| FORUM | ARCHIVE |                    | TOTAL QUIZ RESULT |


  New Posts New Posts RSS Feed - The Climate Change Climate Change
  FAQ FAQ  Forum Search   Events   Register Register  Login Login


Welcome stranger, click here to read about some of the great benefits of registering for a free account with us and joining us in our global online community.


The Climate Change Climate Change

 Post Reply Post Reply
Author
wolfhnd View Drop Down
General
General
Avatar

Joined: 18 Feb 2015
Location: United States
Status: Offline
Points: 816
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote wolfhnd Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Topic: The Climate Change Climate Change
    Posted: 01 Oct 2015 at 10:22
"Steve Fielding recently asked the Obama administration to reassure him on the science of man-made global warming. When the administration proved unhelpful, Mr. Fielding decided to vote against climate-change legislation.

If you haven't heard of this politician, it's because he's a member of the Australian Senate. As the U.S. House of Representatives prepares to pass a climate-change bill, the Australian Parliament is preparing to kill its own country's carbon-emissions scheme. Why? A growing number of Australian politicians, scientists and citizens once again doubt the science of human-caused global warming."


Although this article is several years old it speaks to what I see as a growing need to question the models used for climate prediction.  It is also clear that many people are losing interest in the topic as warming fails to fall within the predicted range. 

The political agenda to redistribute wealth from the industrialized nations to third world countries has always been transparent in the debate on AGW.  It has also been evident that AGW politics are strongly supportive of socialist agendas to restrain capitalism.  It may turn out if the warming pause continues that the left's political agenda will backfire and environmentalism will be the real victim as people lose faith in the institutions that promoted a consensus. 


Edited by wolfhnd - 01 Oct 2015 at 10:27
Back to Top
Sponsored Links


Back to Top
fantasus View Drop Down
Arch Duke
Arch Duke
Avatar

Joined: 07 May 2009
Location: Denmark
Status: Offline
Points: 1943
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote fantasus Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 01 Oct 2015 at 14:21
While this is admittedly not a field I have studied that much Ihave a strong impression from the debate that the "sceptics" believe what they prefer to believe, and interpret data in a dubious way.
Back to Top
caldrail View Drop Down
General
General
Avatar

Joined: 21 Jan 2014
Location: Rushey Platt
Status: Offline
Points: 892
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote caldrail Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 04 Oct 2015 at 11:58
Climate change has been a big issue because it involves money. The truth is that the climate changes year on year in small or sometimes obvious increments anyway, but Humanity has been extraordinarily lucky in that we've emerged in a period of relative stability. So things are changing? Welcome to Planet Earth everyone. As for the damage, well, okay, but that's more related to our numbers as a successful species than we we're actually doing.As for trying to halt climate change, well, Canute once proved that nature was somewhat more powerful than gods chosen king. The trick is to find a way to adapt and rioll with the punches. If you try to carry on as before while the enviroment changes, well, there's an awful lot of species in the fossil record that went with tried and tested ways


Edited by caldrail - 04 Oct 2015 at 11:59
http://www.unrv.com/forum/blog/31-caldrails-blog/
Back to Top
franciscosan View Drop Down
Arch Duke
Arch Duke


Joined: 09 Feb 2015
Location: Littleton CO
Status: Offline
Points: 1796
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote franciscosan Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 12 Oct 2015 at 03:34
I thought it was funny when Al Gore got one of the, "at least he is not a Bush" Nobel Peace Prizes.  The other two being Jimmy Carter, and Barack Obama (the man who has shot off more cruise missiles than all the other Peace Prize Winners combined, although Arafat may have been more familiar with explosives).  But since Gore's science was off, Nobel tacked on some scientists for it.  It is good to know that they are so forgiving, if one's science is off, as long as it is leaning the "correct" way, then again it is a Peace prize not a science prize.  

I like Wall Street Journal articles on climate change, they tend to give reasoned arguments, and stay away from the "because I am an expert" attitude.  They tend to produce a range of other explanations for climate change.  Some call into question the mantra that "climate change is all greenhouse gases," and that questioning is modern heresy from the scientific orthodoxy.  That orthodoxy, far from being innocuous, controls funding and publication.  No credence (for whatever reason, right or wrong), no publication.  No publication, no credence, it is a vicious circle.  Some political wonk, (Gore), gets a Nobel prize because he writes a book, and does a video, but the science is off.  It is a matter of the left, pulling a muscle in their arm, patting themselves on the back.
Back to Top
fantasus View Drop Down
Arch Duke
Arch Duke
Avatar

Joined: 07 May 2009
Location: Denmark
Status: Offline
Points: 1943
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote fantasus Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 12 Oct 2015 at 08:16
Originally posted by franciscosan franciscosan wrote:

I thought it was funny when Al Gore got one of the, "at least he is not a Bush" Nobel Peace Prizes.  The other two being Jimmy Carter, and Barack Obama (the man who has shot off more cruise missiles than all the other Peace Prize Winners combined, although Arafat may have been more familiar with explosives).  But since Gore's science was off, Nobel tacked on some scientists for it.  It is good to know that they are so forgiving, if one's science is off, as long as it is leaning the "correct" way, then again it is a Peace prize not a science prize.  

I like Wall Street Journal articles on climate change, they tend to give reasoned arguments, and stay away from the "because I am an expert" attitude.  They tend to produce a range of other explanations for climate change.  Some call into question the mantra that "climate change is all greenhouse gases," and that questioning is modern heresy from the scientific orthodoxy.  That orthodoxy, far from being innocuous, controls funding and publication.  No credence (for whatever reason, right or wrong), no publication.  No publication, no credence, it is a vicious circle.  Some political wonk, (Gore), gets a Nobel prize because he writes a book, and does a video, but the science is off.  It is a matter of the left, pulling a muscle in their arm, patting themselves on the back.

Beware of "since leftists (or rightists)says X, X (here man made climate change) must be false".
Back to Top
wolfhnd View Drop Down
General
General
Avatar

Joined: 18 Feb 2015
Location: United States
Status: Offline
Points: 816
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote wolfhnd Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 12 Oct 2015 at 08:35
Approximately 0.8 degrees of warming is related to human activity the rest of the predicted warming is from positive feed back primarily water vapor.  What that means is that the models must predict the response of a chaotic system very accurately.   Honestly I don't think that is possible.  
Back to Top
caldrail View Drop Down
General
General
Avatar

Joined: 21 Jan 2014
Location: Rushey Platt
Status: Offline
Points: 892
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote caldrail Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 12 Oct 2015 at 09:52
What has been discovered recently is that the Earths ecological system has a built in protection. As the oceans warm up (and they are, there's no denying it), the system creates more storms. These storms have the property of disturbing deep water which brings large quantities of carbon dioxide consuming life to the surface, thus the system stabilises itself to a degree. The problem is whether we're overloading the system beyond its capacity to self repair. What we cannot avoid are changes to the Earth - our planet is not a static enviroment nor has it ever been, and we as a species need to stop believing that life will go on as before unchanged.

The good news is that CO2 has been a bigger problem before human beings invested so heavily in it. back in the Jurassic period, CO2 levels were at least ten times heavier, and they had one of the most stable climatic eras ever.
http://www.unrv.com/forum/blog/31-caldrails-blog/
Back to Top
franciscosan View Drop Down
Arch Duke
Arch Duke


Joined: 09 Feb 2015
Location: Littleton CO
Status: Offline
Points: 1796
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote franciscosan Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 17 Oct 2015 at 07:42
Is climate change/global warming true?  Is it false?  Climate change is a buzz word which is slightly better than global warming.  Global warming is a conclusion presented before the argument, closing off avenues of inquiry, saying that it must be 'X,' or greenhouse gases.  Okay, what I wonder is what happens when cutting back on greenhouse gases doesn't work.  Will we try something else, having suppressed other avenues of inquiry, or will we just double our efforts, like a fanatic convinced that if he pounds his head up against the wall hard enough, it will move?
I kind of wonder if global warming is brought to us by the same people who brought us nuclear winter and the population bomb.  But sure, let's consider climate change, but also let's consider that some people get off on stampeding the herd towards a cliff.  The devil is in the details, but people like Gore simplistically put it into small words, so that even us peons can "understand" it.  I don't appreciate being talked down to, and I think that the Nobel committee is also guilty of hubris in endorsing him.

Please note I am not saying cutting back on greenhouse gases won't work.  I am saying that with global warming we start with the answer, and then, maybe, look for the question.


Edited by franciscosan - 17 Oct 2015 at 07:47
Back to Top
wolfhnd View Drop Down
General
General
Avatar

Joined: 18 Feb 2015
Location: United States
Status: Offline
Points: 816
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote wolfhnd Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 17 Oct 2015 at 09:26
Originally posted by franciscosan franciscosan wrote:

Is climate change/global warming true?  Is it false?  Climate change is a buzz word which is slightly better than global warming.  Global warming is a conclusion presented before the argument, closing off avenues of inquiry, saying that it must be 'X,' or greenhouse gases.  Okay, what I wonder is what happens when cutting back on greenhouse gases doesn't work.  Will we try something else, having suppressed other avenues of inquiry, or will we just double our efforts, like a fanatic convinced that if he pounds his head up against the wall hard enough, it will move?
I kind of wonder if global warming is brought to us by the same people who brought us nuclear winter and the population bomb.  But sure, let's consider climate change, but also let's consider that some people get off on stampeding the herd towards a cliff.  The devil is in the details, but people like Gore simplistically put it into small words, so that even us peons can "understand" it.  I don't appreciate being talked down to, and I think that the Nobel committee is also guilty of hubris in endorsing him.

Please note I am not saying cutting back on greenhouse gases won't work.  I am saying that with global warming we start with the answer, and then, maybe, look for the question.

What is certain is that we are not going to cut back on carbon enough to make much difference in terms of warming.  There are other issues like ocean acidification etc. that we may need to consider but this is just one more issue where the polarization obscures the truth. 
Back to Top
wolfhnd View Drop Down
General
General
Avatar

Joined: 18 Feb 2015
Location: United States
Status: Offline
Points: 816
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote wolfhnd Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 18 Oct 2015 at 05:45
Originally posted by caldrail caldrail wrote:

What has been discovered recently is that the Earths ecological system has a built in protection. As the oceans warm up (and they are, there's no denying it), the system creates more storms. These storms have the property of disturbing deep water which brings large quantities of carbon dioxide consuming life to the surface, thus the system stabilises itself to a degree. The problem is whether we're overloading the system beyond its capacity to self repair. What we cannot avoid are changes to the Earth - our planet is not a static enviroment nor has it ever been, and we as a species need to stop believing that life will go on as before unchanged.

The good news is that CO2 has been a bigger problem before human beings invested so heavily in it. back in the Jurassic period, CO2 levels were at least ten times heavier, and they had one of the most stable climatic eras ever.

I have spent many hours researching this topic and have arrived at no clear conclusions.  When you see terms such as "gorebots" and "deniers" tossed around you can be sure that there is more than just science at play.  The only clear conclusion I can reach is that the negative algorithmic nature of co2 on warming means the science has to be extraordinarily accurate and complex to predict the feedback effects.

On a personal level I feel that the discussion always starts in the wrong place from a political point of view.  Anyone not willing to acknowledge that global warming is not the greatest climate threat to mankind is likely to be a fanatic and poorly disciplined individual.  On the other side anyone not willing to admit that the prodigious amounts of co2 humans are producing is not worth considering as a potential problem is probably to vested in the current economic system to have a reasonable conversation with.   Here are the climate issues that in my opinion top global warming.

In the long run the next ice age is perhaps only 1000 years away or 10000 years but certainly within the range of past human cultural experience.  The environmental damage and extinctions caused by a mile of ice on large parts of the Northern hemisphere is almost unimaginable not to mention that a large percent of the worlds farm land will be unusable.  The lowering of sea level would also destroy almost all of today's coral reefs and leave every port useless.  This is of course not something for any rational person to worry about but it adds perspective.

Even if you accept that Anthropogenic Warming is a dire threat and it seems reasonable to assume it would even suppress a recurrence of a little ice age or Maunder Minimum.  Warming remains less of a problem than cooling.  The most immediate threat to humans is a short term cooling caused by large volcanic eruptions not ice ages.  Cooling on the order of one to two years and it's effect on agriculture should not be dismissed as a red herring from denial zealots.   Most modern people are so divorced from there supply of food I doubt that they give it's production any thought at all.  Scientist like other people living in the concrete jungles have always assumed that transportation was the weak link in food supply.  This indifference to the importance of it's production security is perhaps best illustrated by the starvation in Russia in the 1921 drought.  Central planners callously even ordered that seed be redistributed to the cities for political reasons ignoring any basic understanding of agriculture.

Following short term cooling caused by volcanos small asteroid impacts may pose a severe threat.  They have the same short term but devastating effect on climate as large eruptions.  I would even be tempted to throw in nuclear winter here.

That the two most serious climate threats are not even part of the discussion makes me think that we are little more humane than Lenin was in his response to the 1921 disaster.  We live in a world that is more concerned about political goals than truly humanitarian interest.  We also live in what could be called a scientific dark age where technical knowledge out weighs common sense in debate.  In the war of ideas it is truth that is often the first victim.              

Back to Top
caldrail View Drop Down
General
General
Avatar

Joined: 21 Jan 2014
Location: Rushey Platt
Status: Offline
Points: 892
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote caldrail Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 18 Oct 2015 at 12:19
Is climate change true? Well it depends. Climate aklways changes to a small degree constantly but there have been massive changes in Earths past, such as the end of the last major glaciation when the temprature rose alarmingly quick in a few years. Astronomical alignments in around fifty or sixty thousand years will end our current benign interglacial era and almost certainly cause another glaciation (The Ice Ages haven't finished, we're just lucky to be living in one of the warmer periods. Britain  once had an african savana style landscape with many of the same animals during one interglacial).

Is mankind changing the climate? yes, he is. All animals impact upon their enviroment to a greater or lesser degree. The scale of industrial pollution is debatable however. Whilst industry has poisoned the land in recent decades, so mankinds activities always will. There's a former copper and lead foundry at White Rock, Swansea, that has left the ground tainted with arsenic, cadmium, and other poisons. The soil is utterly lethal to human beings. There's a Roman site in Britain of the same general purpose that is still highly toxic. But please note that when large scale industry went into overdrive in the 1940's, there was no discernable increase in global temperature, CO2 levels, rainfall, sea level, or extinctions of wildlife.

What has happened is that the oceans have gotten slightly warmer (thus the extra rain and storms) but nature hasn't yet had a chance to counter these changes normally. Since human activity raises temperatures and pollution locally more than globally (whilst chinese industrial pollution causes horrendous smog, here in Britain we have no indication whatsoever of it), it's our numbers and distribution that is causing accentuated problems. Deforestation doesn't help either.

Will putting your rubbish into neatly ordered bins and special bags help? No. That's a scheme to reduce costs in rubbish collection which many are naughtily claiming has ecological significance. It doesn't. What you do with the rubbish at the other end might, but you have little impact on that.
http://www.unrv.com/forum/blog/31-caldrails-blog/
Back to Top
 Post Reply Post Reply
  Share Topic   

Forum Jump Forum Permissions View Drop Down

Forum Software by Web Wiz Forums® version 11.10
Copyright ©2001-2017 Web Wiz Ltd.

This page was generated in 0.078 seconds.