Climate change - an oil based question.

[Tempest]

Originally Posted By: buster

However, a particular group in this country has waged war on data and it's alarming.

What data are you talking about? Can you please present specific data that has been attacked?

 

[buster]

^ Unfortunately I can not. I wish I could but this isn't the place for it.

 

[Shannow]

Tempest, can you provide the GPS co-ordinates of every sensor that you've attacked as either being wrong, or reading differently due to other "stuff" that isn't climate change ?

When the sea level starts to fall around Iceland, while it rises around Africa, you lot will claim that ocean levels "on average" aren't changing...when it's part of the developing understanding of what's happening.

Science, unfortunately, isn't downloaded at birth with omnipotent knowledge, it take time, observation, and often changes in understanding and thinking.

Unlike that other "knowledge" that is so common here

 

[Tempest]

Originally Posted By: Shannow

Science, unfortunately, isn't downloaded at birth with omnipotent knowledge, it take time, observation, and often changes in understanding and thinking.


Exactly. However, plenty of AGW types believe that the "science" is "settled" and that "consensus" = fact.

AGW is the default assumption and the current "science" is doing everything, including much falsification of data, to "prove" it. That isn't science.

As for surface stations that don't meet the government's own accuracy criteria, that can be found here:

http://www.surfacestations.org/

 

[dave1251]

I am sorry but the global temperature has risen for the last 6,000 years. Long before humans could possibly had a significant impact.

http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/paleo/globalwarming/paleobefore.html

The Earth will cool again and warm again. This is a certainty the big question is how long humanity will survive.

 

[Shannow]

But all of those natural cycles never had one species digging up stored fossil fuels and burning them...increasing levels in measurable quantities ON TOP of anything that is occurring naturally.

Makes any quantification of past effects murky at best, and should indicate that prudence would be a wise course of action one would think

 

[MolaKule]

Quote:
Makes any quantification of past effects murky at best, and should indicate that prudence would be a wise course of action one would think


Likewise, when a logical error is committed in modeling the atmosphere without including subsystems and feedback mechanisms, such as solar insolation and cloud particulate interactions, respectively, why should we put any faith in another dogma based on the "Precautionary Principle."

 

[Shannow]

Molakule...accepted, but they have included the methan release of the permafrost, peat etc. heating increasing water vapour, the ocean level around iceland dropping in spite of rises elsewhere as the science completes...but given that the globe is finite, a precautionary principal extends the period of time that people can exist on those finite resources. Perpetual, exponential expansion is clearly not possible, on even the basest of scientific analysis.

 

[SteveSRT8]

^^^Fabulous but somewhat obvious. Of course we cannot continue to grow exponentially forever.

But one mans 'precaution' can be very different from another based on political dogma. That's the root of my problem with the folks preaching about climate change.

I am thankful that we all don't march in lock step. Yet.

 

[Shannow]

Steve,
that's part two of the discussion...and thankfully one that wasn't part of the OPs question...because, like sin taxes, it has little to do with the issue at hand, but a lot to do with your and my hip pocket.

My views on what are being portrayed as "solutions" are very very different to my views on the science and the potentials that present themselves. Problem Reaction Solution is the fundamental problem with how govt/media/the circus is done.

20 years ago, I moved here, with a large percentage of the populace with coal fires. Place stunk, was smoggy 24/7, and winter evenings when the inversion came in the streetlights were green.

10 years ago, most had moved to gas heating.

Now the green smog is coming back, and it's a direct result of the political "solution"

 

[SteveSRT8]

Absolutely agreed that we must somehow be proactive, we simply cannot wait and then react.

But that's the way the system sells the change to the masses...

 

[Trav]

Something happened to me years and i think its a story worth telling...
In the summer of 1986 i was invited to a BBQ by some people i knew from the Irish pub i used to frequent, they were motorcyclist like me and i had good conversations with them for quite a while.

I go there and there was a group of people there in the back yard but not BBQ going, i asked whats up and the woman Renate said oh after the meeting we have the BBQ.
What meeting i asked. Its a Communist party meeting she said, with that i was gone in a flash and didn't see them again.
Keep in mind this was W Germany and communism was very real beyond the Iron Curtain just a few kilometers away.

FFW to 1992. The wall is down and East and West reunited for a couple of years already, i run into this woman Renate from the meeting again at the bank.
I said hello and made small talk then asked her how the Communist thing is going since the wall came down. Her answer..
"We don't bother with that anymore, now we are doing the "Green Party" environmental thing. Its the same doctrine and message but with a nicer tone. The desired end result is the same, control of the people and the ultimate destruction of capitalism."
To this day i have not forgot this conversation and probably never will.

The "Greens" had a few good years in Germany but it became obvious that they wanted to pass economy destroying draconian environmental regulations, the Germans were savy enough to pacify them but didn't run manufacturing out of the country.
The US has not been so lucky. Due to EPA regulations the backbone of this country has been broken and the economy left in tatters.

The reality is no one with half a brain wants dirty air or water or see communities fouled with industrial waste. These are all things we can control and should.
No open coal burning and cars with cats were a huge step but falls short of the "agenda" which was to shatter the economy and drive business out of the country and with it the countries wealth.
Enter CO2. Demonize and regulate the very thing we exhale and what the plants use to convert to oxygen. This is sinister to the core, it is an agenda driven ginned up bunch of tripe but they have been selling this nonsense so long people actually believe it even though it defies common sense.

Joseph Goebbels said it best. "Tell a lie often enough and it will become the truth".

Mods. If you think this is too political it is not meant to be but edit or delete as you see fit.

 

[surfstar]

Originally Posted By: Trav

No open coal burning and cars with cats were a huge step but falls short of the "agenda" which was to shatter the economy and drive business out of the country and with it the countries wealth.

I agree with the side-topic that overpopulation will be the true issue in the long run. Although you have to trust the computer models again - population modeling always show a large die-off that seems inevitable with the rate of growth we have. I'd be more in favor of population control than emissions control.

 

[SteveSRT8]

Originally Posted By: surfstar
Originally Posted By: Trav

No open coal burning and cars with cats were a huge step but falls short of the "agenda" which was to shatter the economy and drive business out of the country and with it the countries wealth.

I agree with the side-topic that overpopulation will be the true issue in the long run. Although you have to trust the computer models again - population modeling always show a large die-off that seems inevitable with the rate of growth we have. I'd be more in favor of population control than emissions control.


hahaha, I agree. let's put birth control in the water supply and then you have to have a license to breed! (J/K)

 

[sleddriver]

Originally Posted By: PandaBear
Seriously, 17 years is a pulse of noise when you look at hundreds of years. And, most importantly, regardless of whether you believe in global warming or climate change or what not, the method of analysis must be checked against external influence. You can say the atmosphere is retaining or reflecting more heat by comparing against how much heat is coming from the sun to the earth, but if you ignore how much sun is coming down on us and conclude that all the effect is in the atmosphere (or the lack of), your opinion would not be worth much.

I like the football field argument, the majority of the influence in the temperature of the earth surface is the activities of the sun, then the ocean water, then the nitrogen, oxygen, etc. CO2 is much much smaller than the rest, in particular to the non volcanic eruption based on.

+1 The time frames of Man vs. Mother Nature are incredibly far apart. 17 yrs doesn't even register compared to her time frame. Further, she cares less what "we" do much less what "we" think. Too bad we can't follow up 500 yrs from now to see the effects.

Heat From the Sun:
This would seem obvious, wouldn't it? AGW is a man-made thing, independant of the Sun. Really? Narrow it down to CO2 but forget el Sol? More myopia...on an even more extreme level.

The Solar Max satellite, launched in the mid-80's, was one of the first, if not the first to study the Sun, the chronosphere, solar flares, etc. We learned a lot from it. Since then we've launched several solar observatories. Yet how often do you hear of this information with regards to the debate?

People take the Sun for granted and believe its output is constant, never changing. That's not true. It's a G2 class main sequence star. It has quiet periods and stormy periods. All life on Earth is totally dependant on the Sun. Without it, we'd be a dark, frozen block of ice. Furthermore, the reason we HAVE weather is solely due to the Sun's energy.

The Earth isn't in a 'perfectly circular' orbit around the Sun either. Perigee occurs around Jan. when the Southern hemisphere is tilted towards the Sun.

The Earth being a spinning body, wobbles on its axis. It's called precession. 2,000 years ago Polaris wasn't the North Star. Something else was. 2,000 years from now, Polaris won't be it either, it'll be something else on the great circle. It takes about 22,000 years to make one revolution.

Lastly, the Earth gains mass every year. Adding mass to a spinning body slows it down. So a day thousands of years ago doesn't equal a day....today. Also thousands of years ago, the Moon was much closer to the Earth. Every year the distance between the Earth and Moon increases. The Moon is critical to the stability of Earth and her ability to support life. In the future, total solar eclipses will cease to exist: They'll all be annular.

Yet we hear none of these facts in the discussion. It's all about Mankind. He's dominant. All important. Number one. Really? I seem to recall another church got into a lot of trouble a few hundred years ago when they believed Earth First! Now they have their own observatories and even they had to yield to Mother Nature.

Small wonder the ancients worshiped the Sun...without it all is darkness and death.

 

[sleddriver]

+1
Watermelons: Green on the outside. Red on the inside.

 

[surfstar]

Originally Posted By: SteveSRT8

hahaha, I agree. let's put birth control in the water supply and then you have to have a license to breed! (J/K)

Not a license, but a minimum IQ requirement. Would solve a LOT of issues.

 

[JANDSZIRKLE]

if history tells us anything, mother nature knows how too control population better than anything else.

should we heed the climate change horror stories? no.

do i believe we are degrading our resources faster than they are becoming naturally available? yes.

does the average person care? not really.

im all for using wind, solar, tidal, or any other form of resources too get us less dependant on fossil fuels, but is it going too make a difference? in reality were trading one for another.

we will always be dependant on oil regardless of how green we become.

my 2 cents.

 

[PandaBear]

Originally Posted By: sleddriver

Heat From the Sun:
This would seem obvious, wouldn't it? AGW is a man-made thing, independant of the Sun. Really? Narrow it down to CO2 but forget el Sol? More myopia...on an even more extreme level.


I think either I misuse the common concept of "independent" or you misunderstood me on the definition of independent.

What I said is, the concept of man made CO2 causing climate changes (they stopped calling it warming because it is not sure anymore if it is really warming, but like Shannow said is affecting) is not related to how much the sun will shine on us.

As in, even if we stop all CO2 emission, if the sun is in a stormy period, we will still get hotter and ice would melt, or reverse if the sun is in quiet time and we enter ice age.

This also means (in statistic's definition of independent), that for the same kind of solar activity period, if you have more CO2 in the atmosphere, you will have a bigger impact on the "man made climate change" than if you have less CO2 in the atmosphere.

Based on the above logic, I believe we can not say just because the sun, the ocean, the nitrogen, the oxygen, and the volcano are bigger factors in our climate, we have the excuse to do whatever we want and expect no effect to our world. What I believe is that we have more noise than data, but if you add our data to the noise, you will see an effect.

 

[sleddriver]

Originally Posted By: PandaBear
Originally Posted By: sleddriver

Heat From the Sun:
This would seem obvious, wouldn't it? AGW is a man-made thing, independant of the Sun. Really? Narrow it down to CO2 but forget el Sol? More myopia...on an even more extreme level.


I think either I misuse the common concept of "independent" or you misunderstood me on the definition of independent.

What I said is, the concept of man made CO2 causing climate changes... is not related to how much the sun will shine on us.

As in, even if we stop all CO2 emission, if the sun is in a stormy period, we will still get hotter and ice would melt, or reverse if the sun is in quiet time and we enter ice age.
No, I agree with you. Seems I could have stated it better. My comment regarding "AGW is a man-made thing.." is what I've heard for years. As if it's powerfull enough and more important than solar effects. My point is from a larger picture...they're ignoring the Sun. I hope this helps to clarify.

My point stated another way: You can't ignore the Sun when talking about Earth's temperture fluctuations. (Again, I'm not saying you are PB. I'm speaking of what I hear from the media, politicians, alarmists, etc. They completely ignore the Sun, saying AGW is all about 310ppm of CO2 "forcing" temps to rise.)