1
   

Climate Change Politics

 
 
memester
 
  1  
Reply Sun 30 May, 2010 07:52 am
@xris,
xris;170796 wrote:
We are back where we started and a confusing amount of controversial evidence that needs more than our debate to clarify. I wont get into it Memster, sorry. Its not that I concede but it is pointless. I believe that from my reading we have never seen this increase in temperatures, so rapidly, without a major disaster causing or it causing a major disaster. I sincerely hope this does not cause the adverse effects it predicts and we live through it but you have not convinced me. When I see the arctic diminishing and the fear of the permafrost melting , no amount of your attempts at poo pooing the figures will give me comfort.
It doesn't give me comfort, either, to know that these guys have been so manipulative.

Where I live (Toronto ), climate seems to have changed within my lifetime - a great amount of urbanization also occurred, though. It's extremely worrisome, worrisome enough to make one wonder about the sanity of having brought chidren into the existence that one could project from this point during depressive moments.

So first job is to rid ourselves of these unethical methods that the Hockey Team scientists have foisted on the world.
Or maybe the first job is to tackle the IPPC.
It's not that I am trying to convince you that dangerous warm up is not happening ( I think even so much CO2 release resulting in drop in Alkalinity might be very damaging to many ocean life forms ).
I think we need to be very cautious of being pushed by the likes of BP into a yet more profitable scheme, than oil ever was - while not stopping usage of fossil fuels or even worse alternatives ( perhaps some biofuel projects demonstrate a worse alternative).

I think we need to be very cautious of allowing the idea of "reparations due" to other countries any legitimacy.

It doesn't look good for us, when Wall Street, the banks, and Big Oil are all eager.

there's only one solution for an Earth as we know it to possibly continue on - massive and permanent reduction in population. It will require assent by all major religions in order to enact international laws, preventing births, in some way. Setting an age limit for humans also makes sense, but I think that it would foster such great corruption and violence that it is not workable. would a limit on lifespan be such a source of dread, that it ruins whole lives , or would it spur us on to do better than we do ?

This is why I advocate following the advice of EO Wilson; we must engage the religious on the particular Humanist terms that are common to all.
xris
 
  1  
Reply Sun 30 May, 2010 11:00 am
@memester,
memester;170807 wrote:
It doesn't give me comfort, either, to know that these guys have been so manipulative.

Where I live (Toronto ), climate seems to have changed within my lifetime - a great amount of urbanization also occurred, though. It's extremely worrisome, worrisome enough to make one wonder about the sanity of having brought chidren into the existence that one could project from this point during depressive moments.

So first job is to rid ourselves of these unethical methods that the Hockey Team scientists have foisted on the world.
Or maybe the first job is to tackle the IPPC.
It's not that I am trying to convince you that dangerous warm up is not happening ( I think even so much CO2 release resulting in drop in Alkalinity might be very damaging to many ocean life forms ).
I think we need to be very cautious of being pushed by the likes of BP into a yet more profitable scheme, than oil ever was - while not stopping usage of fossil fuels or even worse alternatives ( perhaps some biofuel projects demonstrate a worse alternative).

I think we need to be very cautious of allowing the idea of "reparations due" to other countries any legitimacy.

It doesn't look good for us, when Wall Street, the banks, and Big Oil are all eager.

there's only one solution for an Earth as we know it to possibly continue on - massive and permanent reduction in population. It will require assent by all major religions in order to enact international laws, preventing births, in some way. Setting an age limit for humans also makes sense, but I think that it would foster such great corruption and violence that it is not workable. would a limit on lifespan be such a source of dread, that it ruins whole lives , or would it spur us on to do better than we do ?

This is why I advocate following the advice of EO Wilson; we must engage the religious on the particular Humanist terms that are common to all.

I think I could agree with this Memester. My daughter has a physics degree, specialising in renewable energies and she is disappointed with many schemes that have been dreamed up. Capitalism will jump on any viable scheme to make money, no cause is ever as good as profit.
Night Ripper
 
  1  
Reply Sun 30 May, 2010 11:09 am
@xris,
xris;170871 wrote:
Capitalism will jump on any viable scheme to make money, no cause is ever as good as profit.


And a hammer will come down hard on any object be it a nail or a person's head. Tools shouldn't take on the guilt for all of their applications. A tool in the wrong hands can do harm but that doesn't make the tool inherently harmful.
xris
 
  1  
Reply Sun 30 May, 2010 11:53 am
@Night Ripper,
Night Ripper;170874 wrote:
And a hammer will come down hard on any object be it a nail or a person's head. Tools shouldn't take on the guilt for all of their applications. A tool in the wrong hands can do harm but that doesn't make the tool inherently harmful.
Wave energy causing fish to be confused over migration . Bio fuel causing deforestation and food shortages. Wind farms over financially supported. These are the tools , no amount of reasoning will delay them.
Night Ripper
 
  1  
Reply Sun 30 May, 2010 12:07 pm
@xris,
xris;170887 wrote:
Wave energy causing fish to be confused over migration . Bio fuel causing deforestation and food shortages. Wind farms over financially supported. These are the tools , no amount of reasoning will delay them.


There's no need to get all indignant and self-righteous. You were making an overgeneralizing comment about capitalism and I corrected it.
Dave Allen
 
  1  
Reply Sun 30 May, 2010 12:27 pm
@xris,
Xris and Salima - regarding arctic sea ice.

The trope that Arctic Sea ice area is not showing a year-on-year decrease is put about by Lord Monkton and other denier-pundits. You can see a short critical vid on the Lord here:

YouTube - Debunking Lord Monckton Part 1

However, as the vid above states, he is talking about area when he should be talking about volume. Anothe short on sea ice change year on year can be seen here:

YouTube - Polar Ice Update

And a follow up including the 2009 details can be found here:

YouTube - greenman3610's Channel
xris
 
  1  
Reply Sun 30 May, 2010 12:28 pm
@Night Ripper,
Night Ripper;170889 wrote:
There's no need to get all indignant and self-righteous. You were making an overgeneralizing comment about capitalism and I corrected it.
I can more than generalize, I can condemn it with particular interest. So what are the tools you say are not the problem? but the application..How am I being self righteous?
0 Replies
 
memester
 
  1  
Reply Sun 30 May, 2010 06:01 pm
@Dave Allen,
Dave Allen;170895 wrote:
Xris and Salima - regarding arctic sea ice.

The trope that Arctic Sea ice area is not showing a year-on-year decrease is put about by Lord Monkton and other denier-pundits. You can see a short critical vid on the Lord here:

YouTube - Debunking Lord Monckton Part 1

However, as the vid above states, he is talking about area when he should be talking about volume.
the lengthy ad hom aside;

Topic 1/ Area is one measurement taken, as seen: this one calls it "concentration" ..intergovernmental report. Observed sea ice September 1979 and September 2003 - Figures and Tables

whereas "volume" and "mass" are different things. Still, Monckton with a "c", is not making a silly comparison, because after all, it is one way of measuring - and of course, icepack coverage area measurement is DONE BY SCIENTISTS, too, and they say the same kind of words as Monckton.

as a interesting aside, even WIKI ( almost an official organ of the Hockey Stick Team ) also says this,
Quote:
Winter 2007/2008 Arctic ice growth

Extremely cold temperatures for the Northern Hemisphere in the Winter of 2007/2008 helped the Arctic ice pack to grow to more near normal levels in terms of surface area covered.[12]


****The ice was also found to be 10 to 20 centimeters thicker than the previous year in some areas****
so..how badly is Monckton burned by this part of the "expose" ?

---------- Post added 05-30-2010 at 09:58 PM ----------

Topic 2/ No statistically significant cooling, just as Professor Jones in 2010, says that
Quote:
for the past 15 years there has been no 'statistically significant' warming.
...Key term "statistically significant". Monckton uses it, but I don't think it's warranted.

However, the "debunking" vid seems to disagree with Jones ( who is known to be inclined to hide some declines )...to present the notion that Profesor Jones is not correct about no "S.S." warming.


Read more: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1250872/Climategate-U-turn-Astonishment-scientist-centre-global-warming-email-row-admits-data-organised.html#ixzz0pT51g1ig

Then, after going on about cherry picking short terms, or points, as being deceptive, the "debunking" vid shown goes and does what ? They cherry pick a month. Jan 2010 ( as opposed to showing a statistically significant warming trend )"Global Warming, and where has it gone?" they say the sceptics ask... and the answer: "There it is" - "There it is", they say.

Right through March 2010. Global Warming from Jan to March...3 months. "There it is." [Voice over]"The warming continued right through March..."
And right after they just said such method was to be viewed with suspicion Laughing
They seem to have very low regard for their viewers' intellect.

However, there is no doubt that Monckton is a showboater, and he makes some bad errors or gives some untruths.

Topic 3/ Greenland. Sounds very frightening the way they say it.
But what % of Greenland's Ice Sheet is being lost per year or decade ? Do they tell us ? If not, why not ?
memester
 
  1  
Reply Mon 31 May, 2010 07:05 am
@memester,
What do you guys think, regarding this report ? How does one size up such claims, for accuracy ? Global floating ice in constant retreat: study | Reuters
0 Replies
 
xris
 
  1  
Reply Mon 31 May, 2010 01:37 pm
@memester,
memester;171057 wrote:
the lengthy ad hom aside;

Topic 1/ Area is one measurement taken, as seen: this one calls it "concentration" ..intergovernmental report. Observed sea ice September 1979 and September 2003 - Figures and Tables

whereas "volume" and "mass" are different things. Still, Monckton with a "c", is not making a silly comparison, because after all, it is one way of measuring - and of course, icepack coverage area measurement is DONE BY SCIENTISTS, too, and they say the same kind of words as Monckton.

as a interesting aside, even WIKI ( almost an official organ of the Hockey Stick Team ) also says this, so..how badly is Monckton burned by this part of the "expose" ?

---------- Post added 05-30-2010 at 09:58 PM ----------

Topic 2/ No statistically significant cooling, just as Professor Jones in 2010, says that ...Key term "statistically significant". Monckton uses it, but I don't think it's warranted.

However, the "debunking" vid seems to disagree with Jones ( who is known to be inclined to hide some declines )...to present the notion that Profesor Jones is not correct about no "S.S." warming.


Read more: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1250872/Climategate-U-turn-Astonishment-scientist-centre-global-warming-email-row-admits-data-organised.html#ixzz0pT51g1ig

Then, after going on about cherry picking short terms, or points, as being deceptive, the "debunking" vid shown goes and does what ? They cherry pick a month. Jan 2010 ( as opposed to showing a statistically significant warming trend )"Global Warming, and where has it gone?" they say the sceptics ask... and the answer: "There it is" - "There it is", they say.

Right through March 2010. Global Warming from Jan to March...3 months. "There it is." [Voice over]"The warming continued right through March..."
And right after they just said such method was to be viewed with suspicion Laughing
They seem to have very low regard for their viewers' intellect.

However, there is no doubt that Monckton is a showboater, and he makes some bad errors or gives some untruths.

Topic 3/ Greenland. Sounds very frightening the way they say it.
But what % of Greenland's Ice Sheet is being lost per year or decade ? Do they tell us ? If not, why not ?[/QUOTE Firstly the daily mail is a rag not worthy of mention, it exaggerates and avoids the truth. The Arctic by consensus is loosing its volume by 8% every decade...NASA's figures not mine.

Does it really matter the exact figures , something that is obviously in drastic retreat has no need of precise figures. So it might be 6% or it could be 12% , the fact is it extremely worrying.
memester
 
  1  
Reply Mon 31 May, 2010 06:09 pm
@xris,
Yes, it really matters, the exact figures. Guess why ? Because if they don't even properly add the exact figures, it don't look good for excellence in statistical management, or for the peer review. Wouldn't you agree with that bit ?

---------- Post added 05-31-2010 at 08:24 PM ----------

here's what Cryoshpere has on global sea ice now

http://arctic.atmos.uiuc.edu/cryosphere/IMAGES/global.daily.ice.area.withtrend.jpg

arctic Polar Sea Ice Cap and Snow - Cryosphere Today
so we see that the arctic is losing some ice, during the satellite record.
I'm just saying that we need to be careful of buying into garbage. This news report is talking about a study that had not in fact been published, but the story ran worldwide anyway. It has since been published, and apparently it has bad simple errors. Global floating ice in constant retreat: study | Reuters
Quote:
Floating ice had disappeared at a steady rate over the past 10 years

1/ News vs. Reality
then check the study periods; the dates studied.
0 Replies
 
jeeprs
 
  1  
Reply Thu 3 Jun, 2010 05:35 pm
@kennethamy,
Latest results are in. No doubt Ian Plimer will say this is due to volcanoes, or something.
Quote:
The Warmest Year Yet, says NASA: The global temperature this year reached its warmest on record based on a 12-month rolling average, said James Hansen, the top climate change scientist at the National Aeronautics and Space Administration. The mean surface temperature in the year to April was about 0.66 degrees warmer than the 1951 to 1980 mean, according to NASA's Goddard Institute for Space Studies. That makes it a fraction warmer than the previous peak in 2005.
''Record high global temperature during the period with instrumental data was reached in 2010,'' Dr Hansen and three co-authors wrote. ''As for the calendar year, it is likely that the 2010 global surface temperature in the analysis also will be a record.''


Source Sydney Morning Herald
memester
 
  1  
Reply Thu 3 Jun, 2010 07:03 pm
@jeeprs,
OH, it's Hansen. let's see how it all works out later.
0 Replies
 
jeeprs
 
  1  
Reply Thu 3 Jun, 2010 07:06 pm
@kennethamy,
dunno, but they're rocket scientists, and I'm not.
memester
 
  1  
Reply Thu 3 Jun, 2010 07:13 pm
@jeeprs,
jeeprs;172747 wrote:
dunno, but they're rocket scientists, and I'm not.
I think I figured out what they were talking about. I had edited when you posted.
My question had been how they were able to talk about a year, when only a quarter of a year in. thanks
el nino ?

Still catching up with Hansen's claims about 1998

AR4 on "1998 was the warmest year" Climate Audit
they wish they hadn't supported that, I guess...have to struggle with it later and all.
0 Replies
 
 

Related Topics

T'Pring is Dead - Discussion by Brandon9000
Another Calif. shooting spree: 4 dead - Discussion by Lustig Andrei
Friends don't let friends fat-talk - Discussion by hawkeye10
Before you criticize the media - Discussion by Robert Gentel
Fatal Baloon Accident - Discussion by 33export
The Day Ferguson Cops Were Caught in a Bloody Lie - Discussion by bobsal u1553115
Robin Williams is dead - Discussion by Butrflynet
 
Copyright © 2022 MadLab, LLC :: Terms of Service :: Privacy Policy :: Page generated in 0.04 seconds on 08/17/2022 at 02:15:30