Hot Under The Collar (Climate Change Chatter)

Tools    





there's a frog in my snake oil
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



---

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'
__________________
Virtual Reality chatter on a movie site? Got endless amounts of it here. Reviews over here



You ready? You look ready.
I miss snow.
__________________
"This is that human freedom, which all boast that they possess, and which consists solely in the fact, that men are conscious of their own desire, but are ignorant of the causes whereby that desire has been determined." -Baruch Spinoza



there's a frog in my snake oil
We've got loads, i'll send you some. It's $20 a bottle tho mind



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.



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.
__________________
“The gladdest moment in human life, methinks, is a departure into unknown lands.” – Sir Richard Burton



All good people are asleep and dreaming.
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.



Bright light. Bright light. Uh oh.
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. 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.
&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.
__________________
It's what you learn after you know it all that counts. - John Wooden
My IMDb page



there's a frog in my snake oil
Originally Posted by Sir Toose
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.
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



there's a frog in my snake oil
Originally Posted by 7thson
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.
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 )



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.
__________________
"Don't be so gloomy. After all it's not that awful. Like the fella says, in Italy for 30 years under the Borgias they had warfare, terror, murder, and bloodshed, but they produced Michelangelo, Leonardo da Vinci, and the Renaissance. In Switzerland they had brotherly love - they had 500 years of democracy and peace, and what did that produce? The cuckoo clock."



there's a frog in my snake oil
Originally Posted by Loner
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.
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



All good people are asleep and dreaming.
P.S. There's no way that Oswald killed Kennedy on his own, especially based on the Zapruder film.
I hope you're kidding.

I am.



there's a frog in my snake oil
Originally Posted by mark f
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.
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.



there's a frog in my snake oil
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.
Hey, post your true thoughts harry lime!

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



All good people are asleep and dreaming.
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
I don't mind saying this.

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

I wouldn't have reacted that way.



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.

__________________
We are both the source of the problem and the solution, yet we do not see ourselves in this light...



there's a frog in my snake oil
Originally Posted by Loner
I don't mind saying this.

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

I wouldn't have reacted that way.
Ach, I'm on a mission from Gaia. I've gotta have my good suit on



Bright light. Bright light. Uh oh.
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...



there's a frog in my snake oil
Originally Posted by Powdered Water
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.
*cough*

Originally Posted by Golgot
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)
Mitigation vs Adaptation man, as i said. Coz i am like, so wise



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.