Printable View
Thank you Trish, I appreciate you taking the time to write such a thorough answer. My ex-wife used to subscribe to National History (...and Audubon, along with several others). I may have to subscribe again (though I wish Kindle offered it, in which case I'd simply switch to the "fire").
...and don't worry about the "diatribe'. You break it up well and keep it entertaining.
the tragedy there is that no matter how much the sea rises (within reason of course bar something as ridiculous and impossible as noah flood or several million years of continental drift) the alps bewteen me and the mediterranean are far too tall for this to ever become a shoreline
Hi fred, you're welcome. I feel for you muh_muh. I'm guessing you won't be planting coconut trees in your backyard then. :)
Are global warmists insane =very probably.This century's Ludites
Thanks for not answering my questions and avoiding my remarks.
El Nino, and El Nina have more to do with the sea elevations than global warming. Unless your saying man made climate change created the two.Quote:
Originally Posted by muh_muh
I think that if there is a simple answer to the original purpose of this thread, it is that we don't really know. Science tells us that planet Earth is dependent on the Sun and the fate of the Sun is doomed, even if this event is several billion years ahead of us, apparently even in the cosmos, nothing last forever. In the interim, a meteor, asteroid or some other object, if large and heavy enough, could in theory whack the earth, change our orbit, and wipe out the human species, much as it is now claimed that meteorite in Mexico 65 million years ago was a cause of the demise of the dinosaur.
I don't see any purpose in thinking in terms of billions of years, other than as part of our understanding of history and the sciences, but what climate change does, is to open a debate about the way we live and the impact that human society has upon the earth on which we depend for food, water and shelter. Although I am disappointed in the quality of the debate opposed to the science of climate changed and advanced global warming -mainly because it is not scientific but a mix of politics and personal prejudice- I find that the larger cause for concern is an apparent indifference to the impact we have on our environment, not so much glaciers in Switzerland or the Himalayas but the places where we live.
Call it Green Politics, Environmental Activism, and so on -these are not new issues. There was a Chinese scholar in I think the 10th or the 11th century who complained that the demand for paper was reducing the forests, and that this could not be good for China. Some of the most powerful environmental groups in the USA, the Sierra Club and the Wilderness Society were formed in the 19th century. It may be that the end of the Cold War has removed one set of antagonisms, and that Green Politics, Multiculturalism and Immigration have become the issues guarnteed to stir a frenzy of vitriolic debate. But none of this is new, but it is as it always has been, important. Because this is where we live.
If we do value our locality, be it a city, town or village, conservation is a given. If conservation if a given, a value, something that both empowers individuals, while imposing obligations on them, standards of behaviour, it also requires monitoring. We are not free to steal from others, we should not be free to pollute. How that regime of law and responsibility operates must be part of what we would call good governance. I can understand the hostility to taxation, not in principle because the principle of paying the state to do something for the benefit of society as a whole is not a problem for me; but I agree, the uses to which taxes are put, and the agencies involved might require better management; but the principle is sound. But as I said before, whatever happens, we will pay for it.
But looking back over the exhanges in this thread, it might be more honest for some people on this board to say, quite simply, as far the environment is concerned, I don't care. Then we can close this discussion and move on.
i care ,you can't get more caring than garbage truck recycler .But to use the environment to exploit and lie to the citizens of your country for financial or political points seems so wrong and to teach children deliberate lies in schoolQuote:
Originally Posted by Stavros
I don't care about high tides, I live in the mountains.
Really?! You're going to explain a steady global rise in ocean levels over the last century or more by pointing to two relatively local cyclic phenomena with periods of about five years!! The only thing El Nino and El Nina might explain is a superposition of a small amplitude sine wave on top of the steady global increase making an step-like or oscillatory climb with the period of each step being roughly five years. Sorry but El Nino and El Nina are not the cause of the observed steady increase of sea level since 1880 and not the key element in the climate models that predict the increase will extend into the future if we do nothing to forestall the dumping of greenhouse gasses into our atmosphere.Quote:
Originally Posted by Faldur
http://flood.firetree.net/
http://www.nature.com/ngeo/journal/v...geo1327.html#/
and
http://www.nature.com/news/three-qua...an-made-1.9538
You made these accusations just a page or two back but when questioned you were unable to substantiate them. Perhaps you should think about what it means toQuote:
But to use the environment to exploit and lie to the citizens of your country for financial or political points...
Quote:
live with honour
The likes of Jim Inhofe serve the fossil fuel industry. So, it's understandable why he's a climate change denier. Completely understandable.Quote:
Originally Posted by russtafa
He's denying it to serve corporate profits.
But to say the science is mixed is a flat out lie.
Now, one can believe anything one wants to. I mean, people believe in [a] God. I think it's completely irrational. But a large section of the world's populace believe in God. That's fine. Your choice.
Um, ya know, one can believe that the moon is made of cheese. I mean, you can believe that. You'd be wrong but, again, one can wholeheartedly believe it. (You often hear people talking about the big bang theory. Ya know, it's just a theory. No! Theory, in science, means fact.)
Anyway, there is a corporate/media campaign to create confusion, to create doubt. Which is understandable if you're runnin' an oil company, a for-profit corporate institution. The science of climate change threatens those very narrow interests -- :)
I think it's wrong to suggest that it's a way for governments to get money from us. If that were the case then Obama would simply come out and say, "Global warming is a serious threat to humanity and we need a carbon tax." Then: voila. He's got his carbon tax. His money, as it were.
But he, like the fossil fuel industry, is fighting the science. Which is understandable. As we know about the close relationship between government and big business. I mean, it's a campaign to protect, defend and serve corporate profits. (It's not about protecting people, saving jobs, serving the interests of working people, middle class people or even to protect, say, the other 30 million species that inhabit the planet with us.
I mean, denying the science doesn't have to do with looking out for the interests of people. Why would it be? Do you really think the Koch brothers -- who have a combined net worth of $50 billion -- really care about you and I? Or are they concerned about oil profits and padding their net worth? Take a wild guess....)
Plus we know oil is a finite resource. So, what's going to happen to future generations when it runs out? Should we care? I mean, maybe human civilization has reached the point where we simply don't care about future generations. That's a pretty sad value statement.
Inhofe: The Science of Global Warming Is Just "Not There" - YouTube
How about we use a current graph, and yes El Nina is the correct conclusion. Your "science" is inconsistent, riddled with falsehoods, and blind to any opposing opinions. You can bark up this tree all you want, your not going to sell it.Quote:
Originally Posted by trish
http://www.jpl.nasa.gov/images/earth...110823-640.jpg
Science Daly Article
ENSO Technical Discussion
Obviously you haven't understood my post and you don't understand your own graph. The graph doesn't show that El Nino and El Nina are the causes of sea level rise or that their effects are worse than the rise caused by global warming. The graph merely shows how their effects can be seen superimposed upon sea level rise. The graph beautifully illustrates exactly what I described! Sheeesh! Notice how each little five year oscillation is dwarfed by the overall rise over the century of global warming. (In your graph annual fluctuations can be seen superposed upon each of those oscillations. It would be nice to see a Fourier brake down of these harmonics.) They're both excellent graphs for illustrating my point.
Nice articles too.
Science Daly Article
ENSO Technical Discussion
Nice to have one's hypothesis confirmed by NOAA :)
These are good articles too
http://www.nature.com/ngeo/journal/v...geo1327.html#/
and
http://www.nature.com/news/three-qua...an-made-1.9538
and here's a really cool interactive map.
http://flood.firetree.net/
The sea levels are rising cause the Dutch keep making more land space by pushing the water away from Holland, the water got to go somewhere.
The Sky is Falling, The Sky is Falling..............where will Santa live when the Polar Ice Melts?????
I know it looks like the sky is falling, but it's the oceans rising. :)
help me ,help,gurgle,gurgle
Now you want our help?! :)
cause a spectrum is going to help show people who dont understand basic graph reading and most probably dont have the faintest concept of what the frequency domain is see how stupid they are?Quote:
Originally Posted by trish
Quote:
Originally Posted by muh_muh
Quote:
Originally Posted by trish
touche
yeah when the sky falls lolQuote:
Originally Posted by trish
:dead:YOU GREENIES STILL ON ABOUT THIS SCAM !just give up no ones buying it
Who do politicians work for? Well, it's obvious.
Check out John Boner -- I mean, Boehner... :)
Dirty Energy Money Campaign:
http://dirtyenergymoney.com/view.php...=1&type=search
What about Mitch McConnell:
http://dirtyenergymoney.com/view.php...&can=N00003389
And an excerpt from an essay written by the American author and environmentalist Bill McKibben: "... in any other walk of life we wouldn’t think twice before concluding that paying off the referees is wrong. If the Patriots make the Super Bowl, everyone in America would be outraged to see owner Robert Kraft trot out to midfield before the game and hand a $1,000 bill to each of the linesmen and field judges."
In Australia this climate change carbon tax will put the government out of office without doubt
my god hippies unite and love the world lol
Do you have kids Russtfa - cos they and your grand children are gonna cuss you and many of your generation out for your wilful stupidity in the face of overwhelming evidence?
But then whole generations went to their graves believing the earth was flat and that the sun revolved around the Earth. Stupid Columbus, Galileo and Copernicus. We all know that the earth is balanced on the back of an elephant balanced on a tortiose. ignore the voices telling you otherwise.
Oh and the moon is made of cheese.
:dead::dead:Yeah ,yeah ,that's what the hippie con artist's say and i am not voting for a bunch of scam artist's and neither are the rest of Australia's voters ,just look at the polls .Hey want to bet with me on the results of the next election i'm sure you will win because people believe in a green solution
It is not to do with belief Russtafa, but evidence and scientific probability. Ultimately there is never going to be 100 per cent rock solid proof until it is too late. But the scientific evidence for man made climate change is now immense and agreed by scientists across the world - from nations run by Governments of all political complexions.
yeah you want to bet on the election because the left is about to get skinned alive come 2013Quote:
Originally Posted by Prospero
http://www.nytimes.com/2011/12/17/sc...e-worries.html
http://www.nature.com/news/thawing-p...-runoff-1.9749
Thawing permafrost decreases the Earth's albedo. Consequently the Earth absorbs more energy which thaws more of the permafrost. It's a positive feedback loop with negative consequences. The heated atmosphere holds more water vapor making periods between precipitation longer and actual precipitation more voluminous; i.e. more droughts, more violent rains and heavier snows. Since ice is nearly ten times more voluminous then its melt, the thawed permafrost is effectively times time more porous. This means less runoff reaches the rivers. Ironically, as Ocean levels rise, some rivers fed by tundra tributaries (such as the Yangtze) will suffer decreased flow. Not good news for populations downstream that depend on that fresh water.
I wouldn't presume to advocate any particular course of action. 'just presenting the science.
Trish, how do you see the history of science in the last, say, 100 years?
When it comes to Russtafa you are wasting your time, he doesn't understand the science of climate change, and doesn't care what the science says; his only concern is with extra taxes.
What should excite concern is the more general dismissal of science among mostly Republican candidates in the USA for whom the Old Testament is the fons et origo of knowledge. It is as if, since Reagan, there has been a march against Science with a capital S, videlicet:
1) an hostility to Climate Change Science and Advanced Global Warming that rejects it as science, but without any real, thorough critique of the science;
2) opposition to stem-cell research that denies to Science what can only be part of God's Will;
3) the attempt to replace the teaching of history and science in schools on the basis of reason and documented evidence, with the narrative provided by the Old Testament and the New Testament.
The USA now has a corps of politicians whose views on reason and science are no different from the Mullahs of Iran and Saudi Arabia who believe that everything you need to know about the world you live in today is contained in the Qu'ran, and that nothing else matters; that is consonant with those Hindu who believe that everything you do today is part of the Karma that has shaped your destiny from one life to the next and that you are powerless to affect your own destiny in this life, only in the next (= you better start living a pure life now or live through another lifetime of misery).
Yes, they want the gadgets and trinkets produced by science, and they want the revenues that are derived from the science that has transformed industry, that can take base metals and crude oil out of the ground and turn them into gold.
But the mantra today seems to be: Science is Bullshit. The truth is God's Will.
exactly mate i don't believe ,don't care,don't want to pay more taxes .Australia has the highest number of taxes in the world and the vast majority of people don't want to pay another tax that will damage Australia for nil benefit or effect on the climate .taxing us is just stupid when Australia emits less than 1% of the worlds emissions ,it's so our PM can big note herself on the world stage.this is not impressing most Australians and will wipe the Labor party off the mapQuote:
Originally Posted by Stavros
Darwinian evolution faced opposition from day one. The debates between Huxley and Wilberforce follow right on the tail of publication of Origin of the Species as well as the criticisms of Richard Owen and others. However, with rapid advances in comparative anatomy, taxonomy, paleontology, geology and the budding science of genetics biologists reached a consensus well before the turn of the century. Darwin was by and large correct, though there were many details to be sorted through. By the twentieth century, evolutionary biology was seen as the conceptual foundation of all the rest of biology. This makes evolutionary biology rather difficult to ignore. If biology is to be in the high school cirriculum, then biology teacher will have to expose their students to evolutionary biology.Quote:
Originally Posted by Stavros
Whereas populist opposition to evolutionary biology was all but dead in Britain and on the Continent, this was not the case in the U.S. The U.S.has always been fertile ground for religious experimentation. (I recommend reading Krakauer’s Under the Banner of God). Amish, Menonites, Anabaptists, Mormons, Branch Davidians, Scientology, etc. have either flourished or originated in American soil. New religions grow best when the followers are given some to fear and oppose. It’s not surprising that religious fundamentalists promoted the laws banning the teaching of evoutionary biology in public schools. The Scopes trial occurred in 1925. The film based on the play “Inherent the Wind” was partially responsible for my childhood interest in science. The latest “monkey trial” took place in Dover in 2008.
The U.S. has a complicated affaire with science. The inventions of the fission and fusion bombs demonstrated the incredible power of abstract mathemical thought when directed by careful attention to experimental studies. The detailed theory behind these devasting devices was so beyond the comprehension of non-experts that nuclear scientists were thought of as super geniuses. They were repeatedly featured in science fiction B-movies as heros with all purpose encyclopedic knowledge and as evil geniuses on the verge of maddness and bent on world domination.
The U.S. saw the success of the Russian satellite program in the early fifties as an existential threat. If atomic theory allowed one to build a fusion bomb, what will space science allow? Again, scientists were placed on a pedestal.
What finally came of those satellites, more than half a century later, was a network of cameras, thermometer, barometers and other meterological guages in the sky. Not only is it a tremendous spy network, it is tremendous laboratory for the collection of climate data to be used to test all manner of atmospheric and climate hypothesis. We know know, that since the industrial age the Earth’s climate has been moving away from equilibrium due to a heat imbalance caused by an increase of gasses in the atmosphere that are transluscent to opague in the infrared bands. The increases are largely anthropic in origin.
Over those same fifty years, the population of Earth went from 4 to nearly 7 billion. The fishing industry is finding out that the oceans are being depleted of fish and crustacians. Hunters and other outdoor enthusiaists are finding that species once plentiful are now rare or extinct. U.S. reserves of petroleum have possibly peaked back in the 80’s. The psychology of denial is fostered by exploitive industries anxious to eek out the last dollar from the commons before the resources are gone. Over the last fifty years, scientists have been the bearers of bad news. So people are inclined (imo) to be deny the validy of the relevant science.
There are a lot of russtafa’s out there; i.e. willfully ignorant deniers unable to separate knowledge from action. They say they don’t care. But I think they do. I think that’s precisely why they deny the science. Someone who really didn’t care, would admit the science was correct but just refuse to do anything about the ensuing problems.
no Trish i don't give a flying fuck .and the real reason the world is in such a mess is because there are far to many people on this world to support itQuote:
Originally Posted by trish
Some of us look at both sides of the argument and come up with a different opinion than yours. Why is that so hard to understand. I don't expect you to come to the same decisions as I do, thats kind of what makes the world such an amazing independent place.
Your intolerant to anyone who chooses to believe science that is different than yours. I kind of feel sorry for you. You have come to a belief based on the facts you have studied and I applaud you. Its bitching too that you have such a passion for your belief and wish to convert others. (Ya I said bitching, ok I'm old) But when you find someone like yourself that has formulated an opinion different than yours, maybe try a little more tactful approach.
Someone told me last week bridges were falling down all over the US because of "lack of maintenance". I chose not to believe that, but I respect the persons view and understood why they held it.