Like the illusion of Wall Street, with its vast and powerful investment banks, now shuttered, China too is an illusion perpetuated by the Globalists that gave us the 15,000 mile Caesar salad, poisoned cat food and lead based paint on babies' pacifiers. Like the illusion that money would come from thin air to always push housing prices higher, China has spent a generation pursuing its illusion. Pursuing an unattainable dream to be like the West, while 6000 years of its carefully shepherded top soil blows into the sea.
Joined: Oct 23, 2005 Posts: 1851 Location: East of Eden
Posted: Fri Jan 20, 2006 5:28 pm Post subject: Climate Change: Okay, let's clear this up.
Okay, there seems to still, somehow, be a lot of confusion about climate change. In several different threads, I've read all sorts of different opinions on whether humans are the cause of the change. I'll try to make this clear:
B.2 How do scientists know that the atmospheric buildup of greenhouse gases is due to human activity?
Response: A number of factors clearly point to the role of human activities as the primary source of these increases in greenhouse gas concentrations...
How do we know that the atmospheric build-up of CO2 is due to human activity?
The nuclei of carbon atoms in carbon dioxide emitted by combustion of fossil fuels differ from the nuclei of carbon atoms in carbon dioxide emitted under natural conditions, in that the carbon dioxide emitted from natural sources on the Earth's surface retains a measurable radioactive portion, while the carbon dioxide emitted by fossil fuel combustion does not. As carbon dioxide has been emitted through fossil fuel combustion, the atmospheric levels of CO2 have increased, but the radioactive fraction of carbon in the atmosphere has decreased.
Scientists know for certain that human activities are changing the composition of Earth's atmosphere. Increasing levels of greenhouse gases, like carbon dioxide (CO2 ), in the atmosphere since pre-industrial times have been well documented. There is no doubt this atmospheric buildup of carbon dioxide and other greenhouse gases is largely the result of human activities.
It's well accepted by scientists that greenhouse gases trap heat in the Earth's atmosphere and tend to warm the planet. By increasing the levels of greenhouse gases in the atmosphere, human activities are strengthening Earth's natural greenhouse effect. The key greenhouse gases emitted by human activities remain in the atmosphere for periods ranging from decades to centuries.
See also the PDF file from the National Research Council, especially the section entitled “Human Caused Forcings” on page 9.
From the Environmental division, Office of Science and Technology Policy, Executive Office of the President, Washington, DC, March 1995.
The Earth's climate is predicted to change because human activities are altering the chemical composition of the atmosphere. The buildup of greenhouse gases-primarily carbon dioxide, methane, nitrous oxide and chlorofluorocarbons-is changing the radiation balance of the planet. The basic heat-trapping property of these greenhouse gases is essentially undisputed.
From the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change:
The Earth's climate changes when the amount of energy stored by the climate system is varied. The most significant changes occur when the global energy balance between incoming energy from the Sun and outgoing heat from the Earth is upset. There are a number of natural mechanisms that can upset this balance, for example fluctuations in the Earth's orbit, variations in ocean circulation and changes in the composition of the Earth's atmosphere. In recent times, the latter has been evident as a consequence not of natural processes but of man-made pollution, through emissions of greenhouse gases and aerosols. By altering the global energy balance, such mechanisms "force" the climate to change. Consequently, scientists call them "climate forcing" mechanisms.
From the Atmospheric Sciences Competency, NASA Langley Research Center
A growing body of evidence indicates that the Earth’s atmosphere is warming. Records show that surface temperatures have risen about 1.4oF (0.7oC) since the early twentieth century, and that about 0.9oF (0.5oC) of this increase has occurred since 1978. Observed changes in oceans, ecosystems, and ice cover are consistent with this warming trend.
The fact is that Earth’s climate is always changing. A key question is how much of the observed warming is due to human activities and how much is due to natural variability in the climate. In the judgment of most climate scientists, Earth’s warming in recent decades has been caused primarily by human activities that have increased the amount of greenhouse gases in the atmosphere (see Figure 1). Greenhouse gases have increased significantly since the Industrial Revolution, mostly from the burning of fossil fuels for energy, industrial processes, and transportation. Greenhouse gases are at their highest levels in at least 400,000 years and continue to rise.
Folks, this is not the Guardian or the Weekly World News. These are very solid sources. Need more than that? There's plenty. Do a search. _________________ "If a path to the better there be, it begins with a full look at the worst." — Thomas Hardy
From time to time, there is discussion about whether the recent warming trend is due just to chance. We have heard arguments that so-called 'random walk' can produce similar hikes in temperature (any reason why the global mean temperature should behave like the displacement of a molecule in Brownian motion?).
One difficulty with the notion that the global mean temperature behaves like a random walk is that it then would imply a more unstable system with similar hikes as we now observe throughout our history. However, the indications are that the historical climate has been fairly stable.
Climate doesn't change all by itself. There's always a reason, though it may be hard to ferret out. Often, the proximate cause of the climate change is some parameter of the climate system that can be set off from the general collective behavior of the system and considered as a "given," even if it is not external to the system strictly speaking. Such is the case for CO2 concentration. This is an example of a climate forcing.
This brings us to the claims made recently by Esper et al... They go on to qualify their conditional criticism of Kyoto by stating "This scenario, however, does not question the general mechanism established within the protocol, which we believe is a breakthrough," but the political opinions of the authors are not our concern... Our correspondents at the Montreal climate negotiations which concluded last week report that Esper et al was given a lot of play by the inaction lobby. The only major news outlet to pick up on the story, though was Fox News, whose report by "Junk Science" columnist Steve Milloy here arguably represents a new low in propaganda masquerading as science journalism...
MYTH #0: Evidence for modern human influence on climate rests entirely upon the "Hockey Stick" Reconstruction of Northern Hemisphere mean temperatures indicating anomalous late 20th century warmth.
This peculiar suggestion is sometimes found in op-ed pieces and other dubious propaganda, despite its transparant absurdity. Paleoclimate evidence is simply one in a number of independent lines of evidence indicating the strong likelihood that human influences on climate play a dominant role in the observed 20th century warming of the earth's surface. Perhaps the strongest piece of evidence in support of this conclusion is the evidence from so-called "Detection and Attribution Studies". Such studies demonstrate that the pattern of 20th century climate change closely matches that predicted by state-of-the-art models of the climate system in response to 20th century anthropogenic forcing (due to the combined influence of anthropogenic greenhouse gas concentrations and industrial aerosol increases).
_________________ "If a path to the better there be, it begins with a full look at the worst." — Thomas Hardy
As one study after another has pointed to carbon dioxide and other man-made emissions as the most plausible explanation, the cautious community of science has embraced an idea initially dismissed as far-fetched. The result is a convergence of opinion rarely seen in a profession where attacking each other's work is part of the process. Every major scientific body to examine the evidence has come to the same conclusion: The planet is getting hotter; man is to blame; and it's going to get worse.
"There's an overwhelming consensus among scientists," said UW climate researcher David Battisti, who also was dubious about early claims of greenhouse warming.
Yet the message doesn't seem to be getting through to the public and policy-makers.
The consensus
Researcher finds that 1,000 studies all point to the same conclusion
... She analyzed 1,000 research papers on climate change selected randomly from those published between 1993 and 2003. The results were surprising: Not a single study explicitly rejected the idea that people are warming the planet.
That doesn't mean there aren't any. But it does mean the number must be small, since none showed up in a sample that represents about 10 percent of the body of research, Oreskes said.
The consensus is most clearly embodied in the reports of the 100-nation Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), established by the United Nations in 1988. Every five to six years, the panel evaluates the science and issues voluminous reports reviewed by more than 2,000 scientists and every member government, including the United States.
The early reports reflected the squishy state of the science, but by 2001, the conclusion was unequivocal: "There is new and stronger evidence that most of the warming observed over the last 50 years is attributable to human activities."
Stunned by the strong language, the Bush administration asked the prestigious National Academy of Sciences to evaluate the international group's work. The UW's Wallace served on the academy's panel, which assured the president the IPCC wasn't exaggerating.
The next IPCC report is due in 2007. Among the new evidence it will include are the deepest ice cores ever drilled, which show carbon-dioxide levels are higher now than any time in the past 650,000 years.
..."The most important thing to realize is that most scientists didn't originally believe in global warming," he said. "They were dragged — reluctant step by step — by the facts."
Climate models debated
But scientists say the uncertainty lies only in how much warming to expect
"The fact that so many scientists think it's likely a truck is heading for us means that the last thing we want to do is close our eyes and lie down in the road."
Every major scientific body to examine the evidence has come to the same conclusion: The planet is getting hotter; man is to blame; and it's going to get worse.
...Wallace: Yes, there have been dramatic climate swings in the past, but with very few exceptions, they have occurred gradually, on time scales of thousands of years.
...Snover: It's interesting to look at how the major argument used by the skeptics has shifted over time. From "the greenhouse effect is a myth" to "there's no evidence of warming" to "there's no way humans can influence climate" to "the climate will probably warm, but it will be a good thing," the argument has shifted over the years.
...Wallace: When people use the term "global warming" they mean the temperature averaged over the surface of the earth is getting warmer. That doesn't mean to imply that there is warming everywhere on Earth.
...Wallace: Cores drilled in the Greenland and Antarctic ice caps and in sediments at many sites in the bottom of the ocean provide a detailed and consistent history of the temperature and carbon dioxide levels over the past 500,000 years... Since around 11,000 years ago the ups and downs in the temperature curve have been much smaller. There's also geological evidence and evidence based on carbon dating that supports this scenario.
_________________ "If a path to the better there be, it begins with a full look at the worst." — Thomas Hardy
Posted: Fri Jan 20, 2006 7:13 pm Post subject: Re: Climate Change: Okay, let's clear this up.
Dezakin wrote:
It only matters if we can do something about it and if the benifits outweigh the costs.
It's a sensitive issue because economic benefits and costs are rather fuzzy and abstract about saving species, having different and more extreme weather, and the dislocation of people because cities on the coast will sink.
There are estimates... but you never really know..
We can 'powerdown', but very few people really know how to do this or have the time do this. Time and knowledge. Also, they don't 'need' to this. No incentive to.
All in all, I'm a complete doomer in regards to climate change. It's going to happen - and we're going to crap up the planet.
Nothing can happen because of the entire status quo. Hell, today, I saw a headline that read "11 ecoterrorists captured". ALF (Animal Liberation Group) is just a retarded bunch. ELF doesn't understand that they are taking on the industrialized world and that blowing up a powerline will just have people turn totally against you. Are they looking for a cut in emission by 20%? that won't do too much. You effectively need to cut it down 60-95%. That's destruction of the world as we know it.
So anyways, my conclusion is that unless there is a 3 million eco-terrorists in the United States and the world ready to take down infrastructure and have no moral quibbles about massive amounts of people dying including friends, old classmates, and family. Then, maybe, MAYBE! the earth has a chance. Otherwise, you're just looking at doing symbolic stuff and taking your aggression out. _________________ https://www.videogamevoters.org/http://www.savetheinternet.com/http://www.votersforpeace.us/index.jsp www.911myths.com - To the 9/11-ers, give it some thought.
Joined: Oct 23, 2005 Posts: 1851 Location: East of Eden
Posted: Fri Jan 20, 2006 7:59 pm Post subject: Re: Climate Change: Okay, let's clear this up.
Dezakin wrote:
It still doesn't matter if man is to blame for climate change. It only matters if we can do something about it and if the benifits outweigh the costs.
Of course it matters that our behavior is causing this. That strongly implies that we can change our behavior to alter its effects. And of course the benefits outweigh the costs, we're talking about the continued functioning of our life support system. Your continued resistance in the face of overwhelming evidence is very puzzling to me. _________________ "If a path to the better there be, it begins with a full look at the worst." — Thomas Hardy
Posted: Mon Jan 23, 2006 7:56 am Post subject: Re: Climate Change: Okay, let's clear this up.
Terrific post EJ.Clear and concise.
Since you are on the ground with this subject,can you state that there is no peer reviewed science disputing the ghg/industrialization theory?There is so much disinfo in the field that the unwashed have difficulty separating fact from fiction.I do,anyways.
Joined: May 14, 2005 Posts: 2123 Location: Along the banks of the muddy Mississippi
Posted: Mon Jan 23, 2006 8:14 am Post subject: Re: Climate Change: Okay, let's clear this up.
ElijahJones wrote:
double post
It was such a good post that it almost warranted a second posting.
It's always refreshing to read something here by someone who actually understands the situation. _________________ “Humankind has not woven the web of life. We are but one thread within it. Whatever we do to the web, we do to ourselves.” (Ted Perry)
Posted: Mon Jan 23, 2006 8:32 am Post subject: Re: Climate Change: Okay, let's clear this up.
hotsacks wrote:
Since you are on the ground with this subject,can you state that there is no peer reviewed science disputing the ghg/industrialization theory?There is so much disinfo in the field that the unwashed have difficulty separating fact from fiction.I do,anyways.
There were a lot of doubts at the beginning (say, 20 years ago) but nowadays there's general agreement among scientists that climate change exists and is caused by human emissions.
Posted: Mon Jan 23, 2006 8:39 am Post subject: Re: Climate Change: Okay, let's clear this up.
ElijahJones wrote:
As a graduate student in environmental science and policy,
Not for nothing, and this isn't meant to be personal (just an observation)but this is half the problem. I'm in the industry, have been for 20 years. It's very very hard to find suitable candidates for employment as most students went for "environmental science" instead of hard science and engineering, such as geology, biology and environmental engineering.
In a nutshell, no hard science, no clear picture of "global warming" and hence no solution except adapt to it.
Posted: Mon Jan 23, 2006 10:14 am Post subject: Re: Climate Change: Okay, let's clear this up.
Sure -
As an environmental geologist, I perform assessment, investigation and remediation of subsurface releases of petroleum and other hazardous materials (OHM).
In the past 15 years, there have been far too many candidates with ES degrees developing a consensus with legislators for example, instead of just cleaning the damned messes up. It's sickening.
The need for people trained in hard science and engineering increases constantly, especially to pull together all of the data from various fields to form one complete picture of global waring and its effects, good and bad.
In the end however, especially if we're beyond the point of no safe return, it's how we adapt to the changes and overcome adversity.
Did the 100 year party with cheap oil produce any thought or thing that might have made environmental destruction worth it? Who can answer that question with a policy degree?
Posted: Mon Jan 23, 2006 10:34 am Post subject: Re: Climate Change: Okay, let's clear this up.
Thanks Basil H.
If the resource to interpret the data is not there,and no certain proofs exist,the current policy to proceed cautiously appears sane.
You can understand why those of us without a scientific background are thoroughly confused by the numbers thrown out when the experts involved can't agree themselves.
Posted: Mon Jan 23, 2006 10:52 am Post subject: Re: Climate Change: Okay, let's clear this up.
hotsacks wrote:
If the resource to interpret the data is not there,and no certain proofs exist,the current policy to proceed cautiously appears sane.
How did you interpret Basil's post to say that? Because I don't see he said that.
And if the doctor told you some blood analysis shows some suspicious values that could mean leukemia but maybe mean nothing, do you proceed cautiously? Or just in case prepare for leukemia?
All times are GMT - 6 Hours Goto page 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10Next
Page 1 of 10
You cannot post new topics in this forum You cannot reply to topics in this forum You cannot edit your posts in this forum You cannot delete your posts in this forum You cannot vote in polls in this forum
News
Discussions
Resources
Members
Forum FAQ
Search
Usergroups
Profile
Log in to check your private messages
Log in
