Hot Under The Collar (Climate Change Chatter)
 

We had a thread like this, but it got hijacked by a fantasist. Seems like a good a time as any to light another bonfire of vanities... and flush out some new opinions along the way :)

http://img510.imageshack.us/img510/7...nskobj9.th.jpghttp://img510.imageshack.us/img510/7...lefirt7.th.jpghttp://img510.imageshack.us/img510/5...rmofpf6.th.pnghttp://img510.imageshack.us/img510/7...ms22sy6.th.pnghttp://img16.imageshack.us/img16/412...gcomty4.th.png

---

Here's a couple of US-centric headlines from the last few weeks, just to get us started:

Climate shift 'killing US trees'
Analysis of undisturbed forests showed that the trees' mortality rate had doubled since 1955, researchers said

Drought warning as the tropics expand
Now new research suggests that the three-year drought in the Golden State may be a consequence of the expanding tropics

They seemed suitable, as they've probably already hit people's buttons in certain ways: Apprehension if you're concerned by climate change; derision if your highly sceptical of the scientist's claims; apathy if you don't know what to think about it either way. And so on...

So how about some positive ones?...

Fish Guts Explain Marine Carbon Cycle Mystery
[Fish will help rebalance ocean pH & lock away even more carbon if expected sea temp & CO2 rises take place]

Some locust plagues don't like it hot
"Our results suggest that warming reduced climatic extremes and locust plagues in ancient China."

Chances are your buttons were getting pushed again one way or another: Scientists don't know everything; warming might be a good thing; why does China get to have all the fun these days? (etc ;))...

For what it's worth, I thought I'd state my position bluntly here:

• The underlying physics connecting human emissions & activities to accelerated climate change seems too solid to ignore {*}
  To this layman, anyway. If there's one thing 'hard' scientists love doing it's tearing down a weak argument. You don't establish a consensus of this apparently unprecedented kind amongst these fractious types, over decades, (in a discipline that's accessible to government number-crunchers to analyse) unless the theory is testable & exceptionally flipping strong.

• The debate should be about Mitigation vs Adaptation
  There is plenty of uncertainty about how good the predictive models are. So the question should be how much do we direct our energies & money towards reducing our greenhouse gas influence (Mitigation) and how much towards 'everyday' concerns that will be an issue come climate change or not (Adaptation) - such as crop improvement & drought prevention etc (all of which are considered key to avoiding resource wars in the face of a 'peaking' global population)
  
  
• Some human-influenced changes seem to be here. There are reasons to believe future changes will damaging for humanity.
  Ongoing changes are increasingly being directly connected to human influences. (Once things have happened that makes them much more testable ;)). Even if we were to hit the base level targets for reducing emissions, certain changes are liable to occur that will stress well known problems for global social stability (those like water, food & land-access that fall in the 'Adaptation' category)
  

---

A key issue to remember when pondering all this is that that CO2 emissions remain influential for centuries{*}. (That's why all the fuss about it - in case ya didn't know ;)).

I'll happily admit that I've mainly posted this to flush out layman Climate Change deniers, so I can challenge any scepticism-lite objections they may have.

But I wouldn't want to leave those peturbed by these issues without a positive note. How's about this?... We might be able to scrub some of that CO2 back out again - & maybe power our cars with the 'proceeds' :)

Re: Hot Under The Collar (Climate Change Chatter)
 

I miss snow. :(

Re: Hot Under The Collar (Climate Change Chatter)
 

We've got loads, i'll send you some. It's $20 a bottle tho mind ;)

Re: Hot Under The Collar (Climate Change Chatter)
 

How come you don't call it Global Warming anymore? Now it's 'Climate Change' because the recent trends in cooler weather seem to suggest that "Global Warming" is a misnomer.

I'll give your links a glance tomorrow, Golgot. Right off the bat though your use of the word 'consensus' and hard science in the same paragraph bugs me. Like I said though, I'm not as stupidly rigid as I once was... I'm willing to be educated.

Re: Hot Under The Collar (Climate Change Chatter)
 

G.W. (not Bush) or Climate change or El Neenyo ;) or whatever..... I just do not see it. I mean sure I would rather play close to the vest JIC, but murphy's law just needs to be ousted in this case I think. Hope I am wrong however, 'cause it is better to be proved wrong and be safe, than to be proved right and be dead. :)

Re: Hot Under The Collar (Climate Change Chatter)
 

Hey Golgot why don't you do your part for the environment and not breed.

Now lets talk about something interesting, like everyones views on the Kennedy assassination.

Re: Hot Under The Collar (Climate Change Chatter)
 

The theory and the numbers (if you believe them) show that many places are warming (January in Southern Calfornia was the warmest on record), but they are counteracted by other locales where the climate is cooling "for the time being". I realize that among many people that Al Gore is a fool, but An Inconvenient Truth did "explain" why some places would have a "freeze" even if it was due to the "concept" of global warming. As far as what you believe, I have no way of telling what to do and it's not really my place, but before you pooh-pooh that Commie Nobel Prize winner, at least watch An Inconvenient Truth all the way through before you go to the right-wing sites which say it's all some Commie scheme to pick your pocket. :cool: I trust in the intelligence and objectivity of all my friends here.

Please try to ignore anything you see as scaremongering in the trailer, at least to get to the movie itself. It may be helpful to take notes and have something like a scorecard when you watch the film to fully decide what YOU really think its truths and lies are.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0XMn_Ry3z6M&feature=PlayList&p=53C8EBCE7F1A8002&playnext=1&index=54

P.S. There's no way that Oswald killed Kennedy on his own, especially based on the Zapruder film. :cool:

Re: Hot Under The Collar (Climate Change Chatter)
 

Hey Toosey :)

I opt for CC now over GW because of the very argument you're presenting. The cold-weather one ;). Lots of sceptic-leaners have jumped on the recent cooling without realising it doesn't contradict the science - which is based on long-term cycles. This isn't a topic that's going to go away - some groups are predicting further drops/more-significant slowdowns because of long-term sea-atmosphere cycles - but if you read the article (and they're all there so you can, if you want more than just my rhetoric on a point :)), you'll see that we wouldn't be any better off long-term under those conditions - in that we're currently better off having the heat 'in the air' (where it can radiate out into space) rather than locked in the oceans for a while (where it can't).

I don't expect, or want, you to take any of this as gospel. Glad you're up for engaging tho :)

Re: Hot Under The Collar (Climate Change Chatter)
 

You do not see the decade-long shifts? Get thee to an optician sir! (They have a broad consensus on what is good for you ;))

Re: Hot Under The Collar (Climate Change Chatter)
 

Record amount of snow in Vancouver this year, really cold temperatures for this area.

I've got a wack load of theories on this subject, but like most of what I write while on this site, I'll just delete it and avoid posting my true thoughts, like I just did.

Re: Hot Under The Collar (Climate Change Chatter)
 

Kennedy was killed because he didn't fully support the breeding of pigs in Cuba (or something ;)).

But i can do better than that Loney. I can point out that the population is liable to come down as developing countries industrialise. (Reverse those words as you see fit). In that birth-control education and lack of need for a large, medically-challenged arable family has historically empowered people to control their family size to a 'sustainable' level. The problem is that there's a lag between industrialisation allowing for even greater family growth & the limiting effect kicking in.

I'm willing to have one and a half kids - and wait :p

Re: Hot Under The Collar (Climate Change Chatter)
 

I hope you're kidding.

I am.

Re: Hot Under The Collar (Climate Change Chatter)
 

Gore really has stirred the sh*t backwards on some levels. Not because he's necessarily wrong in a lot of what he says (altho i hear he overplayed the hurricane theories a bit - & ran strongly with the Day After Tommorow scenario that's very much on the 'back burner' these days) - more because... he's Al Gore. And very prominently so. Everything he says gets equated by the hard-core Democrat-opposing community as automatically-wrong. And it seems people fall 'demographically' into those tendencies anyway to a degree - so Gore baby was just preaching to the choir, while entrenching the schismic apoplexy.

Re: Hot Under The Collar (Climate Change Chatter)
 

Hey, post your true thoughts harry lime!

(Just forgive me if I post some o'mine back ;))

Re: Hot Under The Collar (Climate Change Chatter)
 

I don't mind saying this.

I think you're a better person that I am.

I wouldn't have reacted that way.

Re: Hot Under The Collar (Climate Change Chatter)
 

Well, I agree that this is a topic, I however don't believe in most of it for a second. I agree with the late great George Carlin on this issue. Global warming may seem like a big deal to some but at the end of the day nothing will come of us talking about it. Especially if the folks in power can't figure out a way to make money off of it. Ever notice how when you buy something "green" it costs 2 to 3 times more than something that is supposedly not good for the environment? Why do you suppose that is? That's a rhetorical question so please don't feel like you need to somehow convince me of something. Am I closed minded? Maybe. Probably. But to me there are way more important things that I feel humanity as a whole needs to address. Like for starters: How about we get everybody on the planet fed and then we can at least talk about global warming after someone who hasn't eaten in a week has a nice full belly.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eScDfYzMEEw

Re: Hot Under The Collar (Climate Change Chatter)
 

Ach, I'm on a mission from Gaia. I've gotta have my good suit on ;)

Re: Hot Under The Collar (Climate Change Chatter)
 

That's true. I believe in caring for people here and now and not for the future, but if that is your actual bottom line, then you probably also don't care about all the deficit-spending which we've been doing on a yearly basis for quite awhile now. Just screw Americans or "world citizens" in the future when all they have to pay for the notes that China and Japan call in on the U.S. are pure Monopoly money. No biggie; we'll probably be covered in water by then anyway. Politics suck, almost as much as reality...

Re: Hot Under The Collar (Climate Change Chatter)
 

*cough*

Mitigation vs Adaptation man, as i said. Coz i am like, so wise ;)

Re: Hot Under The Collar (Climate Change Chatter)
 

I don't know who Moondog is but it should be the other way around. Carlin was talking about this well over 10 years ago.

And I get that you're trying to help in your own way and I wish you good luck with that, I truly do.