Climate change could mean the extinction of our species...
YouTube- Clive Hamilton on climate change and 'Requiem for a Species' - ANU, March 2010
YouTube- Clive Hamilton on the centres of climate denialism in Australia
Printable View
Climate change could mean the extinction of our species...
YouTube- Clive Hamilton on climate change and 'Requiem for a Species' - ANU, March 2010
YouTube- Clive Hamilton on the centres of climate denialism in Australia
American author Chris Hedges has a pretty bleak take on climate change or climate chaos (as Naomi Klein has dubbed it):
http://www.truthdig.com/report/item/...ters_20100719/
I remember a Rolling Stone interview from a few years ago with the rather remarkable James Lovelock, father of the Gaia Theory. He thinks we're pretty much fucked at this point, no matter what we do. He envisions a not too distant future when a small remnant of humanity will be living in the far north, fighting over the scraps of civilization.
Rolling Stone seems to have purged the article. All I can find is this
http://www.uri.edu/artsci/com/Logan/...e_10-17-07.htm
Only the first page is viewable.
Here's a link to Lovelock's site
http://www.ecolo.org/lovelock/
Is he right? Damned if I know, but it's a disturbing thought. It will be a sad thing indeed if all the squabbling money grubbers allow us to slide into Armageddon without even trying to prevent it.
Extinction of our species?
This is why people don't listen to the arguments, whether their legitimate or not.
We'll see what happens. I don't know how long this would take. Hopefully it won't happen for a long time...
.,,..........................
..since it seems to be happening on all the other planets in this solar system too, I might suggest there is a natural cycle going on, that will not extinct all humans.
Also, since it seems to be, and is, related to the number of sunspots - which at this moment is and has been in the overall, larger than ever in human history within 8000 years - that suggests the climate change being related into a natural cycle even moreso.
What can be seen as good though, in this "end of the world" hype now seen in the mass media, and the suggestion that all this happening due to human activity (ignoring totally what is going on in our solarsystem) - is that it can awaken a natural and logical understanding in some people, about the fact that the current socioeconomical system is both sick, and destroying the beauty we call life..
What's happening on all other planets in the solar system? Global warming? On Jupiter? Saturn? Pluto? Oh you mean the inner planets. The climate of Mars is interesting but completely different from ours. It undergoes cycles of dust storms that drift across the face of the planet, plotting out the Sun and freezing the planet. Moreover, if you want to send the message th[at] climate change does not necessarily mean extinction, I wouldn't call too much attention to the example of Mars. And yes, Venus has a hot climate driven by it proximity to the Sun (not just it's proximity to solar radiation but the Sun's tidal influences on the Venusian interior.
Given that we are nearing the peak of a sunspot cycle, the activity has been disappointing to astrophysicists who say it's at an all time low.
http://solarscience.msfc.nasa.gov/SunspotCycle.shtml
We know what's driving the current climate change on planet Earth and it's not Sunspots, it's the activity of roughly 6.5 billion human beings and their energy consuming industries. If almost all the oxygen found in the atmosphere today was put there by green plants, why is it so hard to believe that humans too, in such abundance, can have a global effect on the atmosphere?
Does climate change mean extinction? There's a lot of lesser difficulties we'll have to deal with first. The loss of arable lands. Migration of crops and vegetation. Loss of crops and vegetation. Rising oceans and changing coastlines. Evaporation of fresh water sources. Patterns of violent weather events. Displaced populations and the resultant political upheavals. Extinction is not an immediate worry.
Just like the ice age of the 70's..
'70's ? Yeah, like the Earth is THAT old.
Nope, we are talking about all the planets in the solar system, undergoing climate changes, or as they are called "global upheavals".Quote:
Originally Posted by trish
Hmm, I am not really getting into the debate, since there is no point (no dissing to anyone, but I am just too tired to want to prove a point anymore to anyone -that is indeed based in truth and logic- ), but..Quote:
Originally Posted by trish
..this is similar as to saying, that whenever someone with a growing depression and anger is sleeping, it is to be considered as a sign of an overall bettering in their mental state.. (..this is the logic, that is being fed now in the media..)
We are talking about the overall trend of the sunspots, during the last 8000 years, that relates directly to the warmth of the earth as measured by humans.. the overall temperatures that can be sampled off the ice core, in turn relate to the amount of Co2 that has also been measured in the glaciers (..only it relates into temperature in such a way, that the amount of Co2 is following the raises in temperatures by somewhat 800 years, as is proven by many tests, so logically it cannot be seen as the overall cause for the warmth..)
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/3869753.stm
But everyone, make up your own minds what hype you believe.. I do not see any point anymore raising the conversation on this issue, since it seems that people (and not meaning this personally to anyone on the board) are simply not open to discussion in matters relating to doomsdayscenarios..
edit: some links
Climate Change / Pluto
Climate Change / Jupiter
Climate Change / Neptunes moon Triton
Climate Change / Mars Polar Ice caps melting
I think it is very possible if us humans can't figure it out.
I can't imagine Al Gore made all this up just to get rich, like the fool Fox news sorts say.
I think anyone who reads this will be long gone by the time the S hits the fan.
1970? Ya I am pretty sure the earth was here.. could of all been a bad acid trip but I don't so. We were told by "scientists" that the world was heading into another ice age and we were all going to die.Quote:
Originally Posted by trish
Strange but the big corporations and governments were all quietly standing behind the so called "scientists" ready to rake in all the profits from the "preventive" fixes.
All the global science currently being tossed around is for one reason, for government and corporations to get rich with "fixes" or "credits" call it what you may. Its about MONEY, it has nothing to do with science. The people who pass out this line of BS are the biggest carbon abusers on the planet. Don't you really think if they believed the horse pucky they are trying to sell us they would live by their own advice?
Which scientists at which institutions? Today there is no consensus among scientists on whether the unification of gravity and quantum field theory will be achieved through string theory, or loop quantum theory or some other route. There are competing hypothesis but there is no consensus. In the 1970's there was a hypothesis that had some support among climatologists and even more among the press (because calamity is always good news) that we are nearing the end of a geological cycle that will bring in another ice age. The theory was based on an astronomical explanation of the near periodic nature of past ice ages and some statistic evidence that if interpreted liberally gave the impression of rising worldwide temperatures from 45 to 70. The hypothesis was not widely adopted by climatologists at large. Indeed most of the peer reviewed papers in climatology in the seventies predicted global warming. There were hypothesis, but no consensus.Quote:
We were told by "scientists" that the world was heading into another ice age and we were all going to die.
Today, the atmospheric mechanism is quantitatively understood, simulated and fined tuned by ever more powerful computer models. The evidence is far more extensive and compelling. So much so that there very few dissenters among professional climatologists. The more vocal dissenters are politicians and the corporations they "represent." If you think this is not about science look at the professional peer reviewed journals in climatology: the worldwide consensus of climatologists is that we are experiencing a shift in climate that is driven to a significant extent by our dumping billions of tons per year of greenhouse gasses into the atmosphere.
Loveburst, your BBC link is date 2004. The newest data indicates the upcoming Sunspot cycle will be one of the lowest on record. The SOHO observatory is a satellite placed at the Lagrange point between us and the Sun. It's been monitoring the Sun's output for over ten years. Though the Sun goes through cycles, there is no evidence a unusually high levels of radiation, particulate or electromagnetic. Nothing that could drive a planetary climatological change.
Yes, there's a fluctuation in the red spot on Jupiter. Some planetary experts say it may be indicative of a climate change. Others do not agree. The red spot is the vortex of a storm that reaches up into the upper atmosphere of Jupiter. It's been around ever since Galileo discovered in the sixteenth century. Storms are usually that stable; and when they are, fluctuations in their activity are to be expected. Anything could cause a fluctuation in a semi-stable storm. Perhaps the atmospheric layers are somewhat decoupled and the slippage varies the higher atmospheric energy output of the vortex. To call the recent variation in the red spot an upheaval is really loading the dice.
The planets are not static bodies. They are dynamic. Because they many of them have atmospheres, they rotate, their orbits of eccentric, their axis are inclined, they are geologically active interiors that are also tugged upon by the tidal forces of their moons one expects to observe lots of interesting fluctuating phenomena. Otherwise planetologists would be pretty bored. Each and every planet at any given moment is exhibiting interesting climatological or geological behaviors: it doesn't follow that all those behaviors has the same cause or is driven by the same thing. The best approach is to look for separate explanations of each phenomenon.
On our planet, we find the large scale climate is warming. The hypothesis that it's caused by greenhouse gasses in the atmosphere yields the best quantitative fit with the current data. No other hypothesis comes close to producing models as accurate. Of course we could hold out, for a better hypothesis. But solar system wide catastrophe is not an explanation, it's a headline.
Published on Thursday, August 12, 2010 by Truthdig News at 11: How Climate Change Affects You
by Amy Goodman
Our daily weather reports, cheerfully presented with flashy graphics and state-of-the-art animation, appear to relay more and more information.
And yet, no matter how glitzy the presentation, a key fact is invariably omitted. Imagine if, after flashing the words "extreme weather" to grab our attention, the reports flashed "global warming." Then we would know not only to wear lighter clothes or carry an umbrella, but that we have to do something about climate change.
I put the question to Jeff Masters, co-founder and director of meteorology at Weather Underground, an Internet weather information service. Masters writes a popular blog on weather, and doesn't shy away from linking extreme weather to climate change:
"Heat, heat, heat is the name of the game on planet Earth this year," he told me, as the world is beset with extreme weather events that have caused the death of thousands and the displacement of millions.
Wildfires in Russia have blanketed the country with smoke, exacerbating the hottest summer there in 1,000 years. Torrential rains in Asia have caused massive flooding and deadly landslides in Pakistan, Kashmir, Afghanistan and China. An ice shelf in Greenland has broken off, sending an ice island four times the size of Manhattan into the ocean. Droughts threaten Niger and the Sahel.
Masters relates stark statistics:
- 2010 has seen the most national extreme heat records for a single year: 17.
- The past decade was the hottest decade in the historical record.
- The first half of 2010 was the warmest such six-month period in the planet's history.
- The five warmest months in history for the tropical Atlantic have all occurred this year (likely leading to more frequent and severe Atlantic hurricanes).
"We will start seeing more and more years like this year when you get these amazing events that caused tremendous death and destruction," Masters said. "As this extreme weather continues to increase in the coming decades and the population increases, the ability of the international community to respond and provide aid to victims will be stretched to the limit."
And yet the U.N. talks aimed at climate change seem poised for collapse.
When the Copenhagen climate talks last December were derailed, with select industrialized nations, led by the United States, offering a "take it or leave it" accord, many developing nations decided to leave it. The so-called Copenhagen Accord is seen as a tepid, nonbinding document that was forced on the poorer countries as a ploy to allow countries like the U.S., Canada and China to escape the legally binding greenhouse-gas emissions targets of the Kyoto Protocol, which is up for renewal.
Bolivia, for example, is pursuing a more aggressive global agreement on emissions. It's calling for strict, legally binding limits on emissions, rather than the voluntary goals set forth in the Copenhagen Accord. When Bolivia refused to sign on to the accord, the U.S. denied it millions in promised aid money. Bolivia's United Nations ambassador, Pablo Solon, told me: "We said: ‘You can keep your money. We're not fighting for a couple of coins. We are fighting for life.'"
While Bolivia did succeed in passing a U.N. resolution last month affirming the right to water and sanitation as a human right, a first for the world body, that doesn't change the fact that as Bolivia's glaciers melt as a result of climate change, its water supply is threatened.
Pacific Island nations like Tuvalu may disappear from the planet entirely if sea levels continue to rise, which is another consequence of global warming.
The U.N. climate conference will convene in Cancun, Mexico, in December, where prospects for global consensus with binding commitments seem increasingly unlikely. Ultimately, policy in the United States, the greatest polluter in human history, must be changed. That will come only from people in the United States making the vital connection between our local weather and global climate change. What better way than through the daily drumbeat of the weather forecasts? Meteorologist Jeff Masters defined for me the crux of the problem:
"A lot of TV meteorologists are very skeptical that human-caused global climate change is real. They've been seduced by the view pushed by the fossil-fuel industry that humans really aren't responsible ... we're fighting a battle against an enemy that's very well-funded, that's intent on providing disinformation about what the real science says."
It just may take a weatherperson to tell which way the wind blows.
Denis Moynihan contributed research to this column.
Copyright © 2010 Truthdig, L.L.C.
Amy Goodman is the host of "Democracy Now!," a daily international TV/radio news hour airing on 800 stations in North America. She was awarded the 2008 Right Livelihood Award, dubbed the “Alternative Nobel” prize, and received the award in the Swedish Parliament in December.
MONEY??? I must seriously be missing out then. :( :cry:Quote:
Originally Posted by Faldur
You're repeating more REICHWING PROPAGANDA again, Faldur. ;)
http://ams.confex.com/ams/pdfpapers/131047.pdf
YouTube- Two Legs Good Four Legs Bad
This is the best series I've seen on the "Climate Wars" so far. There's three episodes in total.
Earth: The Climate Wars Fightback. Episode 2.
Actually the newest data we have, is supposing the biggest solar storm in the human history to take place around 2012. (..which will be the peak time of these solar cycles... but that -meaning what is going to happen- will remain to be seen..)Quote:
Originally Posted by trish
This is due to the fact, that when sun lies dormant during a peak period of sunspots - it is usually merely doing so because it is going to burst.
I'd say the best and most probable cause for multiple planets atmosphere warming up would be something they all have in common - in their surroundings, which in our cause would be either the universe, the milky way, or / and the sun..Quote:
Originally Posted by trish
..all of these, including charged particle clouds coming from the outerspace - will have instant effect on all the bodies in our solar system.
Quote:
Originally Posted by trish
We must understand the fact, when analyzing this with our rationale, that the sunspots are not causing the warmth -that has been measured to correlate with the amount of the sunspot activity of the sun, throughout the human history, by humans who have observerd these correlations (such as the maunder minimum, the lack of sunspots for several decades that was in part creating the little ice age - this is all written in history, and is well documented even)- but we must understand, that what the sunspots are telling us, is that there is serious raise in the overall activity of the sun happening..
..the periods that sunspots stay dormant, during an overall phase of more sunspots, like we are experiencing just now, is usually just a sign of huge solar bursts to take place - as has been recorded also by humans, through the history.
This is why it is wise to see, that the sunspots, are themselves merely indicating that there is something "boiling" or that something is going on in the sun, that we - as humans-, yet do not understand the cause of.
..therefor it is not just the sunspots what relates to this, it is the "matter" and therefor amount of conductivity - between the sun, and the solar systems planets, that also have an impact in the overall climate of (all) the heavenly bodies inside our solar system.
Since even the planet Pluto has been recorded to be warming up - it is logical to assume, we are not dealing with something that is just happening in the inner parts of the solar system, and since the amount of charged particles has also been shown to have risen in our solar system within the last years - and some people suggest we are entering the horizontal plane of our Galaxy (..as has been measured to have happened in the year 1998, by some..) these all things are perfectly correlating (..alongside the fact, that we must understand that is that Co2 amounts have allways followed the rise in temperature - never the other way round, and they are therefor the causation of the overall rise in temperature, not the cause of it - never, in history atleast, so why should we assume, it would be logical to say that this has simply changed because someone made a documentary, and did not show the graphs they were quoting on top of eachother, due to this obvious contradicting against their theory being presented - as to Co2 being the cause of warmth, when even Al Gores own graph when put atop itself, will show a lagging of 800 years, in the rise of Co2, that follows the global temperature - as recorded by the ice core samples..)
Even the samplist, who have done this job to IPCC are telling, hey people, we have a record that says completely the opposite as to what is being told to you in the media - yet that does not seem so newsworthy.
Carbon dioxide in turn, does not have anything to do with pollution (yet, it can exist as a byproduct of such activity, as it does exist in mere exhaling and volcans erupting). Carbon dioxide (..as we know, but I still feel this must be pointed out..) is something that exists in all living things, and making us fear of something that is estimated, even by the wildest models, to make up to 3,6% of the overall Greenhouse Gases (and which of, only a few percents are estimated to be -Co2- of human production), we must agree, that it is of no logic, seeing what is presented here, to assume the headlines now sold to hold much accuracy.
I still hope there is something good coming out of this hype, but I kind of also know within, that for a good change that is benefitting all to come, there would be a need for truth and (sound) logic basis in the theories sold in the newspapers.
Now it is just merely spin, after spin...
..no honest answers, and that is allways a sign of something...
Wow, that brings back memories. LOL. We been there done that many times on this board before, loveburst.Quote:
Originally Posted by loveburst
So tell us then, has the earth ever seen a species that not only liberates massive carbon sinks from deep inside it and burns them, but destroys and burns it's sinks above the ground too? So how'd you know it doesn't work the other way around then? ;)
More strawmen. I think you need to look up the definition of pollution. Water can be a pollutant. So what's your explanation for the acidification of the oceans, and the massive increase in atmospheric CO2 then? That the sun too, or aliens perhaps?Quote:
Originally Posted by loveburst
Pluralitas non est ponenda sine neccesitate
(plurality should not be posited without necessity).
http://www.des.emory.edu/mfp/Kuhn.html
YouTube- Sheryl Crow - "A Change Would Do You Good" b/w music video
Hi loveburst. I do have to disagree with you. The newest data indicates exactly the opposite. Solar scientists are betting on a low peak count this coming cycle. This was discussed a few weeks ago on NPR's Science FridayQuote:
Actually the newest data we have, is supposing the biggest solar storm in the human history to take place around 2012. (..which will be the peak time of these solar cycles... but that -meaning what is going to happen- will remain to be seen..)
http://www.sciencefriday.com/program/archives/201007023
and it is also indicated on the graph I posted on a prior page.
The total electromagnictic power output of a star (in every part of the spectrum) is called its luminosity. The Sun is the most studied, most measured star in human history. It's luminosity has been monitored for centuries, and each decade with better and better instrumentation. One among many satellites devoted to monitoring the Sun, as I mentioned before, is SOHO located at the Lagrange point between the Sun and Earth. It's been monitoring the full complement of solar emissions for about fourteen years. The measured luminosity is a nearly constant 3.839 x 10^26 Watts. It ranges from 3.835 x 10^26 W to 3.843 x 10^26 W. That's a variation of plus or minus one tenth of one percent. This relatively constant stream of power is what you called the. Let's look at its impact on Pluto.Quote:
conductivity - between the sun, and the solar systems planets, that also have an impact in the overall climate of (all) the heavenly bodies inside our solar system...
Pluto at Aphelion is 49.305 Astronomical Units (AU) from the Sun and at Perihelion 29.658 AU from the Sun. It's a rather eccentric obit. The Sun's radiation spreads outward to form an expanding sphere. When it reaches Pluto at Aphelion, the radius of that sphere is 49.305 AU. The surface area of that sphere is 4xPIx(49.305AU)^2 which works out to be 6.837 x 10^26 square meters. Divide the total power output by this area and you get the solar flux upon the upper atmosphere of Pluto. If we use the lower bound on the solar luminosity we find that (3.835 x 10^26W)/(6.837 x 10^26 m^2) is equal to 0.561 Watts per square meter. If we use the higher bound on the luminosity we get 0.562 Watts per square meter. Hence the variation in the Sun's luminosity amounts to only 0.001 Watt per square meter of flux variation on the surface of Pluto at Aphelion.
What about Perihelion? Same calculation, different numbers. The Perihelion distance is 29.658AU and at the lowest solar luminosity we find that the flux at Pluto is 1.550 Watts per sq.meter. Using the highest solar luminosity we obtain 1.553 Watts per square meter. At the Perihelion of Pluto the solar variation causes a flux variation of 0.003 Watts per square meter.
Notice the in variation solar luminosity accounts for less than two tenth of one percent of the total solar flux experienced by Pluto whether at Aphelion or Perihelion. The variation in solar luminosity accounts for only about 5% of the total flux variation, whereas the orbital eccentricity accounts for about 95% of the flux variation at Pluto's surface. Clearly, variation in solar power output cannot account for any conjectured climate changes experienced by Pluto. So what could account for a present warming of Pluto?
Pluto's period of revolution is 248 years long. It passed nearest to the Sun 21 years ago in 1989. If we divide Pluto's year into 12 months, we find a month is approximately 248/12 = 21 years long. So Pluto was nearest the Sun just one Plutonian month ago. On Earth the hottest days of Summer occur about a month or more after the Summer Solstice. The coldest days of winter occur a month or more after the Winter Solstice. Hemispheric weather systems and planetary climate systems have a huge amount of inertia and consequently one always expects a significant lag between forces that drive those systems and the responses to those forces.
Okay, I definetely understand where you all are coming from.
There are still facts that are to be considered.
-Sun has a sunspot period of 11 years, we are now inbetween one sunspot period, no matter how quiet it might seem.
-And all quiet sunspot periods in the history have been known to lead into a buildup of the overall energy bursts of the sun.
-It has been more sunspots during the last decade than during any time in the recorded history.
-There has also been an increase of warmth and (other) climate cataclysms on all planets in our solar system - at the precise same time.
-There is no data, that can confirm the amount of interstellar charged particles
-There is logic in the assumation that there are more of these charged particles and therefor more conductivity at the "centering" axis of the Milkyway.
-Our solar system passing this center has been calculated to have happened in near 1998 - but this is yet to be confirmed, the thing to say is that "it is not possible to deny the fact, or either confirm where we currently are in our Galaxy -> what energies are therefor affecting".
-CO2 values have been recorded to allways go hand in hand with climate change, as in following.
It is indeed a good argument that how can I know that CO2 would not cause global warming, but it is just as good, as saying that to yourself, that how can you know it did?
Since the basis of this assumption is merely in the fact that CO2 values follow the amount of warmth, there is no basis in the assumption that CO2 would cause warming. And this is what every rational being must admit.
There is so as much logic in assuming that it would not be the cause of warming, than that it woud be - from the standpoint that refutes the logic that is supposed to be the reasoning for its functioning as a way to warm up the atmosphere.
Also, the CO2 levels have been on the rise in Mars, so it would be logical to assume, there is either an alien (industry) source pouring that CO2 into our neighbor planets atmosphere, or there is an other common reason for the simultaneous CO2 related climate changes on both planets, that should be indeed taken into consideration, when undestanding also the fact that the sun has had its most ever output during the last decade, we might also understand that there is therefor something else also feeding that kind of behaviour - no matter if one believed the sun to be the cause of warmth on earth or not, it is simply a scientific fact, which I believe should be more evidently shown in the headlines.
Nothing else, I just believe in the truth that can be shown to have its basis in logic and that is rationally sound.
Now it is not rationally sound to assume, that the overall output of the sun, and the overall rise in suns sunspots, and the possible solarsystems entering of the most materialwise rich area of our galaxy would not have side effects that are directly felt on this earth we live in. And it is not rationally sound to assume that it is not actually happening, if most planets in the solar system are experiencing changes in their climate.
It is rationally sound to say though, that we have not been monitoring them that long as to know what is truly going on, but since we have had the possibility of gathering data from the last 20+ years, it is safe to say, we can know it is not the normal behaviour of mars to melt its glaciers, for 3 mars years (6 earth years) in a row, and that it shows something other going on, than the natural yearly climate cycles of that planet.
So I understand there can be lots to handle here, since it is all the time put out in the media how badly humans take care of this planet.
But how about us concentrating on those things, that are indeed provable and have sound truthbasis behind them. And then, from that standpoint think the possible cures for what is going on?
But, I hope that there will be something good coming out of this global warming fear.. Such as ending the massproduction of meat would be very welcome, but at the same time I am afraid that now the masses are being led by irrational fears, and there would be things of more importance that should be taken into account now, when this world is inhabiting 7 billion people, like the pollution in overall.
There should be a total stop to the polluting, and the understanding that we'd need to respect the surroundings we live in more.
As to your question what is pollution, it is "whatever stops life" - that is the definition of pollution, and nope, water cannot be pollutant - there can be polluted water though - and right now there is, which is another thing that should indeed stop.
There is also the pollution of thought and pollution of mind, which from my point of perspective is totally based on lies and unlogical assumptions and irrational fears without any basis in truth - which is why I also see it important to end this polluting of the human minds, with a hysteria that might not actually have an accurate stronghold in reality and truthfullness.
Hello again Loveburst
Once again the relative variation in solar luminosity (which includes the variation due to Sunspot activity) is only one tenth of one percent.Quote:
-Sun has a sunspot period of 11 years, we are now inbetween one sunspot period, no matter how quiet it might seem.
-And all quiet sunspot periods in the history have been known to lead into a buildup of the overall energy bursts of the sun.
-It has been more sunspots during the last decade than during any time in the recorded history.
The claim that there have been climate cataclysms on all planets certainly overstates your case. The slight warming of Pluto is not a cataclysm. My last post shows that at least 95% of the warming is accounted for by its position in orbit and only 5% at best could possibly be due to a variation in Solar luminosity. Moreover, claim that all planets are experiencing a warming trend is tentative to say the least. There also remain the hundreds of thousands of bodies in the system that are not warming. More on those later.Quote:
-There has also been an increase of warmth and (other) climate cataclysms on all planets in our solar system - at the precise same time.
Not so. Review the SOHO website. You can find the particle count and their energies for each passing hour, and that just one among many of the satellites that monitor solar luminosity and particle counts. There is a much higher fluctuation in particulate energy density, then there is in Solar luminosity. However, even at their highest, the particulate energy flux at Earth is only 0.00007% of the Solar electromagnetic flux. Certainly nothing that can be the cause of moderate climate change, let alone cataclysmic climate change.Quote:
-There is no data, that can confirm the amount of interstellar charged particles
Technically we know fairly well where we are in our Galaxy. But I take your point, we don’t always know what particle fields we may be wandering into. But again, satellites that monitor particle counts have not detected a rise that would put the particulate energy flux at Earth above 0.00007% above the flux due to Solar luminosity.Quote:
-There is logic in the assumation that there are more of these charged particles and therefor more conductivity at the "centering" axis of the Milkyway.
-Our solar system passing this center has been calculated to have happened in near 1998 - but this is yet to be confirmed, the thing to say is that "it is not possible to deny the fact, or either confirm where we currently are in our Galaxy ->
This is not the case. The hypothesis of greenhouse warming is not simply based on the extrapolation of a pattern found in the geological past. The basis of the hypothesis is in atmospheric physics and chemistry. The quantitative models, based on atmospheric physics, chemistry and our knowledge of atmospheric and oceanic currents, attempt to follow the energy flows impacting on our planet. The models predict the same quantitative rise in average atmospheric, oceanic and surface temperatures that we have been measuring. The model fits the facts. If you hypothesize there is even more energy coming in via some mysterious and remarkably unmonitored energy source, then the prediction would be greater than current measurements. This suggests that the additional-mysterious-and-unmonitored-energy hypothesis can be tentatively eliminated.Quote:
-> what energies are therefor affecting".
-CO2 values have been recorded to allways go hand in hand with climate change, as in following.
It is indeed a good argument that how can I know that CO2 would not cause global warming, but it is just as good, as saying that to yourself, that how can you know it did? Since the basis of this assumption is merely in the fact that CO2 values follow the amount of warmth, there is no basis in the assumption that CO2 would cause warming. And this is what every rational being must admit.
We can go through each alleged case of planetary warming and either debunk it, or explain it, as I did in the case of Pluto. Even if as you say, Solar activity is at an all time high, the additional energy flux at any single planet is miniscule compared to the normal flux.Quote:
There is so as much logic in assuming that it would not be the cause of warming, than that it woud be - from the standpoint that refutes the logic that is supposed to be the reasoning for its functioning as a way to warm up the atmosphere.
Also, the CO2 levels have been on the rise in Mars, so it would be logical to assume, there is either an alien (industry) source pouring that CO2 into our neighbor planets atmosphere, or there is an other common reason for the simultaneous CO2 related climate changes on both planets, that should be indeed taken into consideration, when undestanding also the fact that the sun has had its most ever output during the last decade, we might also understand that there is therefor something else also feeding that kind of behaviour - no matter if one believed the sun to be the cause of warmth on earth or not, it is simply a scientific fact, which I believe should be more evidently shown in the headlines.
It’s rational to expect that if there is an increase in Solar activity that would have climatic consequences or if there is an increase in the particle count that would have similar consequences, then our monitoring satellites would pick up these increases.Quote:
Nothing else, I just believe in the truth that can be shown to have its basis in logic and that is rationally sound.
Now it is not rationally sound to assume, that the overall output of the sun, and the overall rise in suns sunspots, and the possible solarsystems entering of the most materialwise rich area of our galaxy would not have side effects that are directly felt on this earth we live in. And it is not rationally sound to assume that it is not actually happening, if most planets in the solar system are experiencing changes in their climate.
Let’s say, temporarily and for the sake of argument only, that you’re right, that Earth is being exposed to a new energy of unknown source. So we have to make an effort to stop the consequential warming. This could be done a number of ways. Release less fossil energy into the environment. Stop dumping greenhouse gasses into the atmosphere. Seems the effective steps we should take are the same, whether we know the source of the warming or not.Quote:
It is rationally sound to say though, that we have not been monitoring them that long as to know what is truly going on, but since we have had the possibility of gathering data from the last 20+ years, it is safe to say, we can know it is not the normal behaviour of mars to melt its glaciers, for 3 mars years (6 earth years) in a row, and that it shows something other going on, than the natural yearly climate cycles of that planet.
So I understand there can be lots to handle here, since it is all the time put out in the media how badly humans take care of this planet.
But how about us concentrating on those things, that are indeed provable and have sound truthbasis behind them. And then, from that standpoint think the possible cures for what is going on?
I don’t think I have anything to add to these last comments.Quote:
But, I hope that there will be something good coming out of this global warming fear.. Such as ending the massproduction of meat would be very welcome, but at the same time I am afraid that now the masses are being led by irrational fears, and there would be things of more importance that should be taken into account now, when this world is inhabiting 7 billion people, like the pollution in overall.
There should be a total stop to the polluting, and the understanding that we'd need to respect the surroundings we live in more.
As to your question what is pollution, it is "whatever stops life" - that is the definition of pollution, and nope, water cannot be pollutant - there can be polluted water though - and right now there is, which is another thing that should indeed stop.
There is also the pollution of thought and pollution of mind, which from my point of perspective is totally based on lies and unlogical assumptions and irrational fears without any basis in truth - which is why I also see it important to end this polluting of the human minds, with a hysteria that might not actually have an accurate stronghold in reality and truthfullness.
But I will add a few remarks of my own concerning the variation in Solar flux at Earth, which is summarized in the following table.
Solar Energy Flux at Earth in Watts/Square Meter
...................Perihelion... Average.... Aphelion
Highest
Luminosity ...... 1411...... 1364 ........ 1319
Average
Luminosity .......1413..... 1365 ...........1321
Lowest
Lumnosity ...... 1414...... 1366........... 1322
Notice the variation in luminosity (which includes the variation over the eleven year sunspot cycles) results in a variation of only 2 to 3 Watts per square meter. The average flux of 1365 Watts per square meter simply swamps the variation. Note too the variation between Perihelion and Aphelion is only about 89 Watts per square meter. The seasonal differences in weather are not due to any of these variations but are instead driven by the tilt of the Earth on its axis.
So let’s look at those seasonal differences and do a very crude calculation. In the Northern temperate zone there may be 18 hours of of sunlight on the Summer Solstice. The energy collected on a long, temperate Summer’s day is about (1365 W/m^2)(18 hr) = 24.57 kilowatt hours per square meter per summer’s day. In the winter the daylight may only last 8 hours. So by a similarly (very approximate) calculation about 10.92 kWh of energy strikes the Earth per square meter (at the Northern temperate zone) per Winter’s day. The variation is 13.65 kWh per square meter per day. The average variation in flux due to the variation in luminosity (from the table above) is 2 Watts per meter square, which converts to 0.048 kWh per square meter per day. This accounts for only 0.35% of the total annual variation in flux. In the temperate zone the temperature may vary as much as 50 degrees centigrade over the course of a year, but only 0.35% of that variation can be attributed to a variation in solar output; i.e. 0.175 C. I admit this is a very very crude calculation, but it does constitute an order of magnitude argument against the hypothesis that climate change on Earth could be driven by variations in Solar luminosity. (So far we've seen that neither the climate of Earth nor that of Pluto are significantly effected by fluctuations in Solar power output, either in the form of luminosity or in the form of the Solar wind).
This is a lie that's been elevated to the status of myth/meme by continuous retelling. It never happened.Quote:
We were told by "scientists" that the world was heading into another ice age and we were all going to die.
What's being referred to here is a theory about the aftermath of M.A.D. breaking down & actually happening. A full scale nuclear war, where the thermonuclear arsenals of the world were unleashed over a very short duration. I can't speak for the science behind it, but if memory serves, the general idea was twofold: First that there would be enough dust & debris lifted into the upper atmosphere to block the solar radiation, or enough of it to start a rapid cooling trend. & second that the conflagration would burn off enough of the natural greenhouse gasses in the lower atmosphere to allow heat to escape more than normal. Hence the name of the theory: "Nuclear Winter".
I don't know if the theory's viable or not. Probably a lot of exaggeration. I do know that it scared the hell out of a lot of people. That's probably a good thing because when President Reagan showed up a few years later, & started talking crap about "first strike" & how America could survive a thermonuclear war, the public reaction was so intense that he backpedaled in a big hurry.
But back to the point of the LIE: The "nuclear winter" theory had nothing whatsoever to do with the climate change that's caused by the artificial increase in greenhouse gasses. The deliberate refusal to see what's happening right in front of you could be seen as a form of insanity. This isn't ideological. I'm a cynic, but ignoring long term damage for short term gain, & making up lies to cover it up, goes way beyond any moral or ethical bounds, & even beyond self-interest. Part of instinctive self interest, whether Ayn Rand understood it or not, is protection of our progeny. "Rational self interest" becomes irrational if that's denied. There will be businesses that end up getting regulated into oblivion. Why? Commies? No! It's their own arrogance that's suicidal. Keep kicking the dog, & sooner or later he'll bite you in the ass. Same goes for people. Stick your middle finger in enough faces & it'll end up broken. Go out of your way to screw things up for people's offspring, & they'll band together to put you down. Self interest. This hubristic lie isn't enough to protect the liars. I have no sympathy.
Really???Quote:
Originally Posted by hippifried
This is the text, as transcribed at Rush's site. Text omitted in the Rush transcription but included here is in red (thanks to E Zubek).
"The Cooling World" - by Peter Gwynne
April 28, 1975 Newsweek
There are ominous signs that the Earth’s weather patterns have begun to change dramatically and that these changes may portend a drastic decline in food production – with serious political implications for just about every nation on Earth. The drop in food output could begin quite soon, perhaps only 10 years from now.
The regions destined to feel its impact are the great wheat-producing lands of Canada and the U.S.S.R. in the North, along with a number of marginally self-sufficient tropical areas – parts of India, Pakistan, Bangladesh, Indochina and Indonesia – where the growing season is dependent upon the rains brought by the monsoon.
The evidence in support of these predictions has now begun to accumulate so massively that meteorologists are hard-pressed to keep up with it. In England, farmers have seen their growing season decline by about two weeks since 1950, with a resultant overall loss in grain production estimated at up to 100,000 tons annually. During the same time, the average temperature around the equator has risen by a fraction of a degree – a fraction that in some areas can mean drought and desolation. Last April, in the most devastating outbreak of tornadoes ever recorded, 148 twisters killed more than 300 people and caused half a billion dollars' worth of damage in 13 U.S. states.
To scientists, these seemingly disparate incidents represent the advance signs of fundamental changes in the world's weather. The central fact is that after three quarters of a century of extraordinarily mild conditions, the earth's climate seems to be cooling down. Meteorologists disagree about the cause and extent of the cooling trend, as well as over its specific impact on local weather conditions. But they are almost unanimous in the view that the trend will reduce agricultural productivity for the rest of the century. If the climatic change is as profound as some of the pessimists fear, the resulting famines could be catastrophic. “A major climatic change would force economic and social adjustments on a worldwide scale,” warns a recent report by the National Academy of Sciences, “because the global patterns of food production and population that have evolved are implicitly dependent on the climate of the present century.”
A survey completed last year by Dr. Murray Mitchell of the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration reveals a drop of half a degree in average ground temperatures in the Northern Hemisphere between 1945 and 1968. According to George Kukla of Columbia University, satellite photos indicated a sudden, large increase in Northern Hemisphere snow cover in the winter of 1971-72. And a study released last month by two NOAA scientists notes that the amount of sunshine reaching the ground in the continental U.S. diminished by 1.3% between 1964 and 1972.
To the layman, the relatively small changes in temperature and sunshine can be highly misleading. Reid Bryson of the University of Wisconsin points out that the Earth’s average temperature during the great Ice Ages was only about seven degrees lower than during its warmest eras – and that the present decline has taken the planet about a sixth of the way toward the Ice Age average.
Others regard the cooling as a reversion to the “little ice age” conditions that brought bitter winters to much of Europe and northern America between 1600 and 1900 – years when the Thames used to freeze so solidly that Londoners roasted oxen on the ice and when iceboats sailed the Hudson River almost as far south as New York City.
Just what causes the onset of major and minor ice ages remains a mystery. “Our knowledge of the mechanisms of climatic change is at least as fragmentary as our data,” concedes the National Academy of Sciences report. “Not only are the basic scientific questions largely unanswered, but in many cases we do not yet know enough to pose the key questions.”
Meteorologists think that they can forecast the short-term results of the return to the norm of the last century. They begin by noting the slight drop in overall temperature that produces large numbers of pressure centers in the upper atmosphere. These break up the smooth flow of westerly winds over temperate areas. The stagnant air produced in this way causes an increase in extremes of local weather such as droughts, floods, extended dry spells, long freezes, delayed monsoons and even local temperature increases – all of which have a direct impact on food supplies. “The world’s food-producing system,” warns Dr. James D. McQuigg of NOAA’s Center for Climatic and Environmental Assessment, “is much more sensitive to the weather variable than it was even five years ago.” Furthermore, the growth of world population and creation of new national boundaries make it impossible for starving peoples to migrate from their devastated fields, as they did during past famines.
Climatologists are pessimistic that political leaders will take any positive action to compensate for the climatic change, or even to allay its effects. They concede that some of the more spectacular solutions proposed, such as melting the Arctic ice cap by covering it with black soot or diverting arctic rivers, might create problems far greater than those they solve. But the scientists see few signs that government leaders anywhere are even prepared to take the simple measures of stockpiling food or of introducing the variables of climatic uncertainty into economic projections of future food supplies. The longer the planners delay, the more difficult will they find it to cope with climatic change once the results become grim reality.
In 1974, the National Science Foundation predicts that declining world temperatures herald the beginning of "the next glacial age." A bestselling book in 1976, "The Cooling," states, "As Earth cools, as sunlight diminishes, as the range of snow and the length of winter increases, the possibility of a snow blitz grows greater and greater....Ice and snow covers more area today than even a decade ago, and by some indications the cooling has only begun."
“Certainly the threat of another ice age was the topic of much scientific and popular discussion in the 1970s. Books and articles entitled ‘The Cooling,’ ‘Blizzard,’ ‘Ice,’ and ‘A Mini Ice Age Could Begin in a Decade,’ abounded. The ‘snow blitz’ theory was popularized on the public television presentation of ‘The Weather Machine’ in 1975. And certainly the winters of the late 1970s were enough to send shivers through our imaginations.”
- Harold Bernard, Jr., The Greenhouse Effect (Cambridge, MA: Ballinger Publishing, 1980), p. 20.
“The worriers about cooling included Science, the most influential scientific journal in the world, quoting an official of the World Meteorological Organization; the National Academy of Sciences worrying about the onset of a 10,000 year ice age; Newsweek warning that food production could be adversely affected within a decade; the New York Times quoting an official of the National Center for Atmospheric Research; and Science Digest, the science periodical with the largest circulation.”
- Julian Simon, “What Does the Future Hold? The Forecast in a Nutshell,” in Simon, ed., The State of Humanity (Cambridge, Mass: Blackwell, 1995), p. 646.
“In the early 1970s, the northern hemisphere appeared to have been cooling at an alarming rate. There was frequent talk of a new ice age. Books and documentaries appeared, hypothesizing a snowblitz or sporting titles such as The Cooling. Even the CIA got into the act, sponsoring several meetings and writing a controversial report warning of threats to American security from the potential collapse of Third World Governments in the wake of climate change.”
- Stephen Schneider, Global Warming: Are We Entering the Greenhouse Century? (San Francisco: Sierra Club Books, 1989), p. 199.
“Some climatologists believe that the average temperature in the Northern Hemisphere, at least, may decline by two or three degrees by the end of the century. If that climate change occurs, there will be megadeaths and social upheaval because grain production in high latitudes (Canada, northern regions of China and the Soviet Union) will decrease.”
- George Will, “A Change in the Weather,” Washington Post, January 24, 1975, quoted in James Fleming, Historical Perspectives on Climate Change (New York: Oxford University Press, 1998), pp. 132-33.
“The dramatic importance of climate changes to the world’s future has been dangerously underestimated by many, often because we have been lulled by modern technology into thinking we have conquered nature. This well-written book points out in clear language that the climatic threat could be as awesome as any we might face, and that massive world-wide actions to hedge against that threat deserve immediate consideration.”
- Stephen Schneider, Back cover endorsement, Lowell Ponte, The Cooling: Has The Next Ice Age Already Begun? Can We Survive It (Englewood Cliffs, N.J.: Prentice-Hall, Inc., 1976).
“Our climate has swung wildly from severe warming during the Dust Bowl era of the 1930s to severe cooling during the 1960s. . . . The cooling is a fact.”
- Lowell Ponte, The Cooling: Has The Next Ice Age Already Begun? Can We Survive It (Englewood Cliffs, N.J.: Prentice-Hall, Inc., 1976), p. 31.
The quotation marks around "scientists" is appropriate here. I notice you have not cited extensively, if at all, from the professional peer reviewed literature of the 1970's. Of perusal of that literature would tell you there was no professional consensus on the issue of climate change. I already addressed this here http://www.hungangels.com/vboard/sho...3&postcount=16 . The 70's was 30-40 years ago. What field of modern science hasn't advanced through enormous strides in the last 40 years? In the 1970's computer models were in their infancy. Computers themselves were in their infancy. The memory and the computational speed that are required to numerically solve the complex partial differential equations that describe climate evolution just weren't available in the 1970's. Neither was the satellite data that now supplies a continuous feed of climatological and meteorological data that covers the entire globe as well as continuous feeds of data on solar output. The older, "traditional" sources of climate data (ice cores, trees rings and other fossil evidence) have also been more thoroughly investigated and more thoroughly understood. In the 70's no professional consensus was possible. Indeed in the 70's both cooling and warming were hypothesis under consideration. Even then warming was the more viable hypothesis, (since the greenhouse mechanism was well understood) though there wasn't yet a concern with runaway warming. Because of a local dip in temperatures the ice-age scenario captured the public's imagination. News sources then, as today, were eager to publish the latest possible doomsday hypothesis that wasn't yet ruled out by the then current evidence.Quote:
We were told by "scientists" that the world was heading into another ice age and we were all going to die.
Thirty to forty years later climate scientists are in basic agreement: the Earth is experiencing a climatic shift. Less of the heat radiated by the Earth's surface is making it beyond the atmosphere and escaping into space. These observations are quantitatively consistent with the predictions of climate models based on the chemistry and physics of insulating gasses in the atmosphere.
The deniers are desperate. One denying tactic is to cast aspersions. One such attempt was climategate. Independent investigations have exonerated the climatologists who have been maligned by the hackers (and their backers) who have illegally broke into the email records of several English universities in a vane attempt to dig for scandal that wasn't there. Another such attempt is to point to an 35 year old hypothesis, the "next-ice-age-hypothesis" which has been examined and eliminated and claim, "look what those nincompoop 'scientists' told us forty years ago!" Usually when a hypothesis can be eliminated it's called progress. Only a denier could spin it the other way. Yes, the deniers are desperate. Some cling to the claim there's no climatic heat imbalance at all. Some claim the entire fucking solar system is warming, based on evidence so scant it makes ones head spin. Some claim global climate change is a United Nations ploy to establish world government. That's what all this denying is really about: fear that there may be good reason for human beings to cooperate to secure their mutual welfare__fear that 'rational' self-interest may not be the panacea that libertarians claim it to be. Some people would rather several hundred million people die than change their 'world view'. Some people would rather several hundred million persons die then suffer a profit loss.
Yeah, really. There's always some conjecture or another happening. It's happening now. Who the hell is Peter Gwynne? He was an editor from Newsweek that sent a couple of reporters out to ask why Anchorage was warmer than Miami for a while one winter. The Newsweek research dwelled on the study of localized opacity of aerosol polution that filtered solar radiation, & the dip in the warming trend that had been happening for a couple of decades. But the effects of CO2 were well known & the Gaia effect was gaining traction. This Newsweek thing has been the cornerstone of climate change deniers since the warming consensus was reached in '88.
Rush Limbaugh is full of shit, & so are you, along with the rest of his sycophants. You don't know what you're talkin' about.
Don't know bout the rest of em Trish, but there is no desperation here. I'm looking at the biggest get rich scheme in the history of the world and I get a good laugh at it.
And Hippi, there were enough articles to max 3 post limits, figured one set was adequate to make my point. I've lived through this before, the same desperate rantings.
No. You haven't. You have not lived through a prior time (the 70's) when there was a scientific consensus on the issue of global heat imbalance. You know this, but refuse to acknowledge it. There was plenty of talk about both hypothesis in the 70's. You know this. But refuse to acknowledge it. (One of the early articles on warming was written in 1971 by Rasool and Schneide published in Science). As I pointed out in the post above, there have been enormous advances in data collection, data crunching as well as strides and refinements in our theoretical understanding of atmospheric chemistry and dynamics. You know this, but have not addressed it. The cooling hypothesis has long been eliminated. You know this. That's why you have to go all the way back to the seventies to revive it. Since then professionals in climate science are in agreement on this issue. This you know and you know it was not the case in the 70's. But instead of acknowledging any of these things and modifying your argument to meet these points, all you can do is desperately attempt to redirect the argument with the lie, "I've lived through this before..."Quote:
I've lived through this before...
It certainly does. I don't doubt you will ever run out of cheap rags that sell their claptrap using banners like: *** DEBATE: IS CLIMATE CHANGE AND GLOBAL WARMING JUST A CON?...*** Did you imagine you were citing the work of a fair and balanced writer? The article begins...Quote:
And the beat goes on..
Yeah, those nameless high-level inquiries (which are neither subject to peer review nor held accountable by any scientific body for their conclusions) set the hallmark standards for all scientific investigations.:roll:Quote:
A high-level inquiry ... found ...
You do realize the 2007 U.N. report on climate change is a report of the consensus on climate change. Finding errors in a report is like finding errors in a newspaper article. The consensus, the evidence and the proofs are to be found in the peer reviewed literature which you again fail to address. Modern climatological research published in peer reviewed journals, with very few exceptions, make the case (or detail various aspects of the case and the evidence) that Earth is no longer capable of radiating away a sufficient quantity of heat to maintain current climate patterns. As a denier, that is the claim you need to debunk. It is not sufficient to simply claim, "Washington will have a warm winter," nor is it sufficient to show, "The Himalayas aren't going to melt for another two score years," nor is it sufficient for you to point out, "The U.N. report is not error free." To make your case (that the hypothesis of global warming is false) you must show: the Earth is indeed radiating at least enough heat into space to maintain climate stability, in spite of the 390 ppm concentration of CO2 in the atmosphere. I haven't heard anything from you that remotely supports your claim. Perhaps you can tell us, if the Earth isn't warming, then exactly how is the Earth's radiant heat escaping? How much energy is radiating back into space and at what wavelengths?
& yet with the entire planet in on the giant conspiracy to soak up money like a sponge, our oh so super-smart & easily amused ditto-head Faldur hasn't figured out a way to cash in on it.Quote:
Originally Posted by Faldur
Do you even know the difference between an article & a post? Limbaugh as a primary source of information? Pity might be in order, but not from me.
You haven't lived at all. Hangin' out in moms basement doesn't count. Desperate rantings is all your know, if that.
Lol, hanging out in moms basement? Oh brother... and I don't recall quoting Limbaugh? Mind pointing it out to me?
The largest abusers of carbon emissions are the people running around in a mad panic telling all of us we need to change. Yes a large "money soak", your words not mine. If these people believed the shoe shine they are trying to sell us they would walk the walk, and not live like a rock star and tell the world to change. I really feel sorry for you guys that bought in to this bull shift. Just look to the carbon credit money goes and you will find the wizard behind the curtain.. :)
Try post #30.