Climate change another name for Weather

[wayneL]

Solid scientific theory Well I wouldn't know a GW from a CC but I know a good oxymoron when I see one. Thanks.

AGW or ACC does not even pass as theory as it fails to predict with any accuracy whatsoever. It is hypothesis only... and for the benefit of AGW hypocrites - UNEQUIVOCAL!

 

[mayk]

On global warming, some simple questions.

What is the worst that can happen? How long? How fast?
As far as I am aware the answer is never crystal clear and then there is hypocritical answer of "we can avoid this..". But what are the projected scientific answers to these question.


WHO thinks planet is sustainable for about 500million people only. So in the interest of humanity, why not the rest jump off the planet! Nothing wrong for the greater good.


I think from next decade we will see a massive change in attitude in how people perceive CG. The prime reason for that is the CG education at school level. New generation are taught CG as science and sustainable living is promoted for the better or worse.

I guess sustainable living is the key word here, promulgated by the phrase "live within your means", now carbon foot-print is the part of 'mean'.

 

[chops_a_must]

AGW or ACC does not even pass as theory as it fails to predict with any accuracy whatsoever. It is hypothesis only... and for the benefit of AGW hypocrites - UNEQUIVOCAL!

Ooooffff...

I'm loathed to go all Popperarian on yo ass, but you've sort of opened a can of worms...

A lot of science is purely hypothesis. An inability to be tested does not necessarily make it un-scientific. It just means the case isn't as strong.

Also, a whole heap, well most, (aside from the purest of hard sciences) of science has virtually zero predictive power. Probability being a measure of past events and all that extrapolated.

To me most of the debate is simply irrelevant. Yes, it is almost undeniable a lot of the world has undergone massive climate change.

Whether this is because of the heat sinks in cities, imbalance of sulphur, methane or too much CO2, it's not really the point.

You don't not treat a cancer patient because you don't know the cause. I fail to see the difference here.

 

[wayneL]

Ooooffff...

I'm loathed to go all Popperarian on yo ass, but you've sort of opened a can of worms...

A lot of science is purely hypothesis. An inability to be tested does not necessarily make it un-scientific. It just means the case isn't as strong.

Also, a whole heap, well most, (aside from the purest of hard sciences) of science has virtually zero predictive power. Probability being a measure of past events and all that extrapolated.

To me most of the debate is simply irrelevant. Yes, it is almost undeniable a lot of the world has undergone massive climate change.

Whether this is because of the heat sinks in cities, imbalance of sulphur, methane or too much CO2, it's not really the point.

You don't not treat a cancer patient because you don't know the cause. I fail to see the difference here.

But if you read my posts, we aren't very far apart.

My beef is with the consideration of co2 to the exclusion of all else. Just plain ****ing stupid when there are so many other, more imminent threats to work on.

For instance, are e so Goddamn childish that we need masses of unnecessary plastic adornment on every insignificant purchase we make? FFS!! I bought a low voltage oven light bulb yesterday... a tiny thing with cardboard, plastic, pretty printing probably using 3 times the resources than the actual bulb... just to be thrown away!

WTF!!

If we address all these other things, co2, IF it is indeed a factor in ACC, will resolve itself anyway.

Sorted.

But, because of the prevailing dogma, we have a situation where, to use a current analogy, we ban short selling to cure mis-pricing of risk!

Dumb Dumb Dumb!

 

[2020hindsight]

My beef is with the consideration of co2 to the exclusion of all else. Just plain ****ing stupid when there are so many other, more imminent threats to work on.

and suppose a top priority of action on GW is to encourage reforestation and leaving alone current habitat. Suppose we are almost there ..

except for those who want to throw out all the baby animals with the bathwater because of some pedantic argument about " no, not unless we achieve this habitat "renewal" (sic) without talking about carbon i.e. the things trees are made of. ... "

PS FFS (since everyone else seems to think saying WTF and FFS adds cred to an argument - personally I prefer not to go there)

PS - getting back to more "normal" action on GW/CC - (reduction of CO2 through carbon trading schemes etc ) - some brilliant side benefits with the global effort - slowing the felling of forests ( the lungs of the planet), reforestation, animal habitat, etc etc . Support it for that if nothing else Support Copenhagen ! - When next will you get the ears of the ENTIRE WORLD to act on ANYTHING - so it's not perfect in your view - accept it as near enough - a step in the right direction, etc.

so wayne , if you want the world to address protection of habitat, - but to ignore CO2 - what are you doing about it that has any REALISTIC chance of reaching the ear of the world - pinned back and under duress in some cases like Sarah Palin - the way Copenhagen will reach said ear?

take the 90% benefits of reduction of (any and all) pollution and increase in forests - and smile at the stupidity of the scientists that they did it - in your opinion - for the wrong reasons....

 

[wayneL]

and suppose a top priority of action on GW is to encourage reforestation and leaving alone current habitat. Suppose we are almost there ..

except for those who want to throw out all the baby animals with the bathwater because of some pedantic argument about " no, not unless we achieve this habitat "renewal" (sic) without talking about carbon i.e. the things trees are made of. ... "

PS FFS (since everyone else seems to think saying WTF and FFS adds cred to an argument - personally I prefer not to go there)



so wayne , if you want the world to address protection of habitat, - but to ignore CO2 - what are you doing about it that has any REALISTIC chance of reaching the ear of the world - pinned back and under duress in some cases like Sarah Palin - the way Copenhagen will reach said ear?

take the 90% benefits of reduction of (any and all) pollution and increase in forests - and smile at the stupidity of the scientists that they did it - in your opinion - for the wrong reasons....

Look,

In the minds of the 99% of comatose schmucks that inhabit this planet, global warming is about taking the bus, nuclear energy and putting up a couple of windmills or a solar panel, NOT about reducing their overall impact. The "supposed" danger is project out in decades time. They'll be dead or nearly so, therefore don't care.

The example of the North Pacific plastic problem is NOW... and almost nobody knows about it.

In a centuries time, the sea level will be largely the same no matter what co2 emissions do, but Earth will be trashed.

Fantastic.

BTW, I'll use any acronym I like to emphasize a point OK. A petty point to make, typical of a one issue mind.

 

[Nashezz]

C'mon Wayne.

2020 is not denying your point, but merely saying that the move to curtail CO2 is a step in the right direction. And how can it not be since we produce so much more in such a short time and we have far less capacity for that production to be absorbed. It is part of a solution, not the be-all and end-all.

Almost anyone I know that is concerned about this is actually concerned about their overall impact and in fact does things to limit it - unlock CO2 which most people I know feel they can have little effect on other then trying to use less electricity or taking public transprt as you mentioned. An example of this would b water which since we have had a drought here people have managed to reduce average water use by a half - mostly by being aware and active about the fact we need to conserve water (and also due to legislation limiting garden water use). People do care and people do want to do something, they just need more education about the dangers of not and the ways that they can (imo).

 

[Greg71]

Kind of sobering.

http://breathingearth.net/

 

[wayneL]

Some reading for you people:

A list of inconvenient questions but by no means comprehensive sourced from various places:

How do you explain that global temperatures according to UN data have not increased since 1998 and there has been no significant warming since 1995? http://epw.senate.gov/public/index....ecord_id=A17DEFA8-802A-23AD-4912-8AB7138A7C3F

Are you aware that even the UN IPCC does not consider climate models to be “predictions” or “forecasts” but merely emission scenarios?http://blogs.nature.com/climatefeedback/2007/06/predictions_of_climate.html

Are you aware of multiple scientific studies showing the medieval warm period (before SUV’s and human emissions) to be warmer than current temps? http://www.worldclimatereport.com/index.php/2007/09/25/questioning-20th-century-warmth/ and http://www.ncasi.org/publications/Detail.aspx?id=3025

How do you explain that CO2 levels have been much higher in the Earth’s history, but have not coincided with human or animal extinction? http://epw.senate.gov/public/index....ecord_id=B6A8BAA3-802A-23AD-4650-CB6A01303A65

Can you explain why Greenland has cooled since the late 1930’s and 1940’s? http://epw.senate.gov/public/index....ecord_id=175B568A-802A-23AD-4C69-9BDD978FB3CD

Can you explain why Antarctic sea ice has expanded to record levels in recent years? http://canadafreepress.com/index.php/article/2965 and http://epw.senate.gov/public/index....ecord_id=F1F2F75F-802A-23AD-4701-A92B4EBBCCBF

Are you aware that Arctic Sea ice has EXPANDED in 2008? http://newsbusters.org/blogs/p-j-gladnick/2008/07/18/will-msm-report-2008-arctic-ice-increase

Are you aware of the multiple peer-reviewed studies blaming Arctic sea ice reductions on many factors not related to man-made carbon emissions? http://epw.senate.gov/public/index....ecord_id=D6C6D346-802A-23AD-436F-40EB31233026 (also debunks Polar Bear extinction fears)

Are you aware that the Earth is currently in one of the coolest periods in its geologic history? http://icecap.us/index.php/go/political-climate/al_gore_is_a_greenhouse_gasbag/

Are you aware that a recent U.S. Senate report features more than 500 scientists dissenting from man-made climate fears””more than 10 times the number (52) of UN IPCC scientists who signed off on alarmist (and media hyped) Summary for PolicyMakers in 2007? http://epw.senate.gov/public/index.cfm?FuseAction=Minority.SenateReport and http://epw.senate.gov/public/index....ecord_id=37AE6E96-802A-23AD-4C8A-EDF6D8150789

Are you aware that many solar scientists and geologists are now warming of a possible coming global cooling? http://canadafreepress.com/index.php/article/4613

How do you explain that an analysis in peer-reviewed journal found COLD PERIODS – not warm periods? http://www.worldclimatereport.com/index.php/2008/04/24/floods-and-droughts-and-global-cooling

How do you explain the recent U.S. government report which found Hurricanes declining, NO increases in drought, tornados, thunderstorms, heat-waves? http://canadafreepress.com/index.php/article/3588

 

[Pat]

Solid scientific theory Well I wouldn't know a GW from a CC but I know a good oxymoron when I see one. Thanks.

Not the first time you've pointed my morons out Not sure if it is a bad thing.

AGW or ACC does not even pass as theory as it fails to predict with any accuracy whatsoever. It is hypothesis only... and for the benefit of AGW hypocrites - UNEQUIVOCAL!

My post #53 does pass Wayne... as theory, solid theory in fact.
Thats the AGW logic.

 

[chops_a_must]

But if you read my posts, we aren't very far apart.

My beef is with the consideration of co2 to the exclusion of all else. Just plain ****ing stupid when there are so many other, more imminent threats to work on.

For instance, are e so Goddamn childish that we need masses of unnecessary plastic adornment on every insignificant purchase we make? FFS!! I bought a low voltage oven light bulb yesterday... a tiny thing with cardboard, plastic, pretty printing probably using 3 times the resources than the actual bulb... just to be thrown away!

WTF!!

If we address all these other things, co2, IF it is indeed a factor in ACC, will resolve itself anyway.

Sorted.

But, because of the prevailing dogma, we have a situation where, to use a current analogy, we ban short selling to cure mis-pricing of risk!

Dumb Dumb Dumb!

Yes, I agree. I just had my pedantic hat on.

The real argument and issue is just so far beyond what people seem to be stuck on, it isn't funny.

 

[Green08]

Yes, I agree. I just had my pedantic hat on.

The real argument and issue is just so far beyond what people seem to be stuck on, it isn't funny.

Chops and Wayne - I agree with you.. So much is wasted with compeletly unnecessary packaging, toys that break etc. What drives me nuts is at the green groccer. People putting 2 bananas in a plastic bag, 1 tomatoe, 4 apples every different vegie or fruit in an individual bloody bag FFS and then ask for another plastic bag to carry it home it. We take the trolley and every thing is laid in it. When I get to the check out I give her my reusable officework bags and begin putting the items on the belt. People actually look at me as if I'm the nut and I just tell them point blank "I care about my children's future. Please be curtious and use less plastc". They are usually so stunned. When the groccer sees me coming they know it could be show down at the till again.My kids love it!

 

[Pat]

Chops and Wayne - I agree with you.. So much is wasted with compeletly unnecessary packaging, toys that break etc. What drives me nuts is at the green groccer. People putting 2 bananas in a plastic bag, 1 tomatoe, 4 apples every different vegie or fruit in an individual bloody bag FFS and then ask for another plastic bag to carry it home it. We take the trolley and every thing is laid in it. When I get to the check out I give her my reusable officework bags and begin putting the items on the belt. People actually look at me as if I'm the nut and I just tell them point blank "I care about my children's future. Please be curtious and use less plastc". They are usually so stunned. When the groccer sees me coming they know it could be show down at the till again.My kids love it!

So what your saying is that we should do everything we can? I assume this includes green energy, electric cars, limited deforestation and such and such?

 

[Pat]

I disagree that too much emphasis is placed on "CO2" emissions, it's just one piece of the pollutant pie.
Perhaps the argument is that there is not enough emphasis on other important factors like recycling etc.

 

[Nashezz]

Some reading for you people:

A list of inconvenient questions but by no means comprehensive sourced from various places:

How do you explain that global temperatures according to UN data have not increased since 1998 and there has been no significant warming since 1995? http://epw.senate.gov/public/index....ecord_id=A17DEFA8-802A-23AD-4912-8AB7138A7C3F

Are you aware that even the UN IPCC does not consider climate models to be “predictions” or “forecasts” but merely emission scenarios?http://blogs.nature.com/climatefeedback/2007/06/predictions_of_climate.html

Are you aware of multiple scientific studies showing the medieval warm period (before SUV’s and human emissions) to be warmer than current temps? http://www.worldclimatereport.com/index.php/2007/09/25/questioning-20th-century-warmth/ and http://www.ncasi.org/publications/Detail.aspx?id=3025

How do you explain that CO2 levels have been much higher in the Earth’s history, but have not coincided with human or animal extinction? http://epw.senate.gov/public/index....ecord_id=B6A8BAA3-802A-23AD-4650-CB6A01303A65

Can you explain why Greenland has cooled since the late 1930’s and 1940’s? http://epw.senate.gov/public/index....ecord_id=175B568A-802A-23AD-4C69-9BDD978FB3CD

Can you explain why Antarctic sea ice has expanded to record levels in recent years? http://canadafreepress.com/index.php/article/2965 and http://epw.senate.gov/public/index....ecord_id=F1F2F75F-802A-23AD-4701-A92B4EBBCCBF

Are you aware that Arctic Sea ice has EXPANDED in 2008? http://newsbusters.org/blogs/p-j-gladnick/2008/07/18/will-msm-report-2008-arctic-ice-increase

Are you aware of the multiple peer-reviewed studies blaming Arctic sea ice reductions on many factors not related to man-made carbon emissions? http://epw.senate.gov/public/index....ecord_id=D6C6D346-802A-23AD-436F-40EB31233026 (also debunks Polar Bear extinction fears)

Are you aware that the Earth is currently in one of the coolest periods in its geologic history? http://icecap.us/index.php/go/political-climate/al_gore_is_a_greenhouse_gasbag/

Are you aware that a recent U.S. Senate report features more than 500 scientists dissenting from man-made climate fears—more than 10 times the number (52) of UN IPCC scientists who signed off on alarmist (and media hyped) Summary for PolicyMakers in 2007? http://epw.senate.gov/public/index.cfm?FuseAction=Minority.SenateReport and http://epw.senate.gov/public/index....ecord_id=37AE6E96-802A-23AD-4C8A-EDF6D8150789

Are you aware that many solar scientists and geologists are now warming of a possible coming global cooling? http://canadafreepress.com/index.php/article/4613

How do you explain that an analysis in peer-reviewed journal found COLD PERIODS – not warm periods? http://www.worldclimatereport.com/index.php/2008/04/24/floods-and-droughts-and-global-cooling

How do you explain the recent U.S. government report which found Hurricanes declining, NO increases in drought, tornados, thunderstorms, heat-waves? http://canadafreepress.com/index.php/article/3588

Why would governments want to spend the massive money required if the science is so dodgy?

Your posting of articles from canadafreepress are not even worth responding to - that is hardly a bastion of good journalism let alone worthy scientific commentary (imho).

Without responding to all of your links/questions, everyone agrees, to my knowledge, that the Earth has not had the same highs we saw in 1995 or 2000 but that doesn't mean it isn't going to get hotter again, and that AGW isn't the cause. All your other posts about 'anomalies' that digress from rising temps are just that, 'anomalies'. We may have had warmer periods but the Earth also had far greater capacity to respond to the cause in the past (before forests were removed).

There are many more climatologists that rate CC and AGW then the 50 IPCC you selectively claim represent the argument - its an unworthy attempt to skew numbers.

This article (August 2008) appears to disagree rather dramatically with your posting about Greenland
http://esciencenews.com/articles/20...ntinued.breakup.2.greenlands.largest.glaciers

 

[wayneL]

Why would governments want to spend the massive money required if the science is so dodgy?

Your posting of articles from canadafreepress are not even worth responding to - that is hardly a bastion of good journalism let alone worthy scientific commentary (imho).

Without responding to all of your links/questions, everyone agrees, to my knowledge, that the Earth has not had the same highs we saw in 1995 or 2000 but that doesn't mean it isn't going to get hotter again, and that AGW isn't the cause. All your other posts about 'anomalies' that digress from rising temps are just that, 'anomalies'. We may have had warmer periods but the Earth also had far greater capacity to respond to the cause in the past (before forests were removed).

There are many more climatologists that rate CC and AGW then the 50 IPCC you selectively claim represent the argument - its an unworthy attempt to skew numbers.

This article (August 2008) appears to disagree rather dramatically with your posting about Greenland
http://esciencenews.com/articles/20...ntinued.breakup.2.greenlands.largest.glaciers

Fine, you and your lot buy a Prius.

Me and my lot will do what we can for your descendants.

I'm 100% satisfied at what I'm doing. I'm also 100% satisfied that the IPCC is a fraud.

...and never the 'twain shall meet.

Lat post from me... until next time.

 

[Garpal Gumnut]

Why would governments want to spend the massive money required if the science is so dodgy?

Your posting of articles from canadafreepress are not even worth responding to - that is hardly a bastion of good journalism let alone worthy scientific commentary (imho).

Without responding to all of your links/questions, everyone agrees, to my knowledge, that the Earth has not had the same highs we saw in 1995 or 2000 but that doesn't mean it isn't going to get hotter again, and that AGW isn't the cause. All your other posts about 'anomalies' that digress from rising temps are just that, 'anomalies'. We may have had warmer periods but the Earth also had far greater capacity to respond to the cause in the past (before forests were removed).

There are many more climatologists that rate CC and AGW then the 50 IPCC you selectively claim represent the argument - its an unworthy attempt to skew numbers.

This article (August 2008) appears to disagree rather dramatically with your posting about Greenland
http://esciencenews.com/articles/20...ntinued.breakup.2.greenlands.largest.glaciers

There is a concept Nash mate , called publication bias, ( I think thats what it is called) where only articles that come up with a result ever get published, those that neither agree nor disagree lie unpublished.

Also some publications ignore studies which do not adhere to their world view.

gg

 

[rederob]

There is a concept Nash mate , called publication bias, ( I think thats what it is called) where only articles that come up with a result ever get published, those that neither agree nor disagree lie unpublished.

Also some publications ignore studies which do not adhere to their world view.

gg

The world of science has many that disagree.
They can and do put up or shut up.

The problem with most that disagree is that they confine their argument to something quite specific that might suggest global warming is not an issue.
Global warming in a complex set of interrelationships underpinned largely on known effects of so called "greenhouse gases".
Unfortunately many of Wayne's links are tenuous at best and fail reasonable tests of the science.

One of the biggest problems faced in the present debate is that we expect to get (see) results quickly. This is plain silly as our earth-years are far too short, while decades are only marginally better. The science suggest that typical measurable variations are in the hundreds of years given variations of a few degrees can take thousands of years.

That aside for a moment, it is possible that the earth - were it not for the effects of global warming - could currently be in a long term "cooling" phase. If that were the case, then we have seriously missed the boat and Wayne will only be happy if he is heading for the hills (but perhaps he's already hiding there!).

 

[Green08]

So what your saying is that we should do everything we can? I assume this includes green energy, electric cars, limited deforestation and such and such?

You do what you feel is right for your ideology, the life you want to lead and being true to yourself. People are dynamic as is the world and conclusions change based on information and how each interprets it. I have children do you? I can't change the world, but I can do what I feel is right to lessen the impact in my own small ways. My daughter is aware and kids process information well. Giving them critical analytical skills to question what they see and impact their future is essential. I am amazed at the amount of people who use plastic bags and bin them. Just a thought and simple use of a recycle bag can make a difference.

Thank you for your advise on the motorbike thread, this is of my move to use less petrol.

I don't believe in electric cars yet, what’s the point of recharging batteries from electricity from another polluting source, just transferring pollution.
Honda are working on some amazing technology with hydrogen few years away.

 

[It's Snake Pliskin]

Chops and Wayne - I agree with you.. So much is wasted with compeletly unnecessary packaging, toys that break etc. What drives me nuts is at the green groccer. People putting 2 bananas in a plastic bag, 1 tomatoe, 4 apples every different vegie or fruit in an individual bloody bag FFS and then ask for another plastic bag to carry it home it. We take the trolley and every thing is laid in it. When I get to the check out I give her my reusable officework bags and begin putting the items on the belt. People actually look at me as if I'm the nut and I just tell them point blank "I care about my children's future. Please be curtious and use less plastc". They are usually so stunned. When the groccer sees me coming they know it could be show down at the till again.My kids love it!

Hello Green,

That is good what you do at the grocery store.