quote:

Bucky
DRR S/Pro

Posted December 19, 2012 03:40 PM Hide Post
The Earth is changing. As it has since its creation.

This is the one simple overriding truth that man is too arrogant and ignorant to accept. If only we could have prevented the creation of the Rocky Mountains and the Appalachians. Oh, and the ice age and the dinosaurs. Oh, and the..........

Why yes the earth is changing and always has. But, currently it is changing (temp increase and ice loss) at a rate that can only be explained by man’s non-biologically based, industrial activities. This is supported by masses of data and advanced science and technology you and I can scarcely understand gathered over decades of direct instrumentational measurements as well as 100’s of thousands of years of proxy data. I on the one hand am willing to educate myself about these things, following where the evidence leads. Most here on the other hand respond with derision, using worn out platitudes dismissing everything science has to say on the subject.

It strikes me as highly ironic that many people, many around here; constantly get preachy that man is “arrogant and ignorant”, when in fact man, by way of the scientific method, has done things in the last hundred years that in the past could scarcely be dreamt of, and in some cases that was not even able to be dreamt of. The irony being that the most ignorant seem to revel in their own ignorance and wear it as a badge of honor, yet seem to say they alone have the wisdom to pronounce everyone else as more ignorant than they , then have the gall to talk about arrogance in the same breath.

26 world leaders in their scientific fields on 30 November 2012 published a research paper having this to say:

“We combined an ensemble of satellite altimetry, interferometry, and gravimetry data sets using common geographical regions, time intervals, and models of surface mass balance and glacial isostatic adjustment to estimate the mass balance of Earth’s polar ice sheets. We find that there is good agreement between different satellite methods—especially in Greenland and West Antarctica—and that combining satellite data sets leads to greater certainty. Between 1992 and 2011, the ice sheets of Greenland, East Antarctica, West Antarctica, and the Antarctic Peninsula changed in mass by –142 ± 49, +14 ± 43, –65 ± 26, and –20 ± 14 gigatonnes year−1, respectively. Since 1992, the polar ice sheets have contributed, on average, 0.59 ± 0.20 millimeter year−1 to the rate of global sea-level rise.”

http://www.sciencemag.org/content/338/6111/1183

If you would care to read the full text article this abstract refers to just let me know and I will make it available to you.

Science 30 November 2012:
Vol. 338 no. 6111 p. 1138
DOI: 10.1126/science.338.6111.1138
•News & Analysis
Glaciology

Experts Agree Global Warming Is Melting the World Rapidly

Richard A. Kerr

Forty-seven glaciologists have arrived at a community consensus over all the data on what the past century's warming has done to the great ice sheets: a current annual loss of 344 billion tons of glacial ice, accounting for 20% of current sea level rise. Greenland's share—about 263 billion tons—is roughly what most researchers expected, but Antarctica's represents the first agreement on a rate that had ranged from a far larger loss to an actual gain. The new analysis, published on page 1183 of this week's issue of Science, also makes it clear that losses from Greenland and West Antarctica have been accelerating, showing that some ice sheets are disconcertingly sensitive to warming.

quote:

e Earth is changing. As it has since its creation.

He forgot the ice age that was coming in the 70's.

So apparently not too many people, at least educated people, thought we were heading into an ice age.

"The fact is that around 1970 there were 6 times as many scientists predicting a warming rather than a cooling planet. Today, with 30+years more data to analyse, we've reached a clear scientific consensus: 97% of working climate scientists agree with the view that human beings are causing global warming."

http://www.skepticalscience.co...ictions-in-1970s.htm

Lets see if I can put this in perspective for you. The earth is 4 BILLION years old. Your using data from the last, and I'll be generous, 500 years. Thats the equivelent of making a quarter mile pass, turning on the data recorder at 1318 feet and using that data to analyze the run. Its happened before man was here and it will happen again after man is gone. get over yourself.

quote:

Arent you the clown who makes money off global warming

The Lefty admitted to it earlier!

If someone here was to believe that
1. Earth is warming
and
2. It is do in most part to man's influence
then
What exactly would be your corrective course of action to prevent further warming?

Park your cars!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Where are the DRR arm chair Generals who opined there is NO Global Warming happening?

quote:

Where are the DRR arm chair Generals who opined there is NO Global Warming happening?

I don't think anyone argues the earth is warming. It has been since the end of the last ice age. The question to be ask, and answered with honesty and lack of political spin and personal gain is, "What exactly would be your corrective course of action to prevent further warming?"
There are more broke nation economies that solvent in this world. Our brightest ivy league graduates, with bibles in hand, have wrecked America. They are absolutely the best we have to offer, and here we are. So what are we to do, more taxes, more regulations, borrow more money to throw at the problem? It serves little purpose to concentrate on the fine points when you can't even get the basic right. Ever heard of polishing a turd?

quote:

Originally posted by Canted Valve:

quote:

Where are the DRR arm chair Generals who opined there is NO Global Warming happening?

I don't think anyone argues the earth is warming. It has been since the end of the last ice age. The question to be ask, and answered with honesty and lack of political spin and personal gain is, "What exactly would be your corrective course of action to prevent further warming?"
There are more broke nation economies that solvent in this world. Our brightest ivy league graduates, with bibles in hand, have wrecked America. They are absolutely the best we have to offer, and here we are. So what are we to do, more taxes, more regulations, borrow more money to throw at the problem? It serves little purpose to concentrate on the fine points when you can't even get the basic right. Ever heard of polishing a turd?

english, stanman, old man and 2 men and a shovel all have opined the hoax of global warming.
Throw in the gramps who uses grandmas addy to post here.
Arm chair generals for sure......

Bill, it's a little bit of both. Funny, SCIENCE has proven that the Earth is in a warming cycle. Although, the warming is more extreme than it is supposed to be. But, what are you doing agreeing with SCIENTIFIC proof if you don't believe in science?



....That response is too convoluted to fathom, much less try and respond to!!!!!!!!!!!

OBAMAVILLE is on the horizon and closing RAPIDLY!!!!!

Later, Bill Koski


I could post more from the arm chair generals.

quote:

Originally posted by ET2278:
Lets see if I can put this in perspective for you. The earth is 4 BILLION years old. Your using data from the last, and I'll be generous, 500 years. Thats the equivelent of making a quarter mile pass, turning on the data recorder at 1318 feet and using that data to analyze the run. Its happened before man was here and it will happen again after man is gone. get over yourself.

Well Jim, I think I need to point out a few things for you regarding your attempt at an analogy.
First is that science has a whole heck of a lot more than the last 500 years’ worth of climate data to go on. Do you propose to disregard the whole of the scientific discipline called Paleoclimatology?



Sources

• 540 - 65 Myr BP : Royer, Dana L. and Robert A. Berner, Isabel P. Montañez, Neil J. Tabor, David J. Beerling (2004) CO2 as a primary driver of Phanerozoic climate GSA Today July 2004, volume 14, number 3, pages 4-10, doi:10.1130/1052-5173(2004)014<4:CAAPDO>2.0.CO;2

• 65 - 5.5 Myr BP : Zachos, James, Mark Pagani, Lisa Sloan, Ellen Thomas, and Katharina Billups (2001). "Trends, Rhythms, and Aberrations in Global Climate 65 Ma to Present". Science 292 (5517): 686–693. doi:10.1126/science.1059412

• 5.5 Myr - 420 kyr BP : Lisiecki, L. E., and M. E. Raymo (2005), A Pliocene-Pleistocene stack of 57 globally distributed benthic δ18O records, Paleoceanography, 20, PA1003, doi:10.1029/2004PA001071. [1]

• 420 kyr - 12 kyr BP : Petit J.R., Jouzel J., Raynaud D., Barkov N.I., Barnola J.M., Basile I., Bender M., Chappellaz J., Davis J., Delaygue G., Delmotte M., Kotlyakov V.M., Legrand M., Lipenkov V., Lorius C., Pépin L., Ritz C., Saltzman E., Stievenard M. (1999) Climate and Atmospheric History of the Past 420,000 years from the Vostok Ice Core, Antarctica, Nature, 399, pp.429-436, doi:10.1038/20859

• 12 kyr - 2000 yr BP : Image:Holocene Temperature Variations.png - various; the thick black average line is Rohde's.

• 2000 yr - 150 yr Before 2000 : Image:2000 Year Temperature Comparison.png - various

• 150 - 0 yr Before 2000 : Image:Instrumental Temperature Record.png, using data from the Climatic Research Unit of the University of East Anglia and the Hadley Centre of the UK Meteorological Office. Data set HadCRUT3.

There are quite a number of embedded links in the above “sources” materials which I am not going to try and reproduce as live links here, so if you wish to see all the data that makes up the graphic you will need to use the link below to do so.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:All_palaeotemps.png

This is a graphic representation of the last ½ Billion years or so. I am pretty sure if one wished to; one could find reasonably factual data that preceded this as well.

So at this point your premises are in factual error already. Be that as it may.

So let me ask you, do you think that the climate a half billion years ago would have more effect on what climate will likely be in that next 50 or 100 years, than the previous few hundred years? Personally I think that results from the time frames of more recent past periods might just be more informative as to what may or may not be happening in the immediate future. Not that climate from the distant past would not be informative as well, just substantially less so. Maybe you should look at the topic of “climate inertia” for some insight.

Next, your statement that, and I am paraphrasing here, “it’s happened before and will happen again” is I suppose to greater or lesser extent correct, but only if, man and his unprecedented technologies were not part of the picture. Currently the accelerated and unprecedented changes we are seeing in the climate are precisely because of man and his technologies that have entered the picture, the like of which has never been seen in the previous history of the earth.

Lastly, your apparent philosophical attitude of “que surah surah” i.e. existentialism does not in any way invalidate the fact that climate is changing, unlike ever before. We as a global society may or may not be able to effectively deal with the situation, particularly given the apparent mass of people such as yourself having the same, oh how shall I put it, “I don’t give a sh1t” attitude. Some small percentage of people do have and can sustain a longer term or “deep time” view of what humanity should and can do to try to leave our antecedents a variable and sustainable world to live in. One might just call this long term view an “Extended Morality”.

quote:

Originally posted by Bucky:
If someone here was to believe that
1. Earth is warming
and
2. It is do in most part to man's influence
then
What exactly would be your corrective course of action to prevent further warming?

So I guess you missed this answer to this same question, oh what 9 months ago?

Posted March 03, 2012 07:59 PM Hide Post
quote:
Originally posted by Bucky:

What do you propose we do about our dreadful situation?


Well, a more coherent US energy policy moving toward an economy not based on fossil fuels. Basically I hold the position we need a move toward a hydrogen economy. As well as a bottom up energy policy instead of the top down model we currently have. Frankly I believe we are in the beginnings of a third industrial revolution. We are at or near peak oil production; some say past peak oil production, give or take some. If we wish to continue our current level of energy affluence at somewhere even close to the current relatively low cost, then some other source of energy is a requirement. If we continue to try and base our economy and the world economy on oil, it only gets worse for everyone from here on out.

Unfortunately many massive world stage corporate entities have only one consideration in mind, making profits for the corporation, be damned the consequences. Given the fact that US government on either side of the isle is currently broken and biased towards these corporate entities it's difficult no matter who is in the leadership position to achieve the goals that are obviously needed.

If we can move to an economy based largely and primarily on hydrogen/electric/renewable the issue of CO2 and warming becomes moot. The point is the change from an oil based corporate controlled world economy to something else, will happen, how quickly this happens will determine the consequences good or bad for the US the World and environment. Oil is simply not a sustainable option, hydrogen/electric/renewable is.

I'd like to see a smart distributed energy grid. Energy would be generated primarily at the point of use. For example solar panels can break water into hydrogen and oxygen which can be used to produced electricity, excess energy stored in millions of homes could be tapped as needed and routed back into the smart grid run by the current centralized energy producers and routed to places where the energy is need. From what I have read we are currently pretty close to the break even point in this type scenario, even with less than optimum technology currently available, never mind the cost savings of the economy of scale via the mass production of these technologies.

Want a good book to read on the subject try either, "The Third Industrial Revolution" or "The hydrogen Economy" both by Jeremy Rifkin.

P.S. "The arrogance of being thick as a brick"

I seem to remember that someone in this thread was using the word arrogance a while back. Here is a little clip that provides a different perspective on arrogance, much more eloquently than I could.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v...EWw0&feature=related

.....

quote:

Originally posted by Canted Valve:

quote:

Where are the DRR arm chair Generals who opined there is NO Global Warming happening?

I don't think anyone argues the earth is warming. It has been since the end of the last ice age. The question to be ask, and answered with honesty and lack of political spin and personal gain is, "What exactly would be your corrective course of action to prevent further warming?"....

Ever heard of polishing a turd?

Why yes I have. If you are really willing to work at it you can achieve quite good outcomes.



It’s called Hikaru Dorodango.

Polishing a Turd

I remembered the answer Larry. I just thought by now you would have a plausable one, and was giving you a chance to tell us.

carbon emissions in the U.S. are at a 20-year low without major government interference

Bucky, you don't have to worry about Larry posting facts and being able to back up in what he posts.