals series, to which it was now apparently preferred. The ten or twelve cores used in Yamal was around half the number available at Polar Urals, which should presumably therefore have been considered the more reliable. Why then had climatologists almost all preferred to use Yamal? Could it be because it had a hockey stick shape?

None of these questions was likely to be answered without an answer to the question of which trees came from which locations. Hantemirov had made it clear in his paper that the data had been collected over a wide area - Yamal was an expanse of river valleys rather than a single location. Knowing exactly which trees came from where might well throw some light onto the question of why Briffa's reconstruction had a hockey stick shape but Hantemirov's didn't.

As so often in McIntyre's work, the clue that unlocked the mystery came from a rather unexpected source. At the same time as archiving the Yamal data, Briffa had recorded the numbers for another site discussed in his Royal Society paper: Taimyr. Taimyr had, like Yamal, also emerged in Briffa's Quaternary Science Reviews paper in 2000. However, in the Royal Society paper, Briffa had made major changes, merging Taimyr with another site, Bol'shoi Avam, located no less than 400 kilometres away. While the original Taimyr site had something of a divergence problem, with narrowing ring widths implying cooler temperatures, the new composite site of Avam--Taimyr had a rather warmer twentieth century and a cooler Medieval Warm Period. The effect of this curious blending of datasets was therefore, as so often with paleoclimate adjustments, to produce a warming trend. This however, was not what was interesting McIntyre. What was odd about Avam--Taimyr was that the series seemed to have more tree cores recorded than had been reported in the two papers on which it was based. So it looked as if something else had been merged in as well. But what?

With no metadata archived for Avam-Taimyr either, McIntyre had another puzzle to occupy him, but in fact the results were quick to emerge. The Avam data was collected in 2003, but Taimyr only had numbers going up to 1996. Similarly, the Taimyr trees were older, with dates going back to the ninth century. It was therefore possible to make a tentative split of the data by dividing the cores into those finishing after 2000 and those finishing before. This was a good first cut, but the approach assigned 107 cores to Avam, which was more than reported in the original paper. This seemed to confirm the impression that there was something else in the dataset.

At the same time, McIntyre's rough cut approach assigned 103 cores to Taimyr, a number which meant that there were still over 100 cores still unallocated. The only way to resolve this conundrum was by a brute force technique of comparing the tree identification numbers in the dataset to tree ring data in the archives. In this way, McIntyre was finally able to work out the provenance of at least some of the data.

Forty-two of the cores turned out to be from a location called Balschaya Kamenka, some 400 km from Taimyr. The data had been collected by the Swiss researcher, Fritz Schweingruber. The fact that the use of Schweingruber's data had not been reported by Briffa was odd in itself, but what intrigued McIntyre was why Briffa had used Balschaya Kamenka and not any of the other Schweingruber sites in the area. Several of these were much closer to Taimyr -- Aykali River was one example, and another, Novaja Rieja, was almost next door.

By this point then, McIntyre knew that Briffa's version of Yamal was very short of twentieth century data, having used just a selection of the available cores, although the grounds on which this selection had been made was not clear. It was also obvious that there was a great deal of alternative data available from the region, Briffa having been happy to supplement Taimyr with data from other locations such as Avam and Balschaya Kamenka. Why then had he not supplemented Yamal in a similar way, in order to bring the number of cores up to an acceptable level?

The reasoning behind Briffa's subsample selection may have been a mystery, but with the other information McIntyre had gleaned, it was still possible to perform some tests on its validity. This could be done by performing a simple sensitivity test, replacing the twelve cores that Briffa had used for the modern sections of Yamal with some of the other available data. Sure enough, there was a suitable Schweingruber series called Khadyta River close by to Yamal, and with 34 cores, it represented a much more reliable basis for reconstructing temperatures.

McIntyre therefore prepared a revised dataset, replacing Briffa's selected 12 cores with the 34 from Khadyta River. The revised chronology was simply staggering. The sharp uptick in the series at the end of the twentieth century had vanished, leaving a twentieth century apparently without a significant trend. The blade of the Yamal hockey stick, used in so many of those temperature reconstructions that the IPCC said validated Michael Mann's work, was gone.

http://bishophill.squarespace.com/storage/rcs_chronologies_rev2.gif?__SQUARESPACE_CACHEVERSI ON=1254253317294

Milo Christensen
09-30-2009, 07:11 AM
Once again, I'll post a link to Stabilization Wedges: Solving the Climate Problem for the Next 50 Years with Current Technologies. (http://carbonsequestration.us/Papers-presentations/htm/Pacala-Socolow-ScienceMag-Aug2004.pdf)

Fifteen strategies are discussed for stabilizing the CO2 level, seven of the fifteen need to be implemented.
I have a problem with the title. "Solving the Climate Problem" to the authors means stabilizing the atmospheric CO2 level at around 500 ppm, up from the current 386 ppm, over the next 50 years. Given that 350 ppm is probably the upper "safe" limit for sustaining a climate suitable for life and "civilization" as we know it, it's pretty obvious that we're going to be facing some very serious changes, even if we implement some very serious changes to Business As Usual.

PeterSibley
09-30-2009, 07:26 AM
Thanks Milo ,I've saved it and will have look tomorrow .Bed time now .

2MeterTroll
09-30-2009, 11:22 AM
Hot Air I have read the argument and read the OTHER papers on the subject. in fact I posted LINKS to peer reviewed papers on the subject, in this thread.

Please read them! BEFORE you CP two pages.

RodSBT
09-30-2009, 02:39 PM
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-bloggers/1806245/posts

http://www.geocraft.com/WVFossils/Carboniferous_climate.html

http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v453/n7193/full/nature06949.html

http://www.junkscience.com/MSU_Temps/historical_CO2.html

http://www.sciencebits.com/IceCoreTruth

http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2005/11/650000-years-of-greenhouse-gas-concentrations/

http://www.sciencemag.org/cgi/content/abstract/313/5795/1928?rss=1

http://geology.gsapubs.org/content/37/9/807.abstract

Hot Air
09-30-2009, 02:52 PM
Troll, thoses links are to papers, mostly by Mann and Briffa, the two scientists who are under very close scrutiny now because it is looking like their so-called peer-reviewed science is a load of crap. But maybe you didn't read the C&Ps. There are two pages of information above.

2MeterTroll
09-30-2009, 03:00 PM
Hi buddy,

Nice posts. I mean 90 % of the folks in the world or at least in the Industrial world BELIEVE in global warming caused by man.

They endlessly quote a small sample of scientifically not up to normal peer review standards dissertations.

No one seems to remember that the first rule of scientific research is to examine data and results both for the thesis and the anti-thesis.

Our hypothesis or theory could be backwards from reality.

This is compounded by the fact that the most quoted sited for GW are organizations with a political motive.

[quote]Dude, do you actually know any scientists? This argument, though oft repeated, is simply ludicrous. People don't do science to get rich, and very few scientists have book deals that the average working stiff would consider lucrative. As for grant money, there are plenty of organizations that would love to fund someone who had solid scientific evidence countering the consensus view on climate change. Problem is, nobody has come up with any.

As I have mentioned before I was one of the worlds top card carrying scientists. Just Google Chase H. Kenyon to find a few of my non classified presentations. I was elected to Chair the Mobile Robotics and Artificial Intelligence Conferences by my peers.

As to grant money you will find my proposed "On board Weigh in Motion System for the trucking industry. I had all the parts tested and deployed in the field and it only would have taken 2 man months of connecting them and programming to deploy the system at the Beta test level. The 250K$ grant from NHTSA was given instead to a U of Ohio graduate student team to do a feasibility study.

They came back with a conclusion that the technology did not exist yet.

We still do not have this system which would eliminate idling trucks at weigh stations and provide emergency warning of loss or shift of cargo a bonus safety feature.


That is how the grant system works.


So I thank you for your post of reason here on this topic. I do wonder however how many will take the trouble to check out the petition. It might after all have enough evidence that they would have to embarrassingly recant."

With permission.

An excerpt from a conversation i am also holding in my private mail.

2MeterTroll
09-30-2009, 03:07 PM
Troll, thoses links are to papers, mostly by Mann and Briffa, the two scientists who are under very close scrutiny now because it is looking like their so-called peer-reviewed science is a load of crap. But maybe you didn't read the C&Ps. There are two pages of information above.


As i recall the link to the papers i provided had 6 ref's to diffrent studies
3 of them have the folks your CP is arguing with. the other three do not.

Those papers have reviews of there own and more research to add. you can follow those links by searching scholar and looking at the follow ups.

switters
09-30-2009, 03:14 PM
once more, and then I give up.

RodSBT, each of those links presents scientific proof that the earth has had much higher CO2 levels in the past. Some have even brought up the argument about "lag", that global warming for whatever reason drives co2 levels and not the other way around. No one is arguing.

We get it.

Hot air, no hockey stick, data was cherry picked, we get it. Use the same vostock ice core samples and the earth is still warming up, just not at the same rate as some say. I'm not going to dispute it either way. I suspect the truth is somewhere in the middle.

The issue at hand is the climate is going to change, and the thread premise is what to do about it. Not who caused it. I've read some interesting answers.

1. Adapt as it happens (this is going to really suck for most, and works for some species, but aren't we more evolved than that?)
2. Legislate caps on GHG (if in fact the hockey stick graph is right and CO2 does drive the warming then it is too late)
3. Pretend nothing is happening, it is all political. (some is, some isn't, never let a crisis go to waste)

what else do we have?

I still think we are going to trigger a shutdown the oceans currents based on the rate of melting glaciers. When this happens, its ice age time and it happens fast. There will be a great amount of people trying to move around the earth in a very short period of time, say 100 years. first inland and then to the equators.

how to get a political entity to survive the mass migrations that are going to happen, both within and between political borders? food scarcity is going to be a big issue, climate patterns will be unstable for a while.

Me? I'm moving into a sustainable compound somewhere in the PNW.

Dave Wright
09-30-2009, 03:55 PM
[quote=ChaseKenyon]Hi buddy,....

As I have mentioned before I was one of the worlds top card carrying scientists. Just Google Chase H. Kenyon to find a few of my non classified presentations. I was elected to Chair the Mobile Robotics and Artificial Intelligence Conferences by my peers....


Hello Mr. 2Meter, I like your posts, but if I recall correctly, a couple of months ago your buddy, "one of the world's top card carrying scientists," was insulting our intelligence by stating that routine annual world wide volcano emissions provided contaminants way in excess of total man made annual emissions. He failed to respond to counter evidence at that time from another poster, although he did say, I think, that he was president of his high school science club.

It's a shame to have to highlight all of this, but when a fellow claims expertise that doesn't seem to correspond with the content of his posts, the highlight has to occur.

Peace and honesty to all.

ChaseKenyon
09-30-2009, 05:36 PM
Hello Mr. 2Meter, I like your posts, but if I recall correctly, a couple of months ago your buddy, "one of the world's top card carrying scientists," was insulting our intelligence by stating that routine annual world wide volcano emissions provided contaminants way in excess of total man made annual emissions. He failed to respond to counter evidence at that time from another poster, although he did say, I think, that he was president of his high school science club.

It's a shame to have to highlight all of this, but when a fellow claims expertise that doesn't seem to correspond with the content of his posts, the highlight has to occur.Sorry Dave, :o

I lost that thread and could not find it. Then the back went on the fritz and time went on. I have been told I have AADD, don't really know but I am a total glutton for knowledge about many subjects. I was prez of the geology club, and founded both the ski club and ski team in HS. My undergraduate work was in Environmental Technology.

I thank you for bringing my failure to respond to my attention. It is embarrassing for this old Navy vet on full disability to see this come up. Next time PM me to wake up and finish what I started.

So I am going to go through my notes and stuff and find some links as you suggested.I will start a new thread for Volcanic Winter and emissions as climate change.


http://www.woodenboat.com/forum/showthread.php?p=2337120#post2337120

In the meantime here are some links and quotes about the subject as a starter.


Historic cases of volcanic winter



(http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Pinatubo_early_eruption_1991.jpg)

http://content.answers.com/main/content/wp/style/images/magnify-clip.png (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Pinatubo_early_eruption_1991.jpg)
Pinatubo early eruption 1991


The scales of recent winters are more modest but their effects can be significant. A paper written by Benjamin Franklin (http://www.woodenboat.com/topic/benjamin-franklin) in 1783 blamed the unusually cool summer of 1783 on volcanic dust coming from Iceland (http://www.woodenboat.com/topic/iceland), where the eruption of Laki (http://www.woodenboat.com/topic/laki-1) volcano had released enormous amounts of sulfur dioxide (http://www.woodenboat.com/topic/sulfur-dioxide), resulting in the death of much of the island's livestock (http://www.woodenboat.com/topic/livestock) and a catastrophic famine (http://www.woodenboat.com/topic/famine)which killed a quarter of the population. Temperatures in thenorthern hemisphere (http://www.woodenboat.com/topic/northern-hemisphere) dropped by about 1 °C in the year following the Laki eruption.



The 1815 eruption of Mount Tambora (http://www.woodenboat.com/topic/tambora), a stratovolcano (http://www.woodenboat.com/topic/stratovolcano) in Indonesia (http://www.woodenboat.com/topic/indonesia), occasioned mid-summer frosts in New York State (http://www.woodenboat.com/topic/new-york) and June snowfalls in New England (http://www.woodenboat.com/topic/new-england) and Newfoundland and Labrador (http://www.woodenboat.com/topic/newfoundland-and-labrador) in what came to be known as the "Year Without a Summer (http://www.woodenboat.com/topic/year-without-a-summer)" of 1816.
In 1883, the explosion (http://www.woodenboat.com/topic/explosion) of Krakatoa (http://www.woodenboat.com/topic/krakatoa) (Krakatau) also created volcanic winter-like conditions. The next four years after the explosion were unusually cold, and the winter of 1888 was the first time snow fell in the area[where? (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:WikiProject_Countering_systemic_bias)]. Record snowfalls were recorded worldwide.
Most recently, the 1991 explosion of Mount Pinatubo (http://www.woodenboat.com/topic/mount-pinatubo), another stratovolcano in the Philippines (http://www.woodenboat.com/topic/philippines), cooled global temperatures for about 2–3 years.[4] (http://www.woodenboat.com/forum/#cite_note-3)

http://www.answers.com/topic/volcanic-winter




When Huaynaputina exploded, it produced about 30 cubic km of tephra (http://www.woodenboat.com/topic/tephra)[1] (http://www.woodenboat.com/forum/#cite_note-gvp-0) and pyroclastic flows (http://www.woodenboat.com/topic/pyroclastic) traveled 13 km to the east and southeast, and lahars (http://www.woodenboat.com/topic/lahar) – volcanic mudflows – destroyed several villages and reached the coast of the Pacific Ocean (http://www.woodenboat.com/topic/pacific-ocean), a distance of 120 km.[1] (http://www.woodenboat.com/forum/#cite_note-gvp-0) The eruption began with a Plinian (http://www.woodenboat.com/topic/plinian-eruption-1)plume that extended into the stratosphere (http://www.woodenboat.com/topic/stratosphere), and the ashfall and accompanyingearthquakes (http://www.woodenboat.com/topic/earthquake) caused substantial damage to the major cities of Arequipa (http://www.woodenboat.com/topic/arequipa) (70 km to the west) and Moquegua (http://www.woodenboat.com/topic/moquegua).
Ashfall was reported 250–500 km away, throughout southern Peru, and in what is now northernChile (http://www.woodenboat.com/topic/chile) and western Bolivia (http://www.woodenboat.com/topic/bolivia). The ash layer now forms a useful stratigraphic marker layer (http://www.woodenboat.com/topic/stratigraphy)throughout Peru.[3] (http://www.woodenboat.com/forum/#cite_note-und-2)
Regional agricultural economies took 150 years to fully recover.[1] (http://www.woodenboat.com/forum/#cite_note-gvp-0)

Global effects


Russia

The explosion had effects on climate around the Northern Hemisphere (http://www.woodenboat.com/topic/northern-hemisphere) (Southern hemispheric records are less complete), where 1601 was the coldest year in six centuries, leading to a famine in Russia; see Russian famine of 1601–1603 (http://www.woodenboat.com/topic/russian-famine-of-1601-1603).[4] (http://www.woodenboat.com/forum/#cite_note-3)

Elsewhere in Europe

In Estonia (http://www.woodenboat.com/topic/estonia), Switzerland (http://www.woodenboat.com/topic/switzerland), and Latvia (http://www.woodenboat.com/topic/latvia) there were bitter cold winters in 1600-1602; in 1601 inFrance (http://www.woodenboat.com/topic/france), the wine (http://www.woodenboat.com/topic/wine) harvest came late; additionally, production of wine collapsed in Germany (http://www.woodenboat.com/topic/germany) and colonial Peru (http://www.woodenboat.com/topic/peru).[5] (http://www.woodenboat.com/forum/#cite_note-msnbc-4)

Asia

In Japan Lake Suwa (http://www.woodenboat.com/topic/lake-suwa) had one of its earliest freezings in 500 years. In China (http://www.woodenboat.com/topic/china-13), peach trees bloomed late.[5] (http://www.woodenboat.com/forum/#cite_note-msnbc-4)

Greenland

In Greenland (http://www.woodenboat.com/topic/greenland) the sulfuric acid (http://www.woodenboat.com/topic/sulfuric-acid) spike was larger than that from Krakatau (http://www.woodenboat.com/topic/krakatoa) (1883).[3] (http://www.woodenboat.com/forum/#cite_note-und-2)



nzález-Ferrán, Oscar (1995). Volcanes de Chile. Santiago, Chile: Instituto Geográfico Militar. p. 640 pp. ISBN 956-202-054-1 (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:BookSources/9562020541). (in Spanish; also includes volcanoes of Argentina, Bolivia, and Peru)
Thouret, Jean-Claude; Davilla, Jasmine. "Huaynaputina Volcano, Southern Peru, AD 1600: Eruption Phases and Mechanisms (http://www.igp.gob.pe/vulcanologia/Publicaciones/X-CongPeru-2000/HTML/Huaynaputina-XCong-SGP-2000.pdf)" (PDF). http://www.igp.gob.pe/vulcanologia/Publicaciones/X-CongPeru-2000/HTML/Huaynaputina-XCong-SGP-2000.pdf. Retrieved on 2008-12-29.


External links



Science News on tie to Russian famine (http://www.sciencenews.org/view/feature/id/35245/title/Disaster_Goes_Global)
The 1600 eruption of Huaynaputina in Peru caused global disruption (http://www.sciencecentric.com/news/article.php?q=08042402)


http://www.answers.com/topic/huaynaputina

THese were easy to find as somthing said on NPR triggered me to go looking for scientific data and reports to verify my reaction that someone interviewed did not understand the level of climate change and the recovery time for Volcanic Winter.

Chase:D

ChaseKenyon
09-30-2009, 05:36 PM
References



^ a (http://www.woodenboat.com/forum/#cite_ref-gvp_0-0) b (http://www.woodenboat.com/forum/#cite_ref-gvp_0-1) c (http://www.woodenboat.com/forum/#cite_ref-gvp_0-2) d (http://www.woodenboat.com/forum/#cite_ref-gvp_0-3) e (http://www.woodenboat.com/forum/#cite_ref-gvp_0-4) "Huaynaputina (http://www.volcano.si.edu/world/volcano.cfm?vnum=1504-03=)". Global Volcanism Program (http://www.woodenboat.com/forum/../topic/global-volcanism-program). Smithsonian Institution.http://www.volcano.si.edu/world/volcano.cfm?vnum=1504-03=. Retrieved on 2008-12-29.
^ (http://www.woodenboat.com/forum/#cite_ref-1) "The Geochemistry of Huaynaputina Volcano, Southern Peru (http://horizon.documentation.ird.fr/exl-doc/pleins_textes/divers4/010008661.pdf)". Third ISAG.http://horizon.documentation.ird.fr/exl-doc/pleins_textes/divers4/010008661.pdf. Retrieved on 2009-02-18.
^ a (http://www.woodenboat.com/forum/#cite_ref-und_2-0) b (http://www.woodenboat.com/forum/#cite_ref-und_2-1) "Huaynaputina information (http://volcano.space.edu/cvz/huay.html)". University of North Dakota.http://volcano.space.edu/cvz/huay.html. Retrieved on 2009-02-19.
^ (http://www.woodenboat.com/forum/#cite_ref-3) Witze, Alexandra (2008-04-11). "The volcano that changed the world (http://www.nature.com/news/2008/080411/full/news.2008.747.html)". Nature.Com News (http://www.nature.com/news/index.html).Nature Publishing Group (http://www.woodenboat.com/forum/../topic/nature-publishing-group).http://www.nature.com/news/2008/080411/full/news.2008.747.html. Retrieved on 2008-04-14.
^ a (http://www.woodenboat.com/forum/#cite_ref-msnbc_4-0) b (http://www.woodenboat.com/forum/#cite_ref-msnbc_4-1) Thompson, Andrea (2008-05-05). "Volcano in 1600 caused global disruption (http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/24467948/)".LiveScience.com. MSNBC. http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/24467948/. Retrieved on 2008-12-29.




Go

ChaseKenyon
09-30-2009, 07:01 PM
http://www.discovery.org/v/30

ChaseKenyon
09-30-2009, 07:17 PM
proceedings















Click a link to play a video


Audio, Video, PowerPoints, and PDFs

The second International Conference on Climate Change concluded its 2-1/2 -day run March 10, 2009 in New York City after confronting the theme "Global warming: Was it ever really a crisis?"
The answer was a resounding "No."
More than 75 papers and keynote addresses were presented by some of the world's leading climatologists, economists, policy makers, and opinion leaders. You can access videos of many of the presentations here. New videos and audio versions will be added as they become available.
The full conference program, including full speaker bios and cosponsor information, is here (http://www.heartland.org/events/NewYork09/PDFs/NY09Program.pdf).
You can play the videos linked here in the screen to the right, or download them to your own computer. Either way, to play them you must have Adobe Flash Player installed. To get the latest version for free from the Adobe Web site, click here (http://get.adobe.com/flashplayer/?promoid=BUIGP).
:)


Welcome to the 2009 International Conference on Climate Change, the second major international conference
devoted to answering questions overlooked by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change.
Approximately 800 people have registered for this event, nearly twice as many as attended last year’s
conference. They include scientists, economists, elected officials, and public policy experts from around
the world. We are delighted to demonstrate once again the breadth and high quality of support that the
“skeptical” perspective on climate change enjoys.
Speakers at this conference will address questions that go to the very heart of the international debate
over climate change:
• Does the plateau in global temperatures during the past eight years contradict computer model predictions,
and therefore requires a reexamination of the greenhouse theory?
• Do proxy records of ancient climates contradict how computer models characterize the role of carbon
dioxide in climate change?
• Does the modern warming have the “fingerprint” of having been caused by greenhouse gases, or is it
more likely the result of other forcings?
• Is there a case—either in science or economics—for governments to legislate reductions in
greenhouse gas emissions? Should such efforts be suspended until the case for anthropogenic global
warming is stronger?
These are hotly debated topics within the scientific community. Many of the world’s leading scientists
(some of whom are speaking at this conference) have taken positions that are decidedly at odds with
those expressed by the IPCC and other government agencies of the United Nations, the U.S., and other
countries. These scientists believe global warming is not a crisis. Regrettably, the mainstream media seems
unwilling or unable to question the authority of government spokespersons, or to go directly to the real
scientists and policy experts for a more informed, and less institutionally biased, perspective.
The Heartland Institute is pleased to be your host for this important event. We extend our thanks














Click a link to play a video


Audio, Video, PowerPoints, and PDFs

The second International Conference on Climate Change concluded its 2-1/2 -day run March 10, 2009 in New York City after confronting the theme "Global warming: Was it ever really a crisis?"
The answer was a resounding "No."
More than 75 papers and keynote addresses were presented by some of the world's leading climatologists, economists, policy makers, and opinion leaders. You can access videos of many of the presentations here. New videos and audio versions will be added as they become available.
The full conference program, including full speaker bios and cosponsor information, is here (http://www.heartland.org/events/NewYork09/PDFs/NY09Program.pdf).
You can play the videos linked here in the screen to the right, or download them to your own computer. Either way, to play them you must have Adobe Flash Player installed. To get the latest version for free from the Adobe Web site, click here (http://get.adobe.com/flashplayer/?promoid=BUIGP).
[/quote]:)

ChaseKenyon
09-30-2009, 07:36 PM
If you really care about the threat of global warming or the threat of Volcanic Winter
\
Please take the time to watch the videos.


Opening dinner with keynote speakers
Joseph L. Bast - Opening Remarks (HTML Remarks (http://www.heartland.org/full/24840/Opening_Remarks_2008_International_Conference_on_C limate_Change.html)) (PowerPoint (http://www.heartland.org/bin/media/newyork09/PowerPoint/Joseph_Bast.ppt)) (Play Video (http://www.woodenboat.com/forum/#)) (Download Video (http://www.heartland.org/bin/media/newyork09/keynotes/030809DinnerBast.flv)) (Listen to Audio (http://www.heartland.org/bin/media/newyork09/Audio/Sunday/Joseph_Bast.mp3))
Hon. Vaclav Klaus - No Progress in the Climate Change Debate (Play Video (http://www.woodenboat.com/forum/#)) (Download Video (http://www.heartland.org/bin/media/newyork09/keynotes/030809DinnerKlaus.flv)) (Listen to Audio (http://www.heartland.org/bin/media/newyork09/Audio/Sunday/Vaclav_Klaus.mp3))
Richard Lindzen - Climate Alarm: What We Are Up Against, and What to Do (HTML Remarks) (http://www.heartland.org/full/24841/Climate_Alarm_What_We_Are_Up_Against_and_What_to_D o.html) (PDF Remarks) (http://www.heartland.org/events/newyork09/pdfs/lindzen.pdf)(Play Video (http://www.woodenboat.com/forum/#)) (Download Video) (http://www.heartland.org/bin/media/newyork09/keynotes/030809DinnerLindzen.flv) (Listen to Audio (http://www.heartland.org/bin/media/newyork09/Audio/Sunday/Richard_Lindzen.mp3))
Questions and Answers (Play Video (http://www.woodenboat.com/forum/#)) (Download Video (http://www.heartland.org/bin/media/newyork09/keynotes/030809DinnerQA.flv)):)

High C
09-30-2009, 09:25 PM
There is no debate.

2MeterTroll
10-01-2009, 12:43 AM
thanks Rod I am reading through the links now and checking out the ref,s

2MeterTroll
10-01-2009, 01:13 AM
Hello Mr. 2Meter, I like your posts, but if I recall correctly, a couple of months ago your buddy, "one of the world's top card carrying scientists," was insulting our intelligence by stating that routine annual world wide volcano emissions provided contaminants way in excess of total man made annual emissions. He failed to respond to counter evidence at that time from another poster, although he did say, I think, that he was president of his high school science club.

It's a shame to have to highlight all of this, but when a fellow claims expertise that doesn't seem to correspond with the content of his posts, the highlight has to occur.

Peace and honesty to all.

Dave his theory is being supported by research that has been peer reviewed. In this thread i am trying to balance the science with what to do.

i will put any ones supported theory up as i will read any papers on the subjects as long as they are not some guys blog. the information should help folks make a responses to climate change. Climate change is happening i dont actually care whos fault it is. I would like to explore how to deal with it.

Dave Wright
10-01-2009, 10:44 AM
Fair enough 2 Meter. Mr. Kenyon has posted many thousands of words and multiple C&P's. He has told us of his accomplishments. I invite you to take a little time, 15 minutes ought to do it, and consider his statement posted 4/19/09:

Mount ST Helen's eruption , a minor thing compared with the 1940s eruption of Mt Vesuvius, spewed more carbon and gas into the upper atmosphere than mankind has produced in 10,000 years.


This is apparently a foundation of Mr. Kenyon's belief. He doesn't provide support for thiis belief. We are to believe it based upon his laurels. Check it out, if you agree with it you're happily on your way. If you decide otherwise, you may want to look more closely at some of his other pronouncements.

What would I like? I'd like Mr. Kenyon to clean up his trail, blow away the smokescreens and reason and argue in a way consistent with "one of the world's top card carrying scientists."

LeeG
10-01-2009, 11:38 AM
There is no debate.

I am the walrus

Boston
10-05-2009, 01:10 AM
the Acid Test

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5cqCvcX7buo


although I did not read back past this last page since my last visit I did skim these last few and noticed a reference to the Heartland institutes climate conference

I think it important for all the readers to realize what exactly the heartland institute is and who its backers are

I would also urge all to look up the term "agnotology"

from source watch

[quote]The Heartland Institute, according to the Institute's web site, is a nonprofit organization whose mission is "to discover and promote free-market solutions to social and economic problems".[1] (http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=Heartland_Institute#_note-0) The Institute campaigns in support of:


"Common-sense environmentalism", such as opposition to the the Kyoto Protocol (http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=Kyoto_Protocol) aimed at countering global warming
Genetically engineered crops and products;
The privatization of public services;
The introduction of school vouchers;
The deregulation of health care insurance;

and against:


What it refers to as "junk science (http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=Junk_science)";
Tobacco control measures such as tobacco tax increases (the Institute denies the health effects of second-hand smoke);

The institute was founded in 1984 by David H. Padden (http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=David_H._Padden), now the President of Padco Lease Corporation (http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=Padco_Lease_Corporation&action=edit) and Joseph L. Bast (http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=Joseph_L._Bast), Heartland's President and CEO.[2] (http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=Heartland_Institute#_note-1) In 2007 it spent over $5.8 million on its activities.[3] (http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=Heartland_Institute#_note-2007AR)
The Institute sees its primary audience as "the nation’s 8,300 state and national elected officials and approximately 8,400 local government officials."[4] (http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=Heartland_Institute#_note-2008AR) For five of the Insitute's priority policy areas, Heartland produces 20-page tabloid-sized monthly newspapers which are primarily distributed to elected officials, journalists and donors. (The five publications are Budget & Tax News, Environment & Climate News (http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=Environment_%26_Climate_News), Health Care News, Infotech & Telecom News and School Reform News.[4] (http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=Heartland_Institute#_note-2008AR) Heartland also hosts PolicyBot, which it refers to as the "Internet's most extensive clearing-house for the work of free-market think tanks (http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=Think_tanks)." The database contains 22,000 documents from 350 U.S. right-wing think tanks and advocacy groups.[5] (http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=Heartland_Institute#_note-2)

Mission

On its website it states that it "is a genuinely independent source of research and commentary founded in Chicago, Illinois in 1984. It is not affiliated with any political party, business, or foundation. Its activities are tax-exempt under Section 501(c)(3) (http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=501%28c%29%283%29) of the Internal Revenue Code."[6] (http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=Heartland_Institute#_note-3)
A version of its mission stated, current until 2006, stated that Heartland was "devoted to turning ideas into social movements that empower people". Another think tank link to Heartland used a slightly different version of its mission statement: "Heartland's mission is to help build social movements in support of ideas that empower people".[7] (http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=Heartland_Institute#_note-4)
In a statement submitted to the charity research group, Guidestar, Heartland states that "people devote time to learn about subjects only if they believe acquiring specific knowledge will benefit them personally. Often, this seems unlikely. Consequently, most people choose rationally to remain ignorant about many public policy issues. The Heartland Institute has overcome the problem of 'rational ignorance' by inventing publications busy elected officials and the public will actually read and come to trust. Our publications are highly effective and inexpensive vehicles for communicating messages on public policy." [8] (http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=Heartland_Institute#_note-5)
[edit (http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=Heartland_Institute&action=edit&section=2)]
Tobacco ties

Although Heartland calls itself "a genuinely independent source of research and commentary," its has been a frequent ally of, and funded by, the tobacco industry. According to a 1995 internal report by Philip Morris USA (PM) on its corporate contributions budget, the company uses its contributions "as a strategic tool to promote our overall business objectives and to advance our government affairs agenda," in particular by supporting "the work of free market 'think tanks' and other public policy groups whose philosophy is consistent with our point of view. ... [W]e have given general support over the years to such groups as the Heritage Foundation (http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=Heritage_Foundation), Heartland Institute, Americans for Tax Reform (http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=Americans_for_Tax_Reform), Citizens for a Sound Economy (http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=Citizens_for_a_Sound_Economy), Washington Legal Foundation (http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=Washington_Legal_Foundation) and a variety of other organizations that help provide information about the ultimate course of legislation, regulation and public opinion through their studies, papers, op-ed pieces and conferences."[9] (http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=Heartland_Institute#_note-6)
Internal company documents show the following contributions from PM to Heartland (which is probably an incomplete list):


$25,000 in 1993[10] (http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=Heartland_Institute#_note-7)
$65,000 in 1995[11] (http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=Heartland_Institute#_note-8)
$50,000 in 1996[12] (http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=Heartland_Institute#_note-9)
$50,000 in 1997[13] (http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=Heartland_Institute#_note-10)
$50,000 in 1998 (proposed)[14] (http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=Heartland_Institute#_note-11)[15] (http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=Heartland_Institute#_note-12)

Roy E. Marden (http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=Roy_E._Marden), a former member of Heartland's board of directors, was until May 2003 the manager of industry affairs for the Philip Morris (http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=Philip_Morris) (PM) tobacco company, where his responsibilities included lobbying and "managing company responses to key public policy issues," which he accomplishes by "directing corporate involvement with industry, business, trade, and public policy organizations and determining philanthropic support thereto." In a May 1991 document prepared for PM, Marden listed Heartland's "rapid response network" as a "potential spokesperson" among the "portfolio of organizations" that the company had cultivated to support its interests.[16] (http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=Heartland_Institute#_note-13)
In January 1993, PM executive Craig L. Fuller (http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=Craig_L._Fuller) reported that Heartland was one of the "public policy organizations" being considered to sponsor a "conference on the impact of federal mandates/EPA regulations," as part of PM's strategic response to the EPA's decision that secondhand smoke should be classified as a proven lung carcinogen.[17] (http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=Heartland_Institute#_note-14)
In an April 1993 report, Marden noted that he was "developing strategy and tactics" to defeat legislation in California aimed at restricting smoking in public places. He was "liaising with contacts in the public policy arena (think tanks, public interest legal foundations) and the media to generate editorial, op-eds, letters-to-the-editor and position papers." With the Heartland Institute, he was working "re sponsorship of environmental seminars for interested journalists and legislators throughout the Midwest." Simultaneously, he was talking with PM's Washington office to decide how much money the company should give to public policy organizations in 1993.[18] (http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=Heartland_Institute#_note-15) [/URL][URL="http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=Heartland_Institute#_note-reply"] (http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=Tina_A._Walls)

Boston
10-05-2009, 01:11 AM
Fuller's monthly report for August 1993 noted that he had "leveraged numerous contacts in the public policy arena to generate positive publicity for PM and/or a fair hearing on our issues, with particular reference to the misapplication of science by the EPA and the resulting poor public policy ... and the policy arguments against the use of excise taxes to fund proposed health care reform." The Heartland Institute was one of the contacts they had "leveraged," along with the Acton Institute for the Study of Religion and Liberty, the Alexis de Tocqueville Institute, Americans for Tax Reform, Capital Research Center, Claremont Institute for the Study of Statesmanship and Political Philosophy, Consumer Alert, Mackinac Center for Public Policy, and the National Center for Policy Analysis. He had also provided "background material" about environmental tobacco smoke (ETS) to "various policy groups and media contacts. As a result, EPA Watch, the Heartland Institute and Capital Research Center wrote commentaries addressing the EPA and ETS. These commentaries are expected to appear in various newspapers around the country."[19]
Marden's monthly report for February 1994 noted that he was "working with the Heartland Institute in the planning of a health policy forum for state-level think tanks to develop a unified strategy and action plan, and in the use of their fax-on-demand technology to promote health care positioning consistent with our interests to legislators, public opinion makers and the public."[20] In April, he reported that he was working with PM's Washington office "and the Heartland Institute in the development of strategy and ally mobilization to preserve the deductibility of tobacco advertising expenditures."[21]
In 1995, the Heartland Institute introduced "PolicyFax," a fax-on-demand service that offered to send thousands of policy position papers by fax as a free service to government officials and journalists. On February 2, 1996, Marden reported that the service would be adding the summary of a report on secondhand smoke. "This telephone service is linked to ALL state legislators and key regional media throughout the country and is free to those audiences," he wrote. "Heartland maintains statistics on documents requested and we will be able to track requests."[22]
Later that month, Heartland president Joseph Bast wrote a letter to Tina A. Walls, PM's Vice President for State Government Affairs, informing her of a collaboration between Heartland and the American Legislative Exchange Council, another PM-supported policy advocacy organization on whose board Walls sits. In a handwritten note at the bottom of the letter, Bast added, "Roy Marden's on our board!"[23]
In 1999, Heartland was listed again in an internal PM document as one of the "portfolio of organizations" with which the company planned to mobilize against a U.S. Department of Justice lawsuit, with Heartland's "rapid response network" among the company's "potential third party activities."[24] On October 26 of that year, Marden sent an email to John Ostronic and Frank Gomez in which he listed "the key groups in my portfolio & key actions taken by those groups in opposition to the Fedsuit." Heartland's contributions to the effort included "blast faxes to state legislators, off-the-record briefings, op-eds, radio interviews, letters."[25]
Notwithstanding this long and intimate partnership with the tobacco industry, Heartland president Joe Bast bridled in February 2005 when writer Glenn Fleishman characterized the institute as a "sock puppet of industry" and criticized its role as both a tobacco mouthpiece and an opponent of municipal wi-fi initiatives. "No, there is no 'Philip Morris exec.' on our Board of Directors," Bast wrote in reply to Fleishman's article. Bast did not respond to a query from Fleishman pointing out that a biographical note on the Heartland website indicated that Marden worked at PM.[26] What was unknown was that Marden had left PM in May 2003 and the biographical note on Heartland's website was outdated.
Following SourceWatch's documentation of Heartland's ties to the tobacco industry, the group wrote that Marden "helped convince others in the company to approve contributions to us because of our opposition to high taxes on cigarettes, the abuse of tort law leading up to the Master Settlement Agreement, and other tobacco-related issues. This was not a conflict of interest: All nonprofit organizations put representatives of foundations and corporations on their boards with the expectation that they help “give or get” financial support ... Heartland was speaking up for over-taxed smokers and against nanny state regulations long before Philip Morris offered any funding and before Marden joined the organization’s board."[27]
Bast has also argued that "we do not take positions in order to appease or avoid losing support from individual donors. We have, in fact, a long record of standing behind our research even when it means losing the support of major donors." He also had no response when asked to provide specific examples from its "long record" of publishing reports against the pecuniary interests of its funders.[26]
More recently, in 2006 the Heartland Institute partnered with the National Association of Tobacco Outlets (NATO) in "a campaign to change public opinion about tobacco." The campaign will utilize press releases, letters to editors and an effort to win coverage in magazines and journals, according to an article about the partnership on the NPN Market Pulse web site, a news and information site for petroleum and convenience store marketers. Tom Briant, NATO's Executive Director, said, vowed to work to prevent public health smoking restrictions from being enacted in any more states. "We will certainly work to try and prevent similar statewide smoking bans from being adopted in other states," Briant said, "because we believe the owners of bars and restaurants should have the right to determine how they accommodate their customers and not have government dictate those kinds of regulations."[28]
In February 2009 Heartland lists 5 of its personnel as being "Tobacco Policy Experts".[29] These were Joseph Bast, Ralph Connor, the Local Legislation Manager; John Nothdurft, Heartland's Legislative Specialist; Brad Rodu, from the University of Louisville and W. Kip Viscusi, a Professor of Law at Vanderbilt University Law School.
Heartland also currently lists "Tobacco" as being one of its seven priority topic areas. In an essay -- titled "Tobacco and Freedom" -- Heartland's senior fellow - legal affairs, Maureen Martin and President, Joseph L. Bast, argue that smokers already pay too much tax, that proposals for further restrictions on tobacco and smoking are based on "junk science", that lawsuits against the tobacco industry are an example of "lawsuit abuse", that bans on smoking "hurt small businesses and violate private property rights", that the harm caused to smokers can be reduced by "educating" them "about their options" and that restrictions on smokers violate "the basic libertarian principles that ought to limit the use of government force."[30]
The introduction to Heartland's tobacco portal claims that it "cuts through the propaganda and exaggeration of anti-smoking groups by giving you access to the best available research and commentary from scores of independent research organizations, publications, and government sources."[30]
It also promotes Bast's July 2006 book of essays on tobacco, Please Don’t Poop in My Salad. Introducing the book, Heartland concedes that "defending smokers is a thankless task in today’s politically correct environment." While stating that "Bast doesn’t deny that smoking is an unhealthy habit" it argues that cigarette taxes and bans on smoking go too far and that there is a need to respect "the rights of smokers and the owners of bars and restaurants."[30]
[edit]
Disputing global warming

In March 2008 the Heartland Institute hosted what was referred to as The 2008 International Conference on Climate Change.[31]
A similar conference was held in March 2009 in New York.[32][33]
The Third International Conference on Climate Change was held in Washington, DC on June 2, 2009 at the Washington Court Hotel, to "call attention to widespread dissent to the asserted 'consensus' on various aspects of climate change and global warming," according to Heartland's announcement of the event. "The conference's theme will be Climate Change: Scientific Debate and Economic Analysis. The theme reflects the fact that the scientific debate is not over and that economic analysis is more important than ever, now that legislation is being seriously considered. The real science and economics of climate change support the view that global warming is not a crisis and that immediate action to reduce emissions is not necessary. This is, in fact, the emerging consensus view of scientists outside the IPCC and most economists outside environmental advocacy groups," Heartland's website states. [34]
[edit]
Water policy

Heartland opposes the Great Lakes Water Resources Compact, which was signed into affect in December of 2005 by the governors of eight states that border the great lakes, Minnesota, Wisconsin, Illinois, Indiana, Ohio, Michigan, Pennsylvania and New York, and the premiers of the Canadian provinces of Quebec and Ontario. As of 2008, the compact was ratified by all of the eight state legislatures. The compact was proposed in light of the unprecedented low levels of water in the lakes, which are now at the bottom end of the historical fluctuation range of 4-6 feet. In order to mitigate diminishing water levels, The compact will limit the consumption of water from the Great Lakes to areas within these eight states, or to areas outside of the boundary only by petition subject to strict regulation. [35]

Boston
10-05-2009, 01:13 AM
This new regulation also stemmed from proposals to ship water from the Great Lakes to other states like Arizona, or even out of the country into Asian water markets. [36]
In a research and commentary report released in March of 2007, the Heartland Institute criticized the compact, claiming water should be regulated through the market rather than through the government. [37] In this report, Heartland, as is typical of a free market think tank, contends that water is a commodity just like other resources, and should thus be regulated through market mechanisms. The report cites Terry Anderson, Director of the Property and Environment Research Center, arguing that "water rights should be allocated and traded in the marketplace, even if that means shipping water to Asia at the right price. It's no different than shipping out cars or iron ore." [37]
[edit]
Funding

In its 20075 annual return to the Internal Revenue Service, Heartland disclosed its 2007 annual revenue as being $5.2 million while its total expenses were $5.8 million. The deficit of $648,458 ate through the group's start of year reserves of $535,113. By the end of 2007, Heartland was in the red to the tune of $113,345.[3] In its 2008 annual report to supporters, Heartland outlines that corporate sponsorships start out at $10,000, with the next rung up being "silver" sponsors which contribute $25,000, "gold" sponsors donating $50,000 and "platinum" sponsors kicking in $100,000.[4]
[edit]
Secrecy on funding sources

While Heartland once disclosed its major supporters, it now refuses to publicly disclose who its corporate and foundation funders are. In response to an article criticizing the think tank for its secrecy, the group's President, Joseph Bast, wrote in February 2005:
"For many years, we provided a complete list of Heartland's corporate and foundation donors on this Web site and challenged other think tanks and advocacy groups to do the same. To our knowledge, not a single group followed our lead. However, critics who couldn’t or wouldn’t engage in fair debate over our ideas found the donor list a convenient place to find the names of unpopular companies or foundations, which they used in ad hominem attacks against us. Even reporters from time to time seemed to think reporting the identities of one or two donors--out of a list of hundreds--was a fair way of representing our funding or our motivation in taking the positions expressed in our publications. After much deliberation and with some regret, we now keep confidential the identities of all our donors."[26] It has also claimed that "by not disclosing our donors, we keep the focus on the issue."[27]

Boston
10-05-2009, 01:16 AM
References

all references can be found at

http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=Heartland_Institute

I apologize for the length of that last but it is vitally important that lobbyists not falsely present themselves as scientists

nor should the readers be fooled into thinking there is any scientific debate concerning the issue of global climate change

there is no debate

what there is a concerted effort by industry to convince the public that there is no reason to change
and to use the excuse of uncertainty in order to forestall meaningful change

change that might effect there profit margins

cheers
B

ps
if anyone would like a detailed bio on the so called scientists that attended the heartland institutes climate conference I can provide links to most all of them
nearly to a man every "scientists" on the list has taken energy industry money to write pro energy industry pseudoscience in what clearly amounts to a pro industry public relations effort
that effort does not constitute a scientific debate

it is only a public relations effort

there is no debate

climate change is real
and many of the changes predicted by the theory
are happening faster than predicted

Boston
10-27-2009, 01:02 AM
several weeks since my last I thought Ild check and see if there were any relevant postings

there were none

nor did anyone respond in any way ( let alone with any actual scientific data to the contrary ) to my previous from last month

it's this exactly this kind of blind denial of the facts that is what makes meaningful change so difficult in a world that so desperately needs change in order to survive.



there is once again no debate within the scientific community
what there is is a public relations campaign within the public domain ( and specifically not the scientific ) funded by the oil and gas industry to subvert and delay meaningful change,
change that although necessary for the well-being of the planet would cut into corporate profits
the battle is one of public opinion
not scientific debate
personally I just finished a summer long lecture series on this very subject
which included audiences from NOAA and NCAR
so your attempts to distract from the realization that there is no scientific debate are simply going to be shown exactly that
attempts at distraction
an effort to delay the necessary changes because you dont want to have to change your ways

there is no scientific debate
it is lack of fundamental understanding concerning the wealth of information dedicated to this subject that leads to these kind of claims

Quote:
Countless pages of articles from hundreds of highly credentialed individuals have been presented that clearly show that there is indeed debate.
certainly there may be hundreds of articles
but typically most of it can be atributed to undustry misinformation printed in industry rags
of the few that are from honest scientists
those few are drowning in a sea of tens of thousands of corroborating and detailed reviewed articles accepted and cited by the community at a whole and colated into a coherent theory that has stood the tests of prediction and time

there is simple no competing theory
nor is there even a competing hypothesis

I couldnt help but notice that you were not willing to present any theories
but instead only claim that anomalous data exists
yes
anomalous data always exists
the preponderance of anomalous data is whats relevant
and in the case of climate change
there is only a small percentage of such anomalous data
~3% to be precise

arguing the value of such anomalous data is hardly presenting a coherent and detracting argument, nor does it represent a detailed hypothesis for the scientific community to consider

what you are doing is clinging to a few tidbits of data
and ignoring the ware houses full of research that all agree
climate change is real
science is not debating this issue
what its doing is actively measuring the rate of change
and plugging that new data into the whole
what its not doing is wasting time with a few hold outs who still think the world is flat

cheers
B

oznabrag
10-27-2009, 11:39 AM
climate change is real
and many of the changes predicted by the theory
are happening faster than predicted


Hey Boston! I wondered where you'd wandered off to.

I'm glad to see you.

I thought this thread had gone away when Ernie got banned, but here it is.

I want to say that I have always suspected that the changes would happen faster than predicted. With a little more data, we should be able to derive the exponent(s) that describe this acceleration.

Personally, I think that it is possible we could see a 10 degree F rise in average global temperature within 20 years.

Scary enough? :)

Kaa
10-27-2009, 11:45 AM
several weeks since my last I thought Ild check and see if there were any relevant postings

there were none

nor did anyone respond in any way ( let alone with any actual scientific data to the contrary ) to my previous from last month

it's this exactly this kind of blind denial of the facts that is what makes meaningful change so difficult in a world that so desperately needs change in order to survive.

This subject has been sloshing in the bilge water for quite a while by now. Maybe everyone is tired of rehashing the same issue over and over again? You can go and look up the old threads if you feel the need...

Kaa

jbelow
10-27-2009, 10:01 PM
The info is from the U.N. Makes it political and thus BS.

PeterSibley
10-27-2009, 10:12 PM
The info is from the U.N. Makes it political and thus BS.

:D:D

Flying Orca
10-27-2009, 10:16 PM
The info is from the U.N. Makes it political and thus BS.

Your reasoning process (or facsimile thereof) is fascinating, in a repugnant sort of way. Sure makes you look moronic, though.

WX
10-27-2009, 10:37 PM
Your reasoning process (or facsimile thereof) is fascinating, in a repugnant sort of way. Sure makes you look moronic, though.
I wouldn't go that far, but it is unusual to say the least.

Boston
10-27-2009, 11:05 PM
The reality is that there is no competing theory KAA
given the vehemence of those few who still deny the basics of the theory let alone want to get into the details if there were a rational competing theory within the scientific community they'd slingshot that thing into the conversation like it was the prom queens underwear.
There simply is nothing coherent or comprehensive enough to even call it a hypothesis let alone a working theory able to make accurate predictions like the theory of rapid global climate change has.
If there was even one competing theory let alone a number of them as has been suggested they should be easy enough to find,
thing is there just isnt.
Even the folks who claim natural variation steer clear of denying Rapid global climate change is occurring and stick to more ambiguous argument of things like the limits of paleoclimatology,
rather than often discuss what we do know about the ancient climate even this seemingly rational argument spends the majority of its time focused on what we don't know, rather than what science can determine with verifiable accuracy. Its a semantic attack on how science is conducted rather than presenting any kind of competing theory, believe me the scientific community would rather be wrong on this one, problem is to about 97% of the folks who actually study the subject its spot on. The vast majority of the data collected and collated into the theory of rapid climate change has numerous confirmations in multiple scientific disciplines.
If there were a competing theory it would be getting a lot of play,
there just isn't.

So what your left with is a theory thats been around for a while that thousands of scientists have contributed to
and is able to make accurate predictions, has multiple confirmations in numerous disciplines, that has a lot of people really worried and the vast majority of scientist who study the subject believe in.
Makes perfect sense that some percentage of laypeople simply chose not to believe it, after all its a dam grim reality and its a lot easier to just carry on biz as usual rather than recognize that change is necessary to ensure not just a healthy eco-system but any eco-system at all.
The predicted results even at best case scenario are just plain ugly

believe what you will, but know why you believe
otherwise you just might get a surprise you wished you hadn't

best wishes
B

WX
10-27-2009, 11:48 PM
So anyone gaining coastline?

Bob Smalser
10-28-2009, 12:23 AM
Other than continuing efforts to abate traditional pollution and deforestation, especially in developing countries, I rather doubt whether drastic changes to how mankind uses energy are warranted at this point. Science is rife with natural problems we thought we understood, yet 10 or 20 or 30 or more years or later....geological pittances in time....we discovered we didn't understand them at all and had taken counterproductive actions.

1) The amount of atmospheric carbon not only remains within earth norms, it is present in such a tiny amount that efforts to change it are unlikely to succeed.

2) Like it or not, claims that the current warming cycle is the result of man remain questionable.

The atmosphere is comprised of approximately 78% nitrogen, 21 % oxygen, and only 0.038 per cent of CO2, with the remaining various trace gases. That's $3.80 compared to $10,000. Proportionately, it may make little difference if we have $2, or $3, or $5 in comparison to $10,000, and given the complexity and size of earth's atmosphere, man changing $3.80 to $3 may not even be possible, and changing it to $2 probably is.


....the Vostok Ice core samples, some real evidence of climatic trends back 420,000 years.

I was fascinated with these Antarctic ice cores back when they were completed in 1998 and also the later 2003 European Project coring drilled 300 miles distant.

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/f/f2/Epica_do18_plot.png

The Vostok coring was deeper but the European (EPICA) cores go back farther. Above the two data sets are overlaid with the European on top and the Vostok beneath. And below the Vostok core data is arrayed in the more readable graph usually published.

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/c/c2/Vostok-ice-core-petit.png

What's remarkable are.....

- how closely the different cores correlate with each other.

- the uniform extremes of world temperature and C02 highs and lows. All remain within 400k-year norms to date

- how steep all the warming slopes are.

- the uniform spacing of warming and ice ages.

- the appearance of cause-effect with geologic activity with C02 and temperature. IE....volcanoes do appear to play a role.

- the uniformity of the rate of heating and cooling.

- that overlaying human activity shows at least the appearance of zero impact.

Modern man has only been present on all continents for roughly 30,000 years, and he and his more primitive predecessors have only used regular, controlled fire for cooking, agriculture and hunting for 50-100,000 years. Before that man-made fires date to 400,000 years, but it's questionable how numerous, regular and controlled they were. Certainly nothing remotely like the onset of the Cro Magnon era of 35,000 years ago, let alone the onset of the Industrial Revolution only 160 years ago. Yet the rates of change appear to be within norms.....at least in the macro view.

I'm hardly drawing conclusions that these are "proof" that temperature cycles are caused by geologic (or solar) phenomena and that man has zero impact, but they do raise questions about how much of our current economies we should sacrifice at this point in time in the name of Anthropological Climate Change.

Boston
10-28-2009, 12:59 AM
interesting read Bob
point 1 suggests that the present level of co2 is within earths norms
its not
earth norm over the last 400,000 years is less than 300 ppm and an average of about 235 as the graph you presented shows
earlier in history by millions of years the climate record is far more ambiguous and may or may not show significant variations of this norm
but what science can be certain of is that our present level of co2 and the rate of that change is unprecedented in the last about a million years
http://www.sierraclub.ca/national/programs/atmosphere-energy/climate-change/vostok-ice-core.jpg
unfortunatley it was not very clear in the graph you posted so Ill post another of the same data layed out in a more easily readable table

this represents the norm over the last about 600,000 to 800,000 years
we have definetly broken that norm and multiple analysis techniques of the atmospheric carbon show it to be directly attributable to mans activities

you are absolutely right about there being little or nothing we can do about it though
not that we couldn't if we all really wanted to
thing is pollution is profitable
so its here to stay

if you would like to look at some data concerning the certainty of how science knows that the extra carbon came from human activities it is easy enough to show that as well

the questions concerning concentrations and there effects is an interesting one I bump into from time to time.
simply put not all molecules are created equal
some are extremely effective as greenhouse gasses and some are not
even small variations can cause significant change as is proven by the fact that the theory of rapid global climate change has been used to accurately predicted changes now being measured in our planet. Were these basic tenants of science wrong its not likely that accurate predictions could be made.

thing that is most allarming in the graphs you presented is not how steeply the graph represents rising temps but how dramatically they fall off one they hit the negative feed back point
a point which we have surpased for the first time in that entire period of well known atmospheric chemistry I might add

we are undoubtedly in uncharted waters friend
conducting an experiment with our lives and the lives of our children


most graphs of co2 over time dont even show the present levels in trended form because its so far off the chart it screws up the presentation, I had to look for one that actually shows the relationship realistically

http://www.geo.cornell.edu/eas/energy/_Media/ice_core_co2.png

Thing to notice is once again not the spike to temp highs but the relationship between how high the co2/temp got and the corresponding INCREASE in the plunge temp takes as a result.
This is why the snow ball earth theory is generating so much interest at the moment
about 500 million years ago the entire planet froze and everything down to microbes on the surface died
it is thought that all life sprang back from oblivion from the deap ocean vent communities that likely survived because there ecosystems was based on geological energy and not solar.

We are playing with fire
and likely to get burned

B

Bob Smalser
10-28-2009, 01:08 AM
...we have definitely broken that norm and multiple analysis techniques of the atmospheric carbon show it to be directly attributable to mans activities....

....we are undoubtedly in uncharted waters friend conducting an experiment with our lives and the lives of our children....

Noted. And thankyou. But I'll give you the ppm of CO2 but raise you its lack of magnitude and likely impact...as it turns out my $3.80 allegory represents 387 ppm by volume:


The atmosphere is comprised of approximately 78% nitrogen, 21 % oxygen, and only 0.038 per cent of CO2, with the remaining various trace gases. That's $3.80 compared to $10,000. Proportionately, it may make little difference if we have $2, or $3, or $5 in comparison to $10,000, and given the complexity and size of earth's atmosphere, man changing $3.80 to $3 may not even be possible, and changing it to $2 probably is.

Moreover, I seriously doubt we are gambling with anything so near-term as children and grandchildren, although I understand your metaphor. I've been an outdoor worker and serious student of Mama Nature for over 50 years, and I find her resilience most remarkable of all.

Yeadon
10-28-2009, 01:18 AM
Incidentally ... what happened to TwoMeterTroll, aka Ernie?

Boston
10-28-2009, 01:29 AM
I'd like to address your latter point first
please see a presentation by a DR Jeremy Jackson on the state of the oceans
DR J is head of ocean sciences at Scripts and has a list of credentials a mile long so I think we can give him that he knows of what he speaks
in a nut shell he gives the oceans best case scenario about 20 to 50 years before going aerobically stratified on a global scale
in the past when this has happened its been in conjunction with the two largest extinction events
the KT boundary extinction and the Permian Triassic extinction event
the link to his lecture is here

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-ZkwewR69w8&feature=player_embedded

and the presenter is dam cute to

addressing the first point the impact has been predicted many years ago and those predictions have proven accurate
please see Naomi Oreskes "the American Denial of Global Warming"

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2T4UF_Rmlio

the wealth of information concerning both these issues is so vast it is far easier to direct you to some well presented fraction of it rather than attempt to reinvent the wheel so to speak

although the vast majority of science disagrees with you
I would still prefer to be wrong about this
unfortunately
its just not possible to look at the science and come to a different conclusion
if it were possible to come to a different conclusion it someone a lot smarter than us would have writen it up as a hypothesis and presented it to the scientific community for review
there simply is no such competing theory
frankly a lot of us would prefer it if there were one
B

green house gasses are an interesting subject and if you remove the non greenhouse gasses from the mix you get an interesting result as to what contributes what to the overall effect

water vapor, which contributes 36–72% and the concentration of water vapor is based on temp so water vapor is a feed back based on the other gasses

carbon dioxide, which contributes 9–26% which directly effects temp and has been increased by aprox 28% due to mans use of fossil fuels
taken at the low end of the estimation this gas contributes about 16/9 of the ttl effects or almost just about half
taken at the high end of the estimation this gas contributes about 16/26 of the ttl effects or a little less than two thirds of the ttl greenhouse effect
basically you gotta compare apples to apples
methane, which contributes 4–9% which we are also responsible for the dramatic rise in this gas
ozone, which contributes 3–7% which we are reducing ( maybe )

Bob Smalser
10-28-2009, 01:36 AM
...there is simply no way to look at the science and come to a different conclusion....

Sorry, that's too bold a statement for any scientist I know. Few theologians even go so far.

Academia has been studying these complex, 400,000-year natural phenomena for 20-30 years and you and others have a good handle on it already? I doubt it.

Boston
10-28-2009, 01:51 AM
ya I just got done with a summer lecture series on this very subject so I might come off a little strong but the reality is still the reality
thousands of scientists have devoted thousands of hours to exactly that
trying to come to a different conclusion
and there are some bits of anomalous data
but nothing that can be formed into a coherent theory
lots of folks are hoping someone will be able to come up with some other explanation but given the effort thats gone into the study thus far
I stand by the previous statement
poorly stated as it may have been

...there is simply no way to look at the science and come to a different conclusion....

B

actually academia has been well into studying this for about a hundred years
longer if you go all the way back to the discovery that there were green house gasses
thing is that its the universal nature of the consensus that is most frightening
97% of climate scientists agree that global warming is occurring
and agree that its caused by man
that's the largest consensus in science Ive ever even heard of
you couldn't get that kind of consensus if you were arguing about dinner out let alone a scientific theory

martin schulz
10-28-2009, 03:28 AM
If our political forms do not allow proper action to be taken, we are doomed, so it may be best to consider changes to the forms of politics. It's that serious.

Well you have a monarchy!
How about letting Charles get on the throne? As far as I remember he is pretty "green", isn't he?

Boston
10-28-2009, 04:20 AM
Hey Boston! I wondered where you'd wandered off to.

I'm glad to see you.

I thought this thread had gone away when Ernie got banned, but here it is.

I want to say that I have always suspected that the changes would happen faster than predicted. With a little more data, we should be able to derive the exponent(s) that describe this acceleration.

Personally, I think that it is possible we could see a 10 degree F rise in average global temperature within 20 years.

Scary enough? :)

ya Im around
Just dont want to spend to much time trying to convince folks of things they dont want to know anyway or preaching to the quire. Spent most of the summer dealing with this on an almost daily basis and Ive pretty much come to the conclusion its hopeless. Whatever changes might be in the works, its to little to late, might as well pour another drink, slide on the sun glasses and kick back to enjoy the show. The data is overwhelmingly convincing and I guess Ive just lost the urge to try and deal with the denial.

but
I couldnt sleep so I thought I'd drop in and see what was going on
there were some interesting questions and I thought they deserved some answers. If you get a chance watch those two flicks I posted links to.
both are a wake up call even if you already understand the science
the magnitude of the problem is hard to imagine until you cross discipline lines and connect the dots
one I didnt post is on the declining glaciers
wow, now those numbers are scary
unbelievable how fast things are melting and its that higher than predicted melt off that's a significant factor fueling the aerobic stratification of the oceans predictions. Ya glaciers have melted before but not all of them at once. North passage open for the first time in known history, summer ice, what summer ice. and to top all that off its occurring even through the solar minimum which should have resulted in at least a temporary decline of these effects, numbers are still coming in on the last few years but all in all the ice has continued to melt throughout this period just as fast if not faster than measured in the previous few years; I tend to hear the same thing form every field man out there, "the ice is melting unbelievable fast, far faster than predicted" that and things like "we might have hit the tipping point already"

its beyond frightening and I just get tired of it
must be something uplifting I can get out and work on
maybe Ill just stick with my carpentry for a while now that the summer series is over
dam that was hectic

best
B

oh and just to head off the standard come back to the antarctic ice melting
ya its getting thicker
why
cause the edges are melting so fast its raising the humidity of the whole region and causing snow to fall in areas it normally doesnt fall in
basically its a large continent and creating its own micro-climate
doesnt mean its getting gaining volume overall
http://nsidc.org/sotc/images/arc_antarc_1979_2009.gif

this one makes it pretty clear that a huge majority of glaciers are melting fast

http://tamino.files.wordpress.com/2007/05/glacemb.jpg

Of the 80 glaciers with measurements in 2002, 62 shrank, 17 grew, and one showed no change. Of the 85 glaciers with measurements in 2003, 80 shrank while only 5 grew.
A sample of 85 isn’t very large, but it’s big enough to show a trend as strong as the one observed. If there were no worldwide pattern, the chance that 62 out of 80 glaciers would show growth while only 17 showed shrinkage is less than one in two million. The chance that 80 out of 85 glaciers would grow while only 5 shrank is about less than one in 4 quadrillion (that’s a 4 followed by 15 zeros). The evidence is overwhelming, glaciers world-wide are shrinking. Fast.

PeterSibley
10-28-2009, 04:28 AM
"You ain't gonna learn what you don't want to know"
The Grateful Dead

Boston
10-28-2009, 05:15 AM
just for fun this is the latest data from the world glacier monitoring service
hint
red is bad
blue
good

file:///Users/ggoolglfutklajsdfrq/Library/Caches/TemporaryItems/moz-screenshot.pnghttp://i354.photobucket.com/albums/r420/maxtanks/5.jpg

isla
10-28-2009, 06:53 AM
I have to go with Boston on this one. My wife has a Phd in Zoology and lectures in biology and environmental science. She, along with the vast majority of scientists believe in anthropological global warming, and I know she has no political agenda.

Bob Smalser #169
Moreover, I seriously doubt we are gambling with anything so near-term as children and grandchildren, although I understand your metaphor. I've been an outdoor worker and serious student of Mama Nature for over 50 years, and I find her resilience most remarkable of all.
Bob Smalser #172
Academia has been studying these complex, 400,000-year natural phenomena for 20-30 years and you and others have a good handle on it already? I doubt it.

No offence Bob, but your arguments lack logic. You are suggesting that your belief in Mother Nature's resilience is based on 50 years of empirical knowledge gained as an outdoor worker. Then you suggest that 30 years of intensive research by thousands of scientists is not long enough to gain a proper understanding :confused:

Bob Smalser
10-28-2009, 07:26 AM
......ya I just got done with a summer lecture series on this very subject so I might come off a little strong but the reality is still the reality.....

...there is simply no way to look at the science and come to a different conclusion....

Fine, and thanks again. Although from my observations this kind of surety is more common to the realm of preachers who work out of tents, than scientists who question everything.

I'll go listen to your presenters and get back to you. The earth has been here....or very, very close to it.....before.


The atmosphere is comprised of approximately 78% nitrogen, 21 % oxygen, and only 0.038 per cent of CO2, with the remaining various trace gases. That's $3.80 compared to $10,000. Proportionately, it may make little difference if we have $2, or $3, or $5 in comparison to $10,000, and given the complexity and size of earth's atmosphere, man changing $3.80 to $3 may not even be possible, and changing it to $2 probably is.

isla
10-28-2009, 08:56 AM
The earth has been here....or very, very close to it.....before.

This is probably true, but the human race, at least in its present civilised form, has not. I have no doubt that the planet could recover from even the severest climate change. However, the big question is 'how will this affect life as we know it?'

Bob Smalser
10-28-2009, 09:16 AM
.....Dr Jeremy Jackson on the state of the oceans'....http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-ZkwewR69w8&feature=player_embedded

....Naomi Oreskes "the American Denial of Global Warming"...http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2T4UF_Rmlio

....its just not possible to look at the science and come to a different conclusion....

It's useful here to separate the issues, because the lectures are targeted toward those who don't believe any of this.

There's no doubt in my mind the earth is warming, and at least part of it is caused by the dramatic increase in man's campfires compared to the bulk of man's latest 400k-year evolution, the issues in my mind are 1) how much is caused by man as opposed to nature and 2) what if anything we can do about it, which is the main question of the thread.


Other than continuing efforts to abate traditional pollution and deforestation, especially in developing countries, I rather doubt whether drastic changes to how mankind uses energy are warranted at this point. Science is rife with natural problems we thought we understood, yet 10 or 20 or 30 or more years or later....geological pittances in time....we discovered we didn't understand them at all and had taken counterproductive actions.


Besides assuming that man and not nature is the principle cause of the rise in CO2, and ignoring all those periods in history when the NW Passage has been open.........Dr Jackson and I are the same age, he seems to have spent most of his working life in Panama, and interprets Rachel Carson as a harbinger of catastrophe.

OTOH I was a farm boy who grew up maintaining six large greenhouses that except for a few target species were maintained as biological deserts, lived Silent Spring as a biology research assistant in the worst of the methyl parathion-DDT-chlordane peach orchards of the American South, have since lived, worked, hunted, fished and dived in the Canal Zone, Korea, rural Europe, the Persian Gulf, coastal Oman-Yemen, and the PNW, and interpret Carson as a harbinger of hope. In the '60's I was one of the college kids live-netting wild turkeys in the deep swamps and transplanting them to areas where we had stopped using chlorinated hydrocarbons....areas that hadn't seen turkeys (and deer/bear for that matter) for 30-50 years because of overhunting and pesticides. And today wild turkeys are literally pests in suburban New Jersey less than 30 miles from NYC, let alone in up-country South Carolina.

And however attractive, I had a hard time getting past Dr Oreskes' political smirks at pollster Frank Luntz (of all people), and while walking us back through Tyndall and the Swedish legacy researchers, mostly what I noted was that none of them addressed my concerns as separate questions. Except that later modelling predicted a steady rise in temperature which hasn't turned out to be steady at all. If she wants to get political, let's discuss the unintended consequences of over-reaction like my wind farm example below....or how close John Edwards came to becoming President, and that he made his fortune suing obstetricians for causing multiple sclerosis....and that 20 years later science discovers there are no links between obstetricians and MS. In the meanwhile we have all paid more we shouldn't have to finance Edward's Life of Riley. I'll take another stab at Oreskes later.


Wind farms are just one small example of many.

- Are we really gonna plow up thousands and thousands of acres of pristine, fragile desert ecosystems for concrete pads and service roads?

- How difficult, expensive and lengthy a process will it be to condemn the hundreds of thousands of acres of private property necessary for all those new transmission lines necessary to bring that electricity to population centers? Think there will be any lawsuits to deal with?

- How many threatened and endangered migratory birds and bats will be killed annually by all those propeller blades?

- Besides oil tycoon Boone Pickens, who today have positioned themselves to gain financially from such a massive national investment?

- What ever happened to that wind farm planned offshore from the Kennedy estate in Massachussets?

oznabrag
10-28-2009, 09:36 AM
... this kind of surety is more common to the realm of preachers who work out of tents, than scientists who question everything.

...

Hey Bob, I would suggest that that kind of surety is also within the province of the driver of a runaway train. Or of the skydiver who's chutes haven't opened.

Boston
10-28-2009, 11:19 AM
the issues in my mind are 1) how much is caused by man as opposed to nature and 2) what if anything we can do about it, which is the main question of the thread.the isotopic mass data places anthropogenic co2 at 28% of the total
co2 contributes anywhere from one half to one third of the greenhouse climate driving gasses which in turn substantially control atmospheric vapor content, which contributes another one third to three quarters, so actually co2 and methane are hugely responsible for temp. Methane ( a more powerful green house gas than co2 ) is also a being released by mans activities in huge quantities.

There is no known source within nature other than man to attribute the rise in either gas to; that source would have to not only steadily increase over a time table and exactly in step with the industrial age but would also need to emit an isotope of co2 typical of fossil fuels.

as for what we can do about it
we could probably not fix the present alterations of the atmospheric chemistry; things would have to run there course.
we could definitely stop emitting the majority of the co2 we presently emit every year
no way is industry ( which makes a ton of money dumping its waste products on the world by the way ) is going to allow itself a lower profit margin
after all
industry is the core of the corporate oligarchy and it is they who actually run the place
doesnt mean that we should ignore the science though
just means that some of us know the house is on fire while watching the kids play in the basement