REAL WORLD EVENT DISCUSSIONS

Oh, everything's just dandy ...

POSTED BY: RUE
UPDATED: Sunday, June 17, 2007 07:12
SHORT URL:
VIEWED: 9783
PAGE 2 of 3

Wednesday, May 9, 2007 9:57 AM

GEEZER

Keep the Shiny side up


Quote:

Originally posted by MalBadInLatin:
I still don't know why I expect anything less than "Nope! there ain't no such thang as global warmin'" rhetoric from conservatives.



Don't forget the "This flood/drought/storm/calm/fire/bug-dieoff/moss-increase/bad-year-for-my-tomatoes/rain-on-my-just-washed-car was caused by global warming, and proves we have to shut down everything right now!" rhetoric as well.

"Keep the Shiny side up"

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Wednesday, May 9, 2007 10:10 AM

RUE

I have a vote and I'm not afraid to use it!


Record rains, record droughts, severe droughts followed by extreme rain - these all fit the model of global warming which says the US west and southwest will get drier and hotter on average, but extremes of weather will become more common all over.

NOTIFY: N   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Wednesday, May 9, 2007 12:19 PM

GEEZER

Keep the Shiny side up


Quote:

Originally posted by rue:
Record rains, record droughts, severe droughts followed by extreme rain - these all fit the model of global warming which says the US west and southwest will get drier and hotter on average, but extremes of weather will become more common all over.



Possible, but the IPCC model also calls for more moisture in the eastern US, where the big fires in South Georgia are still buring due to lack of rain. Saying any single event is due to global warming ignores all the other factors which come into play. The Georgia fires were started by downed power lines. The new Griffith Park fire was down to careless smoking - people involved directly or indirectly.

Edited to add: Here's a link to rainfall totals for LA back to 1877. Note that the greatest yearly difference was between 1883-4 and 1884-5.
http://www.laalmanac.com/weather/we13.htm


"Keep the Shiny side up"

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Wednesday, May 9, 2007 12:23 PM

RIVER6213


This is the sort of gloom and doom that brightens my day.

-River

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Wednesday, May 9, 2007 1:58 PM

RUE

I have a vote and I'm not afraid to use it!


Could you tell by the title of the thread? (A take off on Hiram Gummer's "Well that's just dandy.")

NOTIFY: N   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Thursday, May 10, 2007 5:31 AM

MALBADINLATIN


Quote:

Originally posted by Geezer:
"This flood/drought/storm/calm/fire/bug-dieoff/moss-increase/bad-year-for-my-tomatoes/rain-on-my-just-washed-car was caused by global warming, and proves we have to shut down everything right now!"



That's funny Geezer. Last year was in fact a terrible year for tomatos. Also, I couldn't dissagree with you more. But that IS funny

And you can't change that by gettn' all bendy.

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Friday, May 11, 2007 4:53 AM

KANEMAN


"Extreme human sensitivity to stings resulting in serious or fatal reactions is confirmed almost entirely to cases involving bees, wasps, hornets, bumble bees and ants (Order Hymenoptera). Each year 90 to 100 deaths from sting reactions are reported, but many more deaths may be occurring, mistakenly diagnosed as heart attacks, sunstrokes or attributed to other causes. More people die each year from the effects of insect venom than from spider or snake bites."


Who needs these little pesky critters?


"The first year of insect sting shots costs about $1,000 for a single venom. Subsequent years, when shots are given less often, run about $500 each."


Fucking pretty bad for the economy too. Can anyone say Dichloro-Diphenyl-Trichloroethane




"Only a small proportion of the 129 men's remains were ever found, and many excursions into the Arctic today still come across an occasional human bone or Franklin relic." - Death in the Arctic


Do we really need all that murderous ice?

NOTIFY: N   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Friday, May 11, 2007 5:59 AM

RUE

I have a vote and I'm not afraid to use it!


Oh, and this ...
"WASHINGTON - Future eastern United States summers look much hotter than originally predicted with daily highs about 10 degrees warmer than in recent years by the mid-2080s, a new NASA study says.

Previous and widely used global warming computer estimates predict too many rainy days, the study says. Because drier weather is hotter, they underestimate how warm it will be east of the Mississippi River, said atmospheric scientists Barry Lynn and Leonard Druyan of Columbia University and NASA's Goddard Institute for Space Studies."
Quote:

Originally posted by Geezer:
Possible, but the IPCC model also calls for more moisture in the eastern US


NOTIFY: N   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Friday, May 11, 2007 6:04 AM

KANEMAN


"Previous and widely used global warming computer estimates predict too many rainy days, the study says. '


The models are flawed. What ever prediction they SPIT out is meaningless..............

NOTIFY: N   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Friday, May 11, 2007 10:20 AM

SIGNYM

I believe in solving problems, not sharing them.


Quote:

Could you tell by the title of the thread? (A take off on Hiram Gummer's "Well that's just dandy.")
Wasn't that Burt Gummer?

---------------------------------
Always look upstream.

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Friday, May 11, 2007 1:59 PM

RUE

I have a vote and I'm not afraid to use it!


I thought it was Burt but when I googled it, it came up Hiram. Maybe they both said it?

NOTIFY: N   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Friday, May 11, 2007 2:28 PM

GEEZER

Keep the Shiny side up


Quote:

Originally posted by rue:
Oh, and this ...
"WASHINGTON - Future eastern United States summers look much hotter than originally predicted with daily highs about 10 degrees warmer than in recent years by the mid-2080s, a new NASA study says.

Previous and widely used global warming computer estimates predict too many rainy days, the study says. Because drier weather is hotter, they underestimate how warm it will be east of the Mississippi River, said atmospheric scientists Barry Lynn and Leonard Druyan of Columbia University and NASA's Goddard Institute for Space Studies."



Ah, yes. Dueling Climate Modelers.

"The study got mixed reviews from other climate scientists, in part because the eastern United States has recently been wetter and cooler than forecast...
A top U.S. climate modeler, Jerry Mahlman, criticized the study as not matching models up correctly and "just sort of whistling in the dark a little bit."
But Andrew Weaver of the University of Victoria, editor of the journal Climate but not of this study, praised the paper, saying "it makes perfect sense."

http://www.wtop.com/?nid=220&sid=1137925

I guess that's what's so cool for the global warming issue folks. No matter what happens, you can find a climate model which predicts it.

"Keep the Shiny side up"

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Friday, May 11, 2007 3:06 PM

RUE

I have a vote and I'm not afraid to use it!


Bottom line - the earth is going to be much warmer. Though you apparently don't accept that scientific result. You'd rather stick with your personal vodoo thoughts.

NOTIFY: N   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Friday, May 11, 2007 11:17 PM

6IXSTRINGJACK


So let me get this straight......

1. The Beatles will come here and destroy our trees, presumably to make new guitars for Paul. Fortunatly for us, two down, two to go.
2. Icecaps will melt, flooding the streets with water drowning the non-eco-disaster-believers, also killing the Beatles that killed our trees as an added bonus. Prices of a mint condition LP of "The White Album" Skyrocket.
3. People will make rafts out of the dead floating trees and eventually construct floating cities out of all of the driftwood. Making everyday for everyone still alive a vacation to Venice.
4. There will be no pesky bees around to ruin our fun in the sun.


I'm thinking that unknown fungus was from Mars. NASA brought it back with them. They can lie to us all they want about an "unknown" fungus, but I read "Andromeda Strain". I know what's up.


EDIT: I actually love the Beatles. I'm rooting for them.


"A government is a body of people, usually notably ungoverned." http://www.myspace.com/6ixstringjack

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Saturday, May 12, 2007 4:09 AM

GEEZER

Keep the Shiny side up


Quote:

Originally posted by rue:
Bottom line - the earth is going to be much warmer. Though you apparently don't accept that scientific result. You'd rather stick with your personal vodoo thoughts.



No. I'm just not buying the whole package, including all the options.

-Global warming seems pretty much established through observation.
-Human contributions through agriculture and technology seem pretty well established, although how much is still in question.
-Predictions of future rates of global warming seem to vary widely.
-Predictions of global impacts, such as sea level changes, also vary quite a bit.
-Modeling of regional changes is still subject to quite a lot of disagreement between modelers.
-Claiming that any one local event is directly caused by global warming is, at best, speculation.
-Claiming that every local event is directly caused by global warming is nothing but fear-mongering.

I'm afraid that the missionary zeal to spread the word about global warming sometimes leads to the worst excesses of missionaries, wherein they blame every bad thing on the devil and one's lack of faith.




"Keep the Shiny side up"

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Saturday, May 12, 2007 5:00 AM

FINN MAC CUMHAL


Quote:

Originally posted by rue:
Bottom line - the earth is going to be much warmer. Though you apparently don't accept that scientific result. You'd rather stick with your personal vodoo thoughts.

Not many people deny the “scientific result” that the earth seems to be warming. What we deny, I think, is the apocalyptic visions of religious fanaticism. If you want to convince people that the environment is worth improving, then stop with the end-of-the-world crap, because that’s not science – it’s religion.



Nihil est incertius vulgo, nihil obscurius voluntate hominum, nihil fallacius ratione tota comitiorum.

Nothing is more unpredictable than the mob, nothing more obscure than public opinion, nothing more deceptive than the whole political system.

-- Cicero

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Sunday, May 13, 2007 8:04 AM

KANEMAN


Also, many do not believe man is the cause of GW.

NOTIFY: N   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Monday, May 14, 2007 5:09 AM

MALBADINLATIN


Quote:

Originally posted by 6ixStringJack:
So let me get this straight......
1. The Beatles will come here and destroy our trees, presumably to make new guitars for Paul. Fortunatly for us, two down, two to go.
2. Icecaps will melt, flooding the streets with water drowning the non-eco-disaster-believers, also killing the Beatles that killed our trees as an added bonus. Prices of a mint condition LP of "The White Album" Skyrocket.
3. People will make rafts out of the dead floating trees and eventually construct floating cities out of all of the driftwood. Making everyday for everyone still alive a vacation to Venice.



Guitars?...My White Albums will appreciate?...Venice-Like floating cities?...I love Italian food AND Italian women...Count me in!!!!... will I still have to work?...Hold tight where you are...I am headin' up to the pole with my bic lighter, help this process get under way!






And you can't change that by gettn' all bendy.

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Tuesday, May 15, 2007 3:49 AM

KHYRON


http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/6655449.stm



Questions are a burden to others. Answers are prison for oneself.

NOTIFY: N   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Tuesday, May 15, 2007 7:01 AM

GEEZER

Keep the Shiny side up


Quote:

Originally posted by Khyron:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/6655449.stm
.



Linked from that: http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/6115644.stm

Quote:

Framing climate change as an issue which evokes fear and personal stress becomes a self-fulfilling prophecy. By "sexing it up" we exacerbate, through psychological amplifiers, the very risks we are trying to ward off.

The careless (or conspiratorial?) translation of concern about Saddam Hussein's putative military threat into the case for WMD has had major geopolitical repercussions.

We need to make sure the agents and agencies in our society which would seek to amplify climate change risks do not lead us down a similar counter-productive pathway.





"Keep the Shiny side up"

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Tuesday, May 15, 2007 9:44 PM

RUE

I have a vote and I'm not afraid to use it!


Quote:

Geezer: "I'm afraid that the missionary zeal to spread the word about global warming sometimes leads to the worst excesses of missionaries, wherein they blame every bad thing on the devil and one's lack of faith."

Finn:
"What we deny, I think, is the apocalyptic visions of religious fanaticism. If you want to convince people that the environment is worth improving, then stop with the end-of-the-world crap, because that’s not science – it’s religion."

Now this is interesting. I read 'Toonhall - I mean Townhall - and they recently sent me an email telling me I just had to get the book 'The Politically Incorrect Guide to Global Warming (and Environmentalism)'. Which I did forthwith and read, 'cause I was wondering what passes for thought among the right-wing-nuts. I regret to report it was a complete and unredeemed waste of time and money. But anyway, the very first chapter made made a big deal about how it wasn't science, it was a religion.

Please tell me you didn't read that dreck and spit it back at me.
-----------------------

Now, on to an actual discussion. Boys, when you get me better science that tells me global warming is all-natural and minimal I'll accept it. That's because I follow the data. That's called science. And the best science available at the moment says global warming is nearly all man-made and will result in disruption of our lives and the live of generations to come. It's you who refuse to follow the data where it leads, into where it conflicts with your personal dogmas. That's called religion.


NOTIFY: N   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Wednesday, May 16, 2007 3:25 AM

GEEZER

Keep the Shiny side up


Quote:

Originally posted by rue:
...when you get me better science that tells me global warming is all-natural and minimal I'll accept it.


Why should I do that? I said:
-Global warming seems pretty much established through observation.
-Human contributions through agriculture and technology seem pretty well established, although how much is still in question.
-Predictions of future rates of global warming seem to vary widely.

Hardly 'all-natural and minimal'.

Quote:

And the best science available at the moment says global warming is nearly all man-made and will result in disruption of our lives and the lives of generations to come.


Changes in climate have always disrupted people's lives. People have had to move, or adapt, due to climate change since pre-history. What's different this time is that we know it's coming, in some form, and we think we can mitigate it. Whether mitigation can be made to work remains to be seen. I'd like to see more work on adaptation, in case, say, China and India won't go along with reducing greenhouse gasses.

Quote:

It's you who refuse to follow the data where it leads...


I follow the data where it leads. When it gets ambiguious, I stop and look for more data.

What I don't do is pick from the pile of contradictory data the finding which has the worst outcome, and then extrapolate from that the most dire conclusions, and then state them as absolute fact. Because that's not science. I refer you to the series of BBC articles Khyron and I mention above.

"Keep the Shiny side up"

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Wednesday, May 16, 2007 5:38 AM

RUE

I have a vote and I'm not afraid to use it!


One by one:

C: Global warming seems pretty much established through observation.

C: Human contributions through agriculture and technology seem pretty well established, although how much is still in question.
R: The estimates vary between 95 and 97%.

C: Predictions of future rates of global warming seem to vary widely.
R: The estimates vary between 4C and 10C. By any measure, that's a lot warmer.

C: Changes in climate have always disrupted people's lives.
R: But when these changes are self-induced they are completely avoidable.

C: we think we can mitigate it
R: Scientists are saying we (humans) can eliminate the problem using currently available technology. Why live with a problem you can fix ?

C: What I don't do is pick from the pile of contradictory data the finding which has the worst outcome.
R: Neither do it. You apparently haven't been closely following the research. Science follows the best available data, as do I.

NOTIFY: N   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Wednesday, May 16, 2007 5:49 AM

KANEMAN


Quote:

Originally posted by rue:
One by one:

C: Global warming seems pretty much established through observation.

C: Human contributions through agriculture and technology seem pretty well established, although how much is still in question.
R: The estimates vary between 95 and 97%.

C: Predictions of future rates of global warming seem to vary widely.
R: The estimates vary between 4C and 10C. By any measure, that's a lot warmer.

C: Changes in climate have always disrupted people's lives.
R: But when these changes are self-induced they are completely avoidable.

C: we think we can mitigate it
R: Scientists are saying we (humans) can eliminate the problem using currently available technology. Why live with a problem you can fix ?

C: What I don't do is pick from the pile of contradictory data the finding which has the worst outcome.
R: Neither do it. You apparently haven't been closely following the research. Science follows the best available data, as do I.




C?

I call bull shit. Global warming and cooling is natural...........

NOTIFY: N   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Wednesday, May 16, 2007 6:02 AM

SIGNYM

I believe in solving problems, not sharing them.


Geezer: In another thread on the same topic you challenged others to come up with action items and then promptly dismissed them as being ineffective. For example, requiring higher fuel efficiency in cars or using wind energy. I expect that if someone were to propose a more drastic/ one-size-fits-all solution, such as a steep "carbon tax", you'd say it was too costly! You seem to think that this is a problem for which nothing should be done.

The possibilities in current technology are incremental and depend on many approaches being used: higher fuel efficiency AND more efficent power transmission AND implementation of solar/ wind power AND energy conservation. None of these approaches are painfully expensive, impossible, or lead to a lower standard of living. So why would you be so resistant to all changes that would lead to improvement?

---------------------------------
Always look upstream.

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Wednesday, May 16, 2007 6:03 AM

SIGNYM

I believe in solving problems, not sharing them.


Quote:

I call bull shit. Global warming and cooling is natural...........
Yeah, just like cancer, aflatoxin and uranium.

And we do something about them, don't we?

---------------------------------
Always look upstream.

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Thursday, May 17, 2007 2:38 PM

RUE

I have a vote and I'm not afraid to use it!


Geezer - does Kaneman answer for you?

I was wondering if you had a response:

XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX

One by one:

C: Global warming seems pretty much established through observation.

C: Human contributions through agriculture and technology seem pretty well established, although how much is still in question.
R: The estimates vary between 95 and 97%.

C: Predictions of future rates of global warming seem to vary widely.
R: The estimates vary between 4C and 10C. By any measure, that's a lot warmer.

C: Changes in climate have always disrupted people's lives.
R: But when these changes are self-induced they are completely avoidable.

C: we think we can mitigate it
R: Scientists are saying we (humans) can eliminate the problem using currently available technology. Why live with a problem you can fix ?

C: What I don't do is pick from the pile of contradictory data the finding which has the worst outcome.
R: Neither do it. You apparently haven't been closely following the research. Science follows the best available data, as do I.

NOTIFY: N   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Friday, May 18, 2007 3:39 AM

SIGNYM

I believe in solving problems, not sharing them.


Head-in-sand posture seems to be the favored stance. But at leaast they're already in position for kissing their #sses goodbye.

Paying attention to facts? Not so much.

---------------------------------
Always look upstream.

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Friday, May 18, 2007 4:02 AM

KHYRON


Quote:

Originally posted by rue:
C: Human contributions through agriculture and technology seem pretty well established, although how much is still in question.
R: The estimates vary between 95 and 97%.

Have you got back-up for these numbers?

But it made me think a bit. A lot of methane is created by cattle and I saw somewhere that this has a larger effect on GW than the use of fossil fuels. While I can understand (and welcome) the current emphasis on renewable energy sources to cut back CO2 emissions, wouldn't a more effective way of lowering GHG emissions be to promote vegetarianism, or at least get people to cut back on meat?

My guess is it would be futile to even try it, because that would involve people making significant lifestyle changes. Ignoring the blatant sensationalism and apocalyptic predictions designed to make headlines (which sicken me and are the reasons why I side with Geezer and Finn in these threads), it seems like too much of this debate is centred on "Oh, we humans are terrible, let's bitch about the government/industry not doing enough, and about those people who don't think we're all going to die because of this", and not on "What can we as individuals do to help reduce this, and how much would it cost us personally?". The only times I saw this happen was when the media showcases some whacked out treehuggers whose attempted carbon-neutral lifestyle makes people go "THAT'S what I need to live like to be good to the environment!? No way, not worth it!".

Bill Maher asked a good question recently. If global warming could be solved by people simply not using their remote control anymore, would they stop using them?



Questions are a burden to others. Answers are prison for oneself.

NOTIFY: N   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Friday, May 18, 2007 6:15 AM

GEEZER

Keep the Shiny side up


Quote:

Originally posted by rue:
C: Human contributions through agriculture and technology seem pretty well established, although how much is still in question.
R: The estimates vary between 95 and 97%.


As noted before, cites would help. For example, is this a 95 to 97% chance that human contributions affect climate change, or is it that 95 to 97% of climate change is due to human contributions?
Quote:

C: Predictions of future rates of global warming seem to vary widely.
R: The estimates vary between 4C and 10C. By any measure, that's a lot warmer.


IPCC 2007 shows a 2.4C - 6.4C range of increase between the 20 year average ending 1999 and the ten year average ending 2099, assuming their worst case scenario. Sea level increases for the same period and scenario would be 0.26 - 0.59 meters. Best case is 1.1C - 2.9C and 0.18M - 0.38M.
http://www.ipcc.ch/SPM2feb07.pdf

Quote:

C: Changes in climate have always disrupted people's lives.
R: But when these changes are self-induced they are completely avoidable.
C: we think we can mitigate it
R: Scientists are saying we (humans) can eliminate the problem using currently available technology. Why live with a problem you can fix ?



Cool. No need for panicky Chicken Little rushing about, then.
Actually, I am not too confident that the world is going to get on board that easily, especially the developing countries where fossil fuels are the only choice for energy, and agriculture has to expand. That's why I'm more interested in adaptation than mitigation. Unfortunately, stuff like rebuilding parts of New Orleans that are on the flood plain doesn't make it look like adaptation is gonna be easy to sell.

Quote:

Science follows the best available data, as do I.

Links, please.

To start with, some scientific evidence that the recent fires in Southern California are the direct result of climate change, and not just the same fires that they've been having around LA since folks have been there. Not conjecture, not jumping from Point A to Point D without logical middle steps.

"Keep the Shiny side up"

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Friday, May 18, 2007 7:16 AM

SIGNYM

I believe in solving problems, not sharing them.


Geezer- I think you have the notion that WE can adapt while the rest of the world goes down the tubes. But so many effects will be worldwide (lost species, crops and trees; disease; political and economic instability; water shortages) that I think like it or not, we're in this together. I just can't imagine us floating while everyone else sinks.

It's not that I'm saying we shouldn't adapt. I think there are some vital and necessary things to do right now, within our own borders, to brace ourselves for the consequences of global warming. And BTW I'm curious what your list of adaptation would look like. But we can do both. It shouldn't be one or the other.

---------------------------------
Always look upstream.

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Friday, May 18, 2007 8:43 AM

SIGNYM

I believe in solving problems, not sharing them.


bump

---------------------------------
Always look upstream.

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Friday, May 18, 2007 3:14 PM

RUE

I have a vote and I'm not afraid to use it!


95 - 97% change is from CO2
Unfortunately not everything is out there able to be linked. This link comes closest: http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2006/09/060914095559.htm

"Earth's surface temperature could rise by 4.5 C (8.1 F) if carbon dioxide levels double over pre-industrial levels, but higher warming cannot be ruled out."

"Actually, I am not too confident that the world is going to get on board that easily, especially the developing countries ... That's why I'm more interested in adaptation than mitigation."
As SignyM said, it's possible and preferable to do both.

NOTIFY: N   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Saturday, May 19, 2007 1:33 AM

SIGNYM

I believe in solving problems, not sharing them.


It seems that Geezer doesn't exactly have a plan for adaptation either. Like I said: Head in sand. It's just one motion away from kissing your ^ss goodbye.

---------------------------------
Always look upstream.

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Saturday, May 19, 2007 7:10 AM

GEEZER

Keep the Shiny side up


Quote:

Originally posted by SignyM:
Geezer- I think you have the notion that WE can adapt while the rest of the world goes down the tubes.

Not really. I suspect that North America and Western Europe will have a harder time adapting, since we haven't actually suffered any nationwide disasters in a while.
Quote:

But so many effects will be worldwide ... that I think like it or not, we're in this together. I just can't imagine us floating while everyone else sinks.

Given the attitude of China, India and the developing world, I don't expect them to feel this way. I also note that even the folks who signed on to the Kyoto Accords mostly haven't met their goals. I expect that regardless of what the Western world does, there's gonna be global warming.

Quote:

It's not that I'm saying we shouldn't adapt. I think there are some vital and necessary things to do right now, within our own borders, to brace ourselves for the consequences of global warming. And BTW I'm curious what your list of adaptation would look like. But we can do both. It shouldn't be one or the other.


Adaptation? I'll get to that later. Pizza's here.



"Keep the Shiny side up"

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Saturday, May 19, 2007 7:48 AM

SIGNYM

I believe in solving problems, not sharing them.


Quote:

But so many effects will be worldwide ... that I think like it or not, we're in this together. I just can't imagine us floating while everyone else sinks.-Signy

Given the attitude of China, India and the developing world, I don't expect them to feel this way. I also note that even the folks who signed on to the Kyoto Accords mostly haven't met their goals. I expect that regardless of what the Western world does, there's gonna be global warming.- Geezer

You misunderstand me. I'm not saying that we're all going to suddenly realize that we're facing the worst crisis ever and join hands in a burst of sanity and brotherly love. What I'm saying is whether we "feel" it or not we ARE in this together. ALL of us: China, India, Bangladesh, Russia, Europe, Australia... And the USA might be like the one swimmer in a pool of drowning people. The political and economic instability will make it unlikely that we will be allowed to tackle our problems more-or-less unmolested by outside forces.

---------------------------------
Always look upstream.

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Saturday, May 19, 2007 4:31 PM

GEEZER

Keep the Shiny side up


Quote:

Originally posted by SignyM:
You misunderstand me. I'm not saying that we're all going to suddenly realize that we're facing the worst crisis ever and join hands in a burst of sanity and brotherly love. What I'm saying is whether we "feel" it or not we ARE in this together. ALL of us: China, India, Bangladesh, Russia, Europe, Australia... And the USA might be like the one swimmer in a pool of drowning people. The political and economic instability will make it unlikely that we will be allowed to tackle our problems more-or-less unmolested by outside forces.



Couple of points before beddie-bye time.

1. Based on the IPCC 2007 estimates, global temperature will, worst case, increase 0.04C per year. That's 4 hundredths of a degree C per year. So if it's 'the worst crisis ever' it'll be a slow one, not like, say, WWII, where 72 million died in six or seven years. This may allow governments to realize that they need to do something before things get too bad.

2. Up until, say, the early 20th century, most folk didn't expect things to stay the same forever. They had to deal with changes in climate, government, economy, etc. as a normal part of life. Expecting everything to stay constant is pretty much a product of western civilization in the last half of the 20th century. it may be a mistaken concept.

Later.



"Keep the Shiny side up"

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Sunday, May 20, 2007 4:18 AM

SIGNYM

I believe in solving problems, not sharing them.


You know Geezer, your sanguine concept of what's not going to happen is already cotnradicted by the fact that New Zealand has made special provisions for immigrating Pacific Islanders. WHY are they immigrating to New Zealand, one might ask? BECAUSE THEIR ISLANDS ARE ALREADY UNDERWATER.
----------------------------

So, adaptation....

Rising sea level to +20 ft
Stop building in low-lying areas prone to floods. That includes, small islands off the east coast and FLA. (They destabilze the dunes which protect coastline from hurricane damage), low-lying costal areas (anything with an elevation less than 30 ft above high tide)

Protect already built-up areas with dikes and big friggin pumps, and move sensitive structures (as much as possible)
Use dolosse or riprap, or create sandbar islands in sensitive areas

The one good things about rising sea levels? Drowned structures make great artificial reefs!

More summer storms of 100-year and 500-year intensity
Stop building on 100-year flood plains
Build structures on 500-year flood plains able to withstand 10 feet of flooding
Restructure rivers to retain and slow as much flow as possible by creating spillover areas, widening river beds etc
Protect against erision by proper farm amanagement and erosion-control techniques.

Less snowpack, drought
Water conservation, including no-till farming and using reclaimed water for non-consumption purposes

Species loss
Create north-south corridors for ecosystems to migrate northward, including Plains
Interplant heat-resistant trees in northerly areas

Electrical power shortages
Electrical energy conservation (efficient light sources such as LEDs, energy efficient building design)
Grid maintenance and investment
Distributed solar energy or backup energy source (eg microturbines)

That's just off the top of my head.

---------------------------------
Always look upstream.

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Sunday, May 20, 2007 5:35 AM

KHYRON


Quote:

Originally posted by SignyM:
BECAUSE THEIR ISLANDS ARE ALREADY UNDERWATER.

What are you talking about!?



Questions are a burden to others. Answers are prison for oneself.

NOTIFY: N   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Sunday, May 20, 2007 6:19 AM

SIGNYM

I believe in solving problems, not sharing them.


www.nwf.org/internationalwildlife/article.cfm?articleId=15&issueId=3

---------------------------------
Always look upstream.

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Sunday, May 20, 2007 11:43 AM

GEEZER

Keep the Shiny side up


Quote:

Originally posted by SignyM:
You know Geezer, your sanguine concept of what's not going to happen is already cotnradicted by the fact that New Zealand has made special provisions for immigrating Pacific Islanders. WHY are they immigrating to New Zealand, one might ask? BECAUSE THEIR ISLANDS ARE ALREADY UNDERWATER.


Hardly an unusual situation, and certainly not a worldwide crisis. Did you know that once-populated islands in Chesapeake Bay disappeared last century? It's called erosion, and, based on the NWF article you post, seems to be most of what's happening in the Pacific. An island with a high point 3 feet above mean sea level is only gonna last for so long before it wears away, even if made of coral. Talk to the people who live on the Outer Banks on the Atlantic coast of the US. Anywhere you got coastline things are gonna move.

Also note that no one has drowned or been swept away. They got plenty of time to move house. I had to do that once, when my apartment building was being torn down for re-development.

Still working on my adaptation plans.

"Keep the Shiny side up"

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Tuesday, May 22, 2007 8:50 AM

RUE

I have a vote and I'm not afraid to use it!


By Peter N. Spotts, Staff writer of The Christian Science Monitor
Tue May 22, 4:00 AM ET


Global emissions of carbon dioxide are growing at a faster clip than the highest rates used in recent key UN reports.

CO2 emissions from cars, factories, and power plants grew at an annual rate of 1.1 percent during the 1990s, according to the Global Carbon Project, which is a data clearinghouse set up in 2001 as a cooperative effort among UN-related groups and other scientific organizations. But from 2000 to 2004, CO2 emissions rates almost tripled to 3 percent a year – higher than any rate used in emissions scenarios for the reports by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC).

NOTIFY: N   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Tuesday, May 22, 2007 9:29 AM

SIGNYM

I believe in solving problems, not sharing them.


Sometimes I just want to put my head thru a wall...
Quote:

OSLO (Reuters) - Human activities are wiping out three animal or plant species every hour and the world must do more to slow the worst spate of extinctions since the dinosaurs by 2010, the United Nations said on Tuesday.

www.reuters.com/article/environmentNews/idUSL2253331920070522?src=0522
07_1516_DOUBLEFEATURE_


Quote:

GENEVA (Reuters) - One in six European land mammals faces the threat of extinction, mainly through habitat loss and deforestation, a leading conservation group said on Tuesday. For marine mammals, the figure is higher at nearly one in four, but even this could be an underestimate
www.reuters.com/article/environmentNews/idUSL2247132720070522?src=0522
07_1516_DOUBLEFEATURE_SYDNEY


Quote:

(Reuters) - Global warming is occurring faster than predicted because rapid economic growth has resulted in higher than expected greenhouse gas emissions since 2000, said an Australian report on Tuesday.
www.reuters.com/article/environmentNews/idUSSYD16214720070522?src=0522
07_1516_DOUBLEFEATURE_



Note that these reports are coming from different agencies.


---------------------------------
Always look upstream.

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Tuesday, May 22, 2007 1:10 PM

RUE

I have a vote and I'm not afraid to use it!


Oh, don't you know Siggy ... it's a plot to establish world control over your every move.

NOTIFY: N   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Tuesday, May 22, 2007 4:28 PM

GEEZER

Keep the Shiny side up


Quote:

Originally posted by rue:
By Peter N. Spotts, Staff writer of The Christian Science Monitor
Tue May 22, 4:00 AM ET


Global emissions of carbon dioxide are growing at a faster clip than the highest rates used in recent key UN reports.

CO2 emissions from cars, factories, and power plants grew at an annual rate of 1.1 percent during the 1990s, according to the Global Carbon Project, which is a data clearinghouse set up in 2001 as a cooperative effort among UN-related groups and other scientific organizations. But from 2000 to 2004, CO2 emissions rates almost tripled to 3 percent a year – higher than any rate used in emissions scenarios for the reports by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC).



C'mon, Rue, either post the entire article or a link. You left out some stuff.
Quote:

The Global Carbon Project's calculations should be viewed with caution, says Michael Oppenheimer, a climate-policy specialist at Princeton University in New Jersey. Economies have been recovering from a recession at the turn of the millennium. And a spike in natural-gas prices – of uncertain duration – has given coal a second wind in developed countries. These short-term factors have probably contributed to the growth in emissions rates, he says.

Yet longer-term forces may be at play to sustain the high emissions rates. For instance, "There is concern among many experts that factors such as China's continued, very rapid coal-based growth may not be a blip that would turn around," he says.



http://www.csmonitor.com/2007/0522/p01s03-wogi.html

Also interesting that China, India, the former Soviet Union, and the rest of the developing world have increased carbon emmisions to the point where they produce more than the U.S., EU, Japan, and the rest of the developed world.




"Keep the Shiny side up"

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Tuesday, May 22, 2007 4:48 PM

GEEZER

Keep the Shiny side up


Quote:

Originally posted by SignyM:
Sometimes I just want to put my head thru a wall... OSLO (Reuters) - Human activities are wiping out three animal or plant species every hour and the world must do more to slow the worst spate of extinctions since the dinosaurs by 2010, the United Nations said on Tuesday.



But, from the same article:
Quote:

A "Red List" of endangered species, however, lists only 784 species driven to extinction since 1500 -- ranging from the dodo bird of Mauritius to the golden toad of Costa Rica.

Craig Hilton-Taylor, manager of the list compiled by the World Conservation Union grouping 83 governments as well as scientists and environmental organizations, said the hugely varying figures might both be right, in their way.

"The U.N. figures are based on loss of habitats, estimates of how many species lived there and so will have been lost," he told Reuters. "Ours are more empirical -- those species we knew were there but cannot find."




Quote:

GENEVA (Reuters) - One in six European land mammals faces the threat of extinction, mainly through habitat loss and deforestation, a leading conservation group said on Tuesday. For marine mammals, the figure is higher at nearly one in four, but even this could be an underestimate


From the same article:
Quote:

In a report for the European Union, the IUCN said the Balkans and particularly Bulgaria and Romania are the most affected by declining land mammals, principally because they are also home to the greatest number of species... Habitat loss and degradation, including deforestation or wetland drainage, posed the main threats to terrestrial mammals, followed by pollution and over-harvesting, the report said.


The countries of the former Soviet Union have never been all that environmentally friendly. Industrial pollution there is going to take a long time to repair, and there's no money to do it. Marx strikes again.

Quote:

(Reuters) - Global warming is occurring faster than predicted because rapid economic growth has resulted in higher than expected greenhouse gas emissions since 2000, said an Australian report on Tuesday.

Note that these reports are coming from different agencies.


The first and third ones are both based on the report of the CSIRO's Global Carbon Project.


"Keep the Shiny side up"

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Thursday, May 31, 2007 5:08 PM

RUE

I have a vote and I'm not afraid to use it!


"The United States will work with other nations to establish a new framework on greenhouse gas emissions for when the Kyoto Protocol expires in 2012," Bush said in a speech laying out his agenda for the June 6-8 G8 summit in Germany.



NOTIFY: N   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Thursday, May 31, 2007 5:12 PM

RUE

I have a vote and I'm not afraid to use it!


Geezer -

"C'mon, Rue, either post the entire article or a link. You left out some stuff."

For obscure stuff I find extended verbatim quotes are much better than links. Links disappear with time, but google is your friend with a good quote. You didn't have any problem, did you. See, it works, just like I knew it would.

I intend to get back to you when I have the time, and it ain't going to be pretty.

NOTIFY: N   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Thursday, May 31, 2007 7:46 PM

ANTIMASON


Rue im curious, what do you personally see happening 10 to 20 years out? i see that you support the man-made warming theory, so what do you believe should be done to prevent, or minimize the effects?

i genuinely want to hear a rational explanation from the other side, because i am of the opinion that its (atLeast)'mostly' a natural cycle, being overly hyped into an extreme political agenda. there was one point when i agreed with Al Gore, but ive since heard some persuasive arguments to refute the MMGW theory. among my reasons, i have to wonder(really as a Creationist), that if the earths ecosystem is truly so fragile(which it appears to be), then how can we believe that all life evolved at any time independently apart from these dependent co-habitual cycles? if a few degree variations and what not effect ecosystems so drastically, then it seems like a huge inconsistency in that argument for me. im inclined to believe other things are happening

also, hypothetically, this change in climate may benefit certain regions of the world, if at a disadvantage to others. who are WE(the western industrialized nations), to decide what climate is ideal for the world? where does the UN, or any other establishment get the authority to enforce global laws essentially prohibiting energy use? this seems like a clever veil to disguise social engineering.


NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Thursday, May 31, 2007 7:53 PM

ANTIMASON


also, the argument that CO2 does not drive temperature, rather temperature drives CO2, seems pretty compelling and well supported. that would essentially contradict the premise of man made warming. what is the opposing view on that?

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

YOUR OPTIONS

NEW POSTS TODAY

USERPOST DATE

FFF.NET SOCIAL