Global warming - more bad news !

[Ocean1]

OK, much as I hate serious I dislike the direction we’re taking on this more….

Rising temperatures are a long term concern. One we probably should address as far as is consistent with an even longer term view. Global environmental conditions change continuously, perfectly normal, it’s just that we’re now here to notice. We do have the power to moderate,(but probably not completely stabilise) such changes. However, get used to the idea that over timescales of hundreds of years minor variations in weather occur quite outside of any influence we might have had. Changes large enough to alter sustainability of some species will continue to happen over periods of some thousands of years, also perfectly “natural”.

What causes the most angst in discussions like this is not the actual changes themselves, (which everyone’s data show happening anyway) but the degree that we might be contributing to, (or mitigating) such changes. OK, we can make what minor “corrections” possible for our technology, and thereby minimise changes to those species, (including us) only if we clearly understand the facts, the mechanisms that drive such change. The real risk to any such attempt is the sabotaging of scientific principle by political interests. There exists serious and widespread scientific doubt about most of the proposed measures currently suggested for adoption, including the idea that human generated Co2 can be used as a viable control, even at the extremely minor effects it’s suggested likely to make.

Global warming proponent’s own data puts human influence at only 6% of the total greenhouse effect, and the greenhouse effect is only a part of what heats the planet in any case, thus making human influence an even smaller portion of the total. The ice caps on Mars are receding at a similar rate to those on Earth. Want to take a shot at that? The single largest contributing factor to global temperature is cloud cover. The single largest contributing factor to cloud cover is background cosmic radiation. If you feel the need to blame anything for global temperature change have a shot at local novae and their disruptive, destructive ways. Don’t forget to allocate some blame to our own extremely variable wee fireball, it’s impact on our weather is huge.

Most global warming alarmists fail to see the change in the environment from a broad enough time window to see that, in geologic terms, they are talking about mere seconds and judging millions of years by them. The period we are currently in is in geologic terms still regarded by many as the conclusion of the most recent ice age. Why wouldn't there be an overall warming?

Feet getting wet? There is very little agriculture conducted at below 25 ft above sea level, world-wide, and the past two centuries' nearly two degree rise in global average temperatures (measured for the first 100 years by equipment accurate to plus or minus much more than that amount), has raised sea levels by about 2 cm. On the other hand, over 60% of the land surface in the world is locked in perma-frost. A 3 degree rise in Global temperatures could produce a 50% or larger increase in arable land. 1100 years ago Greenland was… green. Briefly admittedly, but long enough for the Vikings to gain a toehold before the glaciers rolled down again.

There have been several Mass Extinction events on Earth, of which 5 to 6 are considered very major. However, the most dramatic example of sustained global warming one record, the Palaeocene-Eocene Thermal Maximum, was associated with one of the smaller mass extinctions, and didn't make the list. Not all of them have been thoroughly explained, but a couple are believed to have been caused by extraterrestrial impacts that produced craters in excess of 65 miles wide, and one is believed to have been brought about by a gamma ray burst from a supernova happening "nearby" (less than 6000 light years away). You still want to plant a few trees?

[Ocean1]

A study of these events since 600 million years ago, the approximate point at which life appeared (the planet is nearly 8 times older than life of any kind), shows a clear trend downward in the intensity of each. And all of these have occurred in our complete absence. The next one will occur whether we like it or not, and will not be because of us, unless we engage in a nuclear world war, which could cause a significant extinction event, but it will happen in spite of us, if we are here when it occurs. We are not going to be here forever. Nothing ever has been. Nothing ever will. We will, however, survive longer if we start by seeing global warming alarmism for what it actually is; a simple scam, with political and financial roots.

Make no mistake, the tools available to minimise ANY of the effects of global environmental change are rooted in our unique technological abilities. Tech advances have seen an exponential growth in both engineering power and sophistication since the industrial revolution, and I can't see that slowing down. I don't see us gaining control of solar output, (for example) any time soon, but I think our ability to manipulate huge quantities of mass and energy will grow to the point that we can have some control over it's effects.

Some general shit: (and no I ain’t referencing it to the above, do your own homework).

http://earthobservatory.nasa.gov/Stu...logy_IceCores/

http://www.csa.com/discoveryguides/icecore/review.php

http://www.opinionjournal.com/extra/?id=110008220

http://www.smh.com.au/news/travel/cl...722550238.html











You still here?
Congratulations, work your way through this lot:

Statistics needed -- The Deniers Part I


Oh, if you want to get the biggest bang for your “oh crap I don’t wana die” budget then track down the remaining 5% of solar-orbit crap we don’t have mapped. We can’t do fuck all about it now but we will be able to shortly and we need to know where it is before we can prevent it destroying everything. Forever. And yes, you guessed it, the budget for the above projects has been cut every year for the last five years. Guess it’s just not scary enough…

[N1CK]

Did you write all of that? If you did, thats pretty impresive.
From what i could understand, i agree with what you said.

[Ocean1]

Did you write all of that? If you did, thats pretty impresive.
From what i could understand, i agree with what you said.

Not nearly as impressive as the sheer volume of dis-information it, (pitifully) attempts to counter.

The reason for my own concern in the matter is that I see the politicisation of the scientific principle as not just idle corruption. The anti-science and technophobic PR it generates is potentially a bigger threat to our civilisation than the corrupt conclusions it’s disciples preach from the comfort of their offices. Even the word “theory” is thrown back at genuine research literature, as in “is that the best argument you can offer? A theory?” These idiots have no idea what the concept means.

In the meantime our kids are failing to learn even the basic skills needed to form valid questions about real events, about things they need to know and about how to manage them. How many of them want to be biologists, chemists, engineers etc, let alone the more esoteric disciplines like climatology or molecular biochemistry or geophysics? It’s not fashionable.

We have just one shot at this civilisation shit, get it wrong between the stages of potential species suicide and colonisation of other places and we will not get a second chance. Look around you, we’re there now, we have the power to fuck up badly, but not to place some of our eggs in another basket… yet. What gives us that power is technology, the power to both fuck up and to grow. Some see this as a reason to back away from technology, particularly those bits they’re scared of. Some of it scares me too, but I don’t personally see a return to the stone age as a valid alternative.

[N1CK]

In the meantime our kids are failing to learn even the basic skills needed to form valid questions about real events, about things they need to know and about how to manage them. How many of them want to be biologists, chemists, engineers etc, let alone the more esoteric disciplines like climatology or molecular biochemistry or geophysics? It’s not fashionable.

Im looking at being a biologist.

And I agree with you on the rest you said. You do seem to know what your talking about.

[Sanx]

even the BBC is beholden to advertisers.

Except that in its biggest market - the UK - the BBC has no advertisers. The BBC's not government-owned, like TVNZ. Rather it's paid for by the television licence fee, which every household that owns a TV has to pay. The BBC doesn't have to keep anyone happy - not even the government - as there's no-one they're beholden to.

a bit of research would show that the labour party in britain has moved so far to the right since the 70's, it cannot be honestly described as the workingmans party. it is now a corporate lapdog like all right wing parties.

I lived under that criminal regime for a number of years - that's really not news. Or, for that matter, not relevant to this discussion.

[Sanx]

According to these ice core samples, CO2 as measured in parts per million , was higher 140,000 years ago than it is today.

Please note that in comparrison to the figures from 20,00 years ago and about 140,000 years ago the rise is very similar.

Now please answer me this


140,000 years ago.

Who was depleting the rain forest, driving around in hydrocarbon burning vehicles and poluting the atmosphere with great amounts of CO2.

Merde

There's a very interesting relationship to that graph, if you look closely. According to all the climate change advocates, more CO2 results in higher temperatures. Whilst it's obvious (going by those figures) that there's a definite correlation between the two, it's clear that CO2 concentration lags temperature. So, does increased CO2 concentration cause higher temperature, or does higher temperature cause increased CO2 concentration?

Now, the biggest carbon sink on the planet is not the rainforests or Siberian grasslands, it's the oceans. Water absorbs carbon dioxide. The colder the water, the more CO2 it can absorb. This is something you can actually verify at home. Get a bottle of soda water and refrigerate it before you open it for the first time. Pour two glasses. Keep one in the fridge and leave the other somewhere until it gets to room temperature. Then try both of them and see which one has more fizz left. It'll be the cold one.

None of this is to say that the world isn't getting warmer. It might be. But then, the temperature has flucuated massively in the past and it will continue to long after humans have moved on. Scientific research would be better aimed at trying to find the real cause of this warming and cooling cycle, rather than wasting billions of dollars on research based around a hypothesis that has not been proven and is not accepted by a large proportion of the scientific body.

[idleidolidyll]

Except that in its biggest market - the UK - the BBC has no advertisers. The BBC's not government-owned, like TVNZ. Rather it's paid for by the television licence fee, which every household that owns a TV has to pay. The BBC doesn't have to keep anyone happy - not even the government - as there's no-one they're beholden to.



I lived under that criminal regime for a number of years - that's really not news. Or, for that matter, not relevant to this discussion.

indeed and that is the point of my next point: the brit governments who direct Auntie are both right wing and beholden to their corporate sponsors.

it is entirely relevant and i have lived under brit regimes 3 times including that of perhaps the worst in recent memory: thatcher

[Wolf]

A study of these events since 600 million years ago, the approximate point at which life appeared (the planet is nearly 8 times older than life of any kind),

But, but, but, the whole Universe was created only a few thousand years ago and it was created solely for us to live on this one little planet and all those mass extinctions and supposed geological records are just god's little tricks to fool us...

Some see this as a reason to back away from technology, particularly those bits they’re scared of. Some of it scares me too, but I don’t personally see a return to the stone age as a valid alternative.

With satellites and rockets hurled
about us willy-nilly
The trouble with our "Brave New World"
is that it scares us silly.

Some of the technology can be a bit scary, but even scarier is the political neo-Luddite bullshit that gets bandied about by the special-interest groups.

There was an article in The Register lately about one bunch of greens kicking up a stink because another bunch of greens want to build a tideal power station - because it'll ruin the ecology of where it's put!

So where do these greenies want their fucking "clean-green tidal power"? On the moons of fucking Jupiter?

[Ocean1]

But, but, but, the whole Universe was created only a few thousand years ago and it was created solely for us to live on this one little planet and all those mass extinctions and supposed geological records are just god's little tricks to fool us...

Go ahead, laugh. Some 74% of the USA believe in God, 65% believe he created the universe, well over half believe the bible's is historically accurate, literally, even with regard to creation. These people vote. They control large hunks of our future.

So where do these greenies want their fucking "clean-green tidal power"? On the moons of fucking Jupiter?

Damn fine idea, either they can build it or I can. I'd love to get some serious distance between us...

[Ocean1]

Im looking at being a biologist.

A field that will see huge advances within your working life. Go hard dude.

[Winston001]

Gotta give you big ups for excellent posts here Ocean. They are very well written and rationally constructed. If fact you've covered so much that I am daunted to comment - and in fact agree with you on most points.

The ice caps on Mars are receding at a similar rate to those on Earth. Want to take a shot at that? ..........

Yeah ok, what the hell.

Mar's orbit eccentricity is 5 times that of the Earth meaning that it wanders around quite a bit as it perambulates around the Sun. Closer at times, further away at others. The solar radiation thus varies in intensity.

Furthermore the atmosphere on Mars is thin and is unable to hold heat in , unlike our own thick atmosphere. Thus changes in tempertaure can be quick.

The thin atmosphere and light gravity lead to dramatic duststorms which affect both the trapping of heat and blocking of solar radiation.

The shrinking icecap is at the south pole and is occuring at an edge of instability observed over 30 years since Viking went to Mars. It is a regional variation and while interesting, has nothing to do with the warming of the Earth.

[Winston001]

The anti-science and technophobic PR it generates is potentially a bigger threat to our civilisation than the corrupt conclusions ......Even the word “theory” is thrown back at genuine research literature, as in “is that the best argument you can offer? A theory?” These idiots have no idea what the concept means.

In the meantime our kids are failing to learn even the basic skills needed to form valid questions about real events, about things they need to know and about how to manage them. How many of them want to be biologists, chemists, engineers etc, let alone the more esoteric disciplines like climatology or molecular biochemistry or geophysics? It’s not fashionable.

Amen to that brother. I cannot figure why people are so turned off science while enjoying all of the benefits it has brought them. IMHO the biggest problem with discussing climate change, environmentalism, genetics, nanotechnology etc etc is the abject ignorance of most of the population.

Heck every kid does general science and should by rights have a fundamental understanding but as adults they revert to dolts.

Rant over.

[Ocean1]

Mar's orbit eccentricity is 5 times that of the Earth meaning that it wanders around quite a bit as it perambulates around the Sun. Closer at times, further away at others. The solar radiation thus varies in intensity.

Furthermore the atmosphere on Mars is thin and is unable to hold heat in , unlike our own thick atmosphere. Thus changes in tempertaure can be quick.

The thin atmosphere and light gravity lead to dramatic duststorms which affect both the trapping of heat and blocking of solar radiation.

The shrinking icecap is at the south pole and is occuring at an edge of instability observed over 30 years since Viking went to Mars. It is a regional variation and while interesting, has nothing to do with the warming of the Earth.

You would pick on the one topic with the shortest data set... Nonetheless, you suggest Mars's seasons are more extreme than ours, true, that doesn't explaing a linear trend over 3 decades. Regional? of course, polar ice rarely manifests itself elsewhere. Far less evidence seems required of Earth's weather data to declare that the sky is falling.

[Ocean1]

A good guage of the validity of the multitude of diverse opinions about global warming can be had by closely questioning the qualifications of those who hold them and the level of interest they have in the outcomes those opinions might influence.

Rather than investigating every published opinion it's actually easier get a good picture by finding the most highly qualified and financialy disinterested sources and reviewing them. Those at the top of such a list tend to be very senior retired or independantly funded scientists. They've got little to prove and no interest in chasing funding with possible strings attached. If you review the list of such appearing in the clip I posted earlier you'll notice that the very cream of such experts stand against global warming as a scientifically valid premise.

One thing above all else convinces me that these gentlemen are right. Any system that's been around for as long as those that make up our ecology is an internally stable negative feedback system. If it's not then there's simply no way it would last as long as it has. This means that every significant change which can affect those systems has so far failed to destroy the global ecology. Those changes have failed to destroy the system because the changes themselves produce corrective effects which stabalise it. It's not reasonable to expect that there will be no change in that ecology, but so far it's successfully adapted to some very large changes in external inputs.

The changes we have made and continue to make to the stystems which make up our environment are historicaly tiny. The worst we have done so far is nothing compared to the changes some of the larger solar events, meteor strikes or massive volcanic activity have made. The planet's ecological systems have responded by changing, adapting, in short the system corrects those changes.

It's not reasonable to expect there will be no change. Climate changes happen in cycles of diffecent duration, short lived cycles overlaying longer ones. If we want to learn to mitigate the worst of those changes we need more science, and then more technology, not less. We need to tell political and commercial interest to fuck off and let those qualified to contribute without interfearance. That rules me out, I'm definitely no expert, just an interested bystander getting pissed off at the political bullshit.