Climate, compost, and those plastic cups: Sustainability (1)

By: Dr. Ricky Rood , 05:38 PM GMT on Augusti 14, 2011

Share this Blog
12
+

Climate, compost, and those plastic cups: Sustainability and Climate Change (1)

This past week I was at the county fair. There were science exhibits, and a display on climate-wise gardening. There was a lot of attention to garbage; it was a zero-waste event. There was an exhibit and lecture on irrigation, with, of course, some discussion of stressed and contentious water resources. After the fair I took a one-day course on grasslands and the reclamation of prairie land. There are many places where climate and climate policy fit into this mix of small activities.

I want to start with the idea of “sustainability.” When I moved to University of Michigan in 2005, I was introduced, seriously, to the idea of sustainability. I kept asking whether or not there was an accepted, single definition of sustainability. The short answer was, “no.” If you look around you find a couple of notions that are always included in the definition of sustainability. First, there is the idea that the way that we use resources to maintain our standard of living does not preclude the ability of future generations to do the same. Second, there is the idea that all of the pieces fit together into a whole. A popular notion of sustainability is “think globally, act locally”, or conveyed by the company Seventh Generation, which strives, “To inspire a revolution that nurtures the health of the next seven generations.” On a whole different scale is Ceres, which “leads a national coalition of investors, environmental organizations and other public interest groups working with companies to address sustainability challenges such as global climate change and water scarcity.” Here are some links to definitions and discussions of sustainability: @ Washington State University, Wikipedia, Environmental Protection Agency, Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change.

It is obvious that our climate and climate change fit into the notion of sustainability, but it is not an easy relation to understand, describe and to make actionable. More directly related to our ability to sustain ourselves are population, energy, energy consumption, and standard of living. Historically we have used easy resources, because they are easy. For many centuries we were reliant upon wood for fuel and building. We cleared forests for agriculture. During the 1800s the United States was largely deforested. It became self evident that forests and whale oil were not going to support a growing population, an industrial society, and a growing economy. (A nice history of energy, and interestingly Dolly Sods Wilderness.) These sources of energy were replaced with coal and oil. All of these sources of energy have obvious, direct environmental consequences. There are also some environmental consequences that are not quite as obvious and direct; namely, those consequences due to the release of carbon dioxide.

The wealthy economies and standard of living that followed from industrialization become the priority; hence, easy energy becomes a priority. The obvious and direct environmental consequences, ultimately, become something that we try to deal with – for example, The Clean Air Act. We seek a balance of environmental pollution and industrialization – a contentious balance. Climate change is an environmental problem that is not as obvious and not as direct. It is problem where it takes, compared with a human life, a significant amount of time for the signal of climate change, of global warming, to emerge over the natural variability that we are used to dealing with. In order to mitigate climate change through the reduction of carbon dioxide emissions our “easy” choice is to quit burning fossils fuels, but that is not an easy choice to make if we humans exercise our prerogative of pursuit of high standards of living and population growth. To address climate change requires us to look out beyond the length of our lives and to see the value that a sustainable environment will have to those who follow us.

There was a couple of years ago a paper in Nature entitled, “A safe operating space for humanity”, by Johan Rockstrom and many colleagues. Here is Figure 1 from that paper.



Figure 1: “The inner green shading represents the proposed safe operating space for nine planetary systems. The red wedges represent an estimate of the current position for each variable. The boundaries in three systems (rate of biodiversity loss, climate change and human interference with the nitrogen cycle), have already been exceeded.” From “A safe operating space for humanity”, by Johan Rockstrom and many colleagues (Nature, 2009)

This figure conveys the integrated nature of sustainability on the planetary scale. An easy example to point out – climate change is, primarily, a problem of carbon dioxide emission, as is ocean acidification. Hence, from an integrated perspective, the two cannot be looked at in isolation. But looking around the circle, all of these environmental issues are related. They are all related to population, energy, consumption, standards of living and robust economies.

I started this entry, this series, with a very mundane event – being at the fair. At the fair we talked about water, and sure climate change might be important to water, but it does not seem as immediately important as the cities’ thirst for water and the purchase of agricultural water rights (Thirsty Cities, Dry Farms). This interface of climate change on this local level is real, it is contentious, and it is substantive. Yes, I have started another series, and in it I will look at “think globally, act locally.” Yet another problem of many scales that must be addressed as we adapt to global warming.

r




Reader Comments

Comments will take a few seconds to appear.

Post Your Comments

Please sign in to post comments.

or Join

Not only will you be able to leave comments on this blog, but you'll also have the ability to upload and share your photos in our Wunder Photos section.

Display: 0, 50, 100, 200 Sort: Newest First - Order Posted

Viewing: 303 - 253

Page: 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10Blog Index

Quoting JBastardi:


Please do place me on ignore. It's ok for you to make ridiculous inane statements to others but not me. I'm terrified that you might report me. That's about the closest thing to a fight you've probably ever been in your life. You'd better move out of TX before someone sets your panties on fire.


OH NO! Its BIG J! - runs out of room crying

Did IQs just suddenly drop while I was gone?
Member Since: Augusti 24, 2010 Posts: 0 Comments: 4737
Quoting theshepherd:
298. Some1Has2BtheRookie

Wow...ya said a mouthfull there rookie.

And I say this wholeheartedly:

I really don't know how to address your concerns other than how I view things myself. I just can't go outside my understandings and beliefs to accommodate your expectations of what answer you will accept.

The Supreme Court is what it is. I really can't comprehend how you think any differently. Conservative minds think alike and Liberal minds think...my apologies, but I just can't fathom "what" they think.
That being said, it doesn't matter who voted for what. It only matters what the scoreboard says. This is our system. That why I say, it is what it is. If you want to beat a dead horse, then go ahead without me.

As far as the Patriot Act is concerned, my life is an open book. I could give a rat's patoot whether or not some obscure individual at Quantico or Shmantico is reading what I'm typing right now, listening to my phone calls or checking my bank records. As long as he's not stealing my money or hogging in on some young thing I'm trying to get a date with on the phone, he can easedrop to his heart's content. I really don't care. The fact that 911 is 911 and not 2010 is all the proof I need to willfully accept any possible intrusion into my privacy. I don't think things, say things or do things that I worry about someone finding out about. What else can I say?

And yes, I caught your "keep up the good fight" comment to Ossymon that you drug over from another blog. A bit transparent, don't ya think? Did you think you would score points on me with that one?

Trust me, the only "deflection" was your expectation.
My answer was deliberate.

You're gonna have to settle down a bit and understand that there are minds that think on a far grander scale than yours and mine that have already hunted these trails with some pretty darn good bird dogs if we are to grow as correspondents.

namaste...
sheph


Shep, you are right. The logic of your statement, "You're gonna have to settle down a bit and understand that there are minds that think on a far grander scale than yours and mine that have already hunted these trails with some pretty darn good bird dogs if we are to grow as correspondents." is ... infallible. Very well said, indeed. Then why, may I ask, do we volley back and forth with our opinions?

I grew up in the 50's. I was absolutely certain that all of our resources were endless and that our technology would be able to conquer all challenges. That was the way people thought back then. There did not appear to be any reason to think differently. Things are not as I imagined them to be, in my youth. Now, I find, I must play a serious game of catch up. Since I did not prepare to know the things that we need to know now, I feel a great sense of desperation and frustration. I do not feel frustration with this blog. I feel frustration with myself. I lack the scientific understanding and the capabilities to do the math to be able to discover these things through my own research. I lack the skills to join in a debate among actual climatologist, for they would quickly lose me in their conversations. I also lack the years that I would need to have in order to perfect my skills. So, I looked for the easy way out. Professor Rood's blog attracted me because I believed that I could find the truth of that of which I seek, on this blog. Professor Rood does an excellent job of wording things in terms that I can understand. I guess that is why he is a PROFESSOR. He has the skill set to teach others that lack his knowledge. .... Well, it is not that simple. I have to learn more of the science and the math so that I at least am able to follow a scientific conversation without being lost in the words.

Yes, I will have to settle down and allow this blog to be what it is and to quit trying to change it into something that I wanted it be. My quest, for the truth, will remain just as strong. How I discover the truth will probably have to change. My frustrations will continue but, they are my frustrations and not the blog's.

I pray that I never outlive my children and I hope that my grandchildren do not have to face a life that is far worse than our worst day. Especially if we had a chance to change that now. Should those that deny climate change and those that are less than "true" skeptics turn out to have not been honest in their assessments of climate change and their skepticism, then I will have the satisfaction of knowing that, someday, they will get the chance to meet me, in Hell. ..... Overly dramatic? No, overly honest.
Member Since: Augusti 24, 2010 Posts: 0 Comments: 4737
Another record polar blast. Losing count this year.

Link






Images: Eumetsat (Click on images for larger view.)

SAWDIS: Fairly intense cold front noticeable on the above satellite images. We could be in for another severe weather event although it is still to early to provide detailed information. Prediction models are fluctuating rapidly. Heavy snowfalls are forecast by Snow-forecast.com in parts of the Western and Southern Cape. I must admit that the cold front looks quite impressive and threatening although it appears at this stage that the core of the front will pass south of the country. The SAWDIS will keep tabs on the front and update the blog with the latest developments. It would not be a bad idea to haul out some more blankets, warm clothes and umbrellas for the next few days.
Posted by SAWDIS at 8/20/2011 08:29:00 AM

Link

And in Chile:



And in Australia:

Cairns awoke to their coldest August morning in over half a century today as the city recorded a lower minimum temperature than Melbourne, Adelaide, Perth and Hobart.

The temperature in Cairns dipped to 9.3°C at 6:15am this morning, eight below average and the coldest August temperature since 1953.

The cold morning was the third in a row below average for Cairns as cool air was drawn north along a ridge of high pressure. The lack of cloud cover combined with light offshore winds last night provided the ideal conditions for a chilly morning, allowing heat to escape into the atmosphere and cold air to gather at the ground.

Temperatures will not dip as low again tonight onshore south-easterly winds keeping the mercury above about 14°C.

Ben Domensino
© The Weather Channel
Member Since: Posts: Comments:
298. Some1Has2BtheRookie

Wow...ya said a mouthfull there rookie.

And I say this wholeheartedly:

I really don't know how to address your concerns other than how I view things myself. I just can't go outside my understandings and beliefs to accommodate your expectations of what answer you will accept.

The Supreme Court is what it is. I really can't comprehend how you think any differently. Conservative minds think alike and Liberal minds think...my apologies, but I just can't fathom "what" they think.
That being said, it doesn't matter who voted for what. It only matters what the scoreboard says. This is our system. That why I say, it is what it is. If you want to beat a dead horse, then go ahead without me.

As far as the Patriot Act is concerned, my life is an open book. I could give a rat's patoot whether or not some obscure individual at Quantico or Shmantico is reading what I'm typing right now, listening to my phone calls or checking my bank records. As long as he's not stealing my money or hogging in on some young thing I'm trying to get a date with on the phone, he can easedrop to his heart's content. I really don't care. The fact that 911 is 911 and not 2010 is all the proof I need to willfully accept any possible intrusion into my privacy. I don't think things, say things or do things that I worry about someone finding out about. What else can I say?

And yes, I caught your "keep up the good fight" comment to Ossymon that you drug over from another blog. A bit transparent, don't ya think? Did you think you would score points on me with that one?

Trust me, the only "deflection" was your expectation.
My answer was deliberate.

You're gonna have to settle down a bit and understand that there are minds that think on a far grander scale than yours and mine that have already hunted these trails with some pretty darn good bird dogs if we are to grow as correspondents.

namaste...
sheph
Member Since: Posts: Comments:
Quoting theshepherd:
283. Some1Has2BtheRookie

Deflect, rather than address. Is this to be the order of the day? Fine, I will address your deflections.

************************************************* ******************

No deflection.

Sorry I didn't address your concerns with what you wanted to hear...my bad.

Am I familiar with the Constitution???

geesch...




Shep, I knew that you were not making a deliberate deflection. There is truly only one, on this blog, that I do not pay attention to. I would venture to say that everyone knows who this person is, by now. Even so, I have never given anyone so much as a " - ", on this blog. Should J make one more outburst, as he last did, I will place him on "ignore" and I will report him. He has lost ALL credibility with me. I easily take rudeness, name calling and nonsensical posts. J stepped way out of bounds with me. I do not overlook personal threats. Should I ever "step out bounds" with anyone here, then, please, bring it to my attention. I assure you that I can, and will, adjust. I am able to easily set aside that I may lose, in a debate, and to not take it personal.

Still, I have yet to see many that will directly address what I post. Rather, they seem intent to make an indirect comment and try to steer me in another direction. I try to answer each post directly and, I sometimes fail to do so and I can easily see where there are times that others will also indirectly address my posts.

I also request that no one provides me a link to or quotes anything by Dr. Rod Spencer. He too has lost all of my respect when I read one his blogs and he could not even deflect, let alone discredit, a person on his comment section and these were questions on his own studies. When you can not answer concerns about your own studies, then you need to go study some more.

I will be busy for the most part of today. I will address everyone's post, after I have reviewed them, and as time allows for me to do so.

Please, everyone. There is a storm out there and it has the potential to be a major. Should you be within potential harm, from this storm, please pay close attention to your local weather broadcasts. Should the local authorities suggest that you evacuate, the best advise I can you is to do so. This is expected to be a slow moving storm, IF and when it makes landfall. You could end up spending many more hours in high winds, rising waters, tornadoes and rain than what one would consider to be the norm. Should that happen, it will NOT be pretty.

Personal experience:

Alicia
Allison
Rita
Ike

3 of these storms have had their names retired, Alicia being the lone hold out. .... hmmmmmm, looking at this, I would suggest that no one here tries to move into my area. LOL ... But, it would seem, I know how to dodge the bullet!
Member Since: Augusti 24, 2010 Posts: 0 Comments: 4737
OUCH!

Member Since: Januari 2, 2006 Posts: 127 Comments: 20393
Rookie, I don't have much time so I will just touch on a couple of your items.

One, concensus? See for yourself where the claims actually originate from. Quite the assumption from my shoes.

general skeptic overview of such

Link

Paper on the %

Link

China, 1 per week, not month.

Clouds, it is not just about cosmic rays, that is just the most recent revelation of the things we did not know about clouds, climate and temperature. There are a few in this list from RP Sr. I will bet most never knew how many papers he acutally has participated in over the years.

Link

Stalled warming item, paper linked. Remember, 1.4 degrees F over 160 years, based upon a very weak set of records, is what is pushed as an emergency.

Link
Member Since: Juni 12, 2005 Posts: 6 Comments: 8185
283. Some1Has2BtheRookie

Deflect, rather than address. Is this to be the order of the day? Fine, I will address your deflections.

************************************************* ******************

No deflection.

Sorry I didn't address your concerns with what you wanted to hear...my bad.

Am I familiar with the Constitution???

geesch...


Member Since: Posts: Comments:
Here is a study proving the reliability of climate models Link I assume the researchers put in the models all we know about the climate. I think we have some more research to do, why can't we just admit we really don't know how the climate works but I forgot the science is settled. LOL yet one more straw on the camels back.
Member Since: Juli 6, 2011 Posts: 0 Comments: 2255
Rookie- The China coal particle study has been proven wrong by Nasa the particles seem to be more from volcanoes as per studies published by NASA and the French. If you can not find these studies I will be happy to try and find them again for you. The global temperature has not risen for the last decade as per The Hadley Center, Japanese Met and Noaa only the GISS shows it has. Here is the temp graph from Hadley for the northern hemisphere, the southern hemisphere and globally Link notice no warming. Rookie I found the links for the volcanoes Link and another Link Here is an article showing a warm bias for antarctic temperatures Link I have seen one for the arctic atmosphere temperature modeling that shows a warm bias also will try and find it. The Dutch also recently put out a study showing no warming of the oceans has happened for the last several years I think since like 2002 will have to find it. Here is a graph from NOAA for ocean heat content Link Remember what Einstein said " It does not take a hundred to prove me wrong just one"
Member Since: Juli 6, 2011 Posts: 0 Comments: 2255
Quoting Some1Has2BtheRookie:


I see that you are back to amaze and dazzle the blog with your vast knowledge. Unfortunately, for you, I am not so easily amazed and dazzled.


This might help JBastardi dazzle you. Free rhinestones too.



Member Since: Posts: Comments:
Quoting Ossqss:


Rookie, I too want the truth. Just to make that clear. I have yet to place much confidence in any projection science when we have so much to learn.

Policy is driven by what we think. Good or bad, that is how it is.

Right now, things are in a flux.

We tout what we think as fact and yet almost everyday more comes out that reduces our ability accept things as such.

The fact that most important nations are abandoning a key policy that bolsters the AGW claims speaks for itself.

When I mention cloud formation, everyone runs from it. Why? That is simply due to the fact that we have a very small grasp on how that works and what it means to climate and temperature.

Remember that all of the current driven policy rest upon the GISS data set (which is very weak with respect to consistency over time), and a study on tree rings that has been disposed of accordingly, but yet still drives opinion and policy.

You hear many state that the temp is rising rapidly, but yet we hear by vitue of peer reviewed studies, things have not risen over a decade.

That does not happen in a man made climate change world.

If you want to believe the introduction of scrubbers that have now made things different, it simply proves my point of how little we really understand.

Here, something to read relating to the dilemma I found years ago with this settled science.

I find the theory of AGW to be very slanted science at this point/

http://bishophill.squarespace.com/blog/2009/9/29/ the-yamal-implosion.html

Edit: Sorry for the voice to text errors :)

Whats going on?



Ossqss, it is always a pleasure to hear a voice of reason among the screams of lunatics. No, I am not talking about the blog. I am in reference to having 15 grandchildren. LOL

I read your posts because I do believe that you seek the truth. You have always shown me that you write in an even tone and you show respect for others. You don't get "excited" by the comments of another. My hat is off to you, sir. As you have seen, my emotions will change but, my message remains the same. I am here to learn and to discover the truth. I must hear out all sides of the debate to determine what is the truth.

Should you be talking about the science of AGW as being in flux, I can only say that I will play the odds. Regardless of what is said, I know that a vast majority of climatologist agree that AGW is real. The remaining few climatologists that disagree still need to be heard and given the opportunity to show the science that supports their views. I will go with the odds and side with the vast majority of climatologist that are in agreement with AGW and still listen to those that disagree with AGW. Should these odds change, then so will my bet.

"We tout what we think as fact and yet almost everyday more comes out that reduces our ability accept things as such." - As I have said, everyday is a lesson. I chose to except these lessons, no matter what they bring.

I am aware that the Kyoto treaty is being abandoned and I also know why it is so. Many nations feel it is pointless when the two largest contributors of GHG have not signed on to it. I must say that I cannot blame them. How could you blame them?

I remember your post on cloud formation and I did respond to it, if it is the one I am thinking of. I went back through the blog and did not find it. My response may have been in the previous blog. I am not certain. Was this the post that contained a link to Dr. Rod Spencer's blog where he discusses his theory on this? Was this on his theory that particles from cosmic rays aided in cloud formation and these "extra" cloud formations would counter act any effects by CO2 rise? Let me know, if this is correct or not.

I was not aware that the GISS data was weak with respect to consistency, over a period of time. Do you have a link to that?

"You hear many state that the temp is rising rapidly, but yet we hear by vitue of peer reviewed studies, things have not risen over a decade." - Yes, I have heard this as well. What decade are they speaking of? What is their starting point that they use to make this claim? 2000 - 2010? 1995 - 2005?

The scrubbers you speak of, are they the ones that China will start installing? My understanding is that the scrubbers are just now being installed. China was bringing online a new coal plant at the average rate of one/month for several years. I do not think scrubbers have been installed on them yet. The scrubbers are to be installed on any new coal plants they build. Do you have a link that shows different?

Give me a little time to study Bishop Hill's blog and research what he says. I will get back to you when I have done so.

As always, Ossqss, it has been a pleasure having a conversation with you.

Member Since: Augusti 24, 2010 Posts: 0 Comments: 4737
Quoting JBastardi:


You have a smart mouth to put it bluntly. You use your ideology to to bring up a red herring. Are you that retarded that you believe a state should have to come into compliance with regulations that no voter approved? Do you really think that citizens should face blackouts because of some alphabet agency's rules based on fraudulent science? As I've said before to others, you'd never use that tone if you were talking to me in person. You are the same as the rest of the warmists. You're becoming hysterical because the fraud is being exposed. What freaking climate change? A couple of tenths of a degree of temp based on improperly placed temp stations? You are the one who should get used to it, because your freaking fraud is over. The American people have seen it and want no part of it.

As for TX, I don't need to know anything about it from you. You are an arrogant waste of blood, and I have plenty of relatives there. While in the Marine Corps I spent some time there and I never met any wimps like you. Why don't you curl up and resume your fetal position? You'll give me a pass? I'd really like to meet you. You'd never be the same. These liberals are always the same hiding behind their monitor.


Is this the best you can do, J? You tell me that I have a smart mouth and call me wimp?

Show me were I used my ideology to bring a red herring. Should you attempt to do so, perhaps you should read this first:

The Supreme Court rules that the EPA either has to regulate CO2 as a greenhouse gas or to show evidence that it is not

You say that you wore the uniform and I believe you when you say this. You should then remember that you swore an oath when you enlisted. Part of that oath was to defend The Constitution of The United States of America. Our constitution set up three branches of government and the judicial branch is one of the branches. As you are also aware, The Supreme Court is the highest court of the land.

Granted, we did not vote on any regulations and we did not vote on our Supreme Court Justices. Why is that, J? Should you have forgotten, we have a representative form of government. We vote for our representatives and then they represent us, theoretically, in their respective offices. The legislative branch, of our government, is Congress. Congress is comprised of both The House of Representatives and The Senate.

"As I've said before to others, you'd never use that tone if you were talking to me in person." - Are you threatening me, J? Well, I suggest that you hope that nothing "suspicious" ever happens to me. When you put this on a blog, you have told the world. I would think the authorities may wish to have a word with you, should something happen to me.

Are you talking behind my back and have only now had the courage to say what is on your mind? Tell me, J, why would I not use that "tone" with you should we be talking face to face?

Come see me, if you so desire. I am of the age that I fear no man, I fear no terrorist, and I do not fear you. I am not suicidal, J but, I do not even fear death. That will prove to be a real problem for you. You cannot intimidate me.

Show me the science that shows the Earth's climate is not changing. Show me that AGW is a fraud. That is all I have ever asked.
Member Since: Augusti 24, 2010 Posts: 0 Comments: 4737
Quoting Some1Has2BtheRookie:


Ossqss, I will try to use an even emotion in my post.

I like you and I enjoy reading your posts. The post, of yours, that I now to respond to, is to a link that is far below your own reasoning ability. I fear that you have read, and have faith in, too many of J's post.

I came to this blog to learn more on the subject of climate change and AGW. Yet, what I have found, are those that might be able to show me that AGW is wrong simply are not able to do so. What I have gotten instead, is an ideological and philosophical trashing of what the science tells us. I will be completely amazed if we can negate climate change through philosophy and ideology. I would also cheer that we would be able to do so.

Well, you know what they say. Keep up, "the good fight".


Rookie, I too want the truth. Just to make that clear. I have yet to place much confidence in any projection science when we have so much to learn.

Policy is driven by what we think. Good or bad, that is how it is.

Right now, things are in a flux.

We tout what we think as fact and yet almost everyday more comes out that reduces our ability accept things as such.

The fact that most important nations are abandoning a key policy that bolsters the AGW claims speaks for itself.

When I mention cloud formation, everyone runs from it. Why? That is simply due to the fact that we have a very small grasp on how that works and what it means to climate and temperature.

Remember that all of the current driven policy rest upon the GISS data set (which is very weak with respect to consistency over time), and a study on tree rings that has been disposed of accordingly, but yet still drives opinion and policy.

You hear many state that the temp is rising rapidly, but yet we hear by vitue of peer reviewed studies, things have not risen over a decade.

That does not happen in a man made climate change world.

If you want to believe the introduction of scrubbers that have now made things different, it simply proves my point of how little we really understand.

Here, something to read relating to the dilemma I found years ago with this settled science.

I find the theory of AGW to be very slanted science at this point/

http://bishophill.squarespace.com/blog/2009/9/29/ the-yamal-implosion.html

Or here

The Yamal Implosion

Edit: Sorry for the voice to text errors :)

Whats going on?
Member Since: Juni 12, 2005 Posts: 6 Comments: 8185
Quoting Ossqss:
USEPA: Hell-Bent on Over-Control

The next election can't come soon enough.


Ossqss, I will try to use an even emotion in my post.

I like you and I enjoy reading your posts. The post, of yours, that I now to respond to, is to a link that is far below your own reasoning ability. I fear that you have read, and have faith in, too many of J's post.

I came to this blog to learn more on the subject of climate change and AGW. Yet, what I have found, are those that might be able to show me that AGW is wrong simply are not able to do so. What I have gotten instead, is an ideological and philosophical trashing of what the science tells us. I will be completely amazed if we can negate climate change through philosophy and ideology. I would also cheer that we would be able to do so.

Well, you know what they say. Keep up, "the good fight".
Member Since: Augusti 24, 2010 Posts: 0 Comments: 4737
Quoting JBastardi:
Looks like the EPA would rather see "cleaner" air than let all Americans have electricity on demand. I predicted this a month or so ago, and some of the bloggers on this site basically told me I was full of it:

Link


I see that you are back to amaze and dazzle the blog with your vast knowledge. Unfortunately, for you, I am not so easily amazed and dazzled.

I'll give you a pass on this one, JBatardi. Should all you have read is the one article, in your link, then it would be quite easy to think that this is something that was just sprung on Texas. The fact of the matter is that this has been a long fought battle between the State of Texas and the EPA. More properly put, between Governor Rick Perry and the EPA, for years.

Link

There are at least a dozen other states that have filed lawsuits against the EPA, along with Texas. The difference being is that ALL of the other states have started towards meeting compliance of the EPA regulations. Texas, under Governor Rick Perry, is the lone hold out at trying to meet compliance. You see, all of the other governors thought there might be a possibility they could lose the lawsuit and did not want to place an undue burden on their citizens, in this event. Rick Perry? Well, let us just say that he is not quite as smart as the rest of the governors. Should Texas experience rolling blackouts, in the future, then Rick Perry gets to share some of the responsibility for this. I am being kind, when I say this.

I live in Texas, JBastardi. Is there anything else you wish to know about Texas?

BTW, J, how does your post bring anything towards the debate on climate change. Could it be that climate change is proving to be too much of an inconvenience for you? Ideologically speaking, of course. May I suggest that you get use to it? The fact is, the climate will not change, to meet your ideological principles.
Member Since: Augusti 24, 2010 Posts: 0 Comments: 4737
USEPA: Hell-Bent on Over-Control

The next election can't come soon enough.
Member Since: Juni 12, 2005 Posts: 6 Comments: 8185
Looks like the EPA would rather see "cleaner" air than let all Americans have electricity on demand. I predicted this a month or so ago, and some of the bloggers on this site basically told me I was full of it:

Link
Member Since: Juli 5, 2011 Posts: 0 Comments: 403
Quoting theshepherd:
279. Some1Has2BtheRookie

(1)
IMHO: The biggest problem with the implementation of the Patriot Act and the proposterous hoops one has to jump through to travel at home between airports is the fact that airport authorities pay the US Gov't to police passengers.
Politicaly correct practices don't hold a candle to security correct practices.
When the airport authorities stop this nonsense and start contracting with "Private Industry" for the same service, conditions will improve.
You should be addressing the Airport Authorities with your exasperations, not the Gov't.

(2)
We didn't need the Supreme Court in 2005 to get involved, yet one more time, with States Rights. The only reason they did is that someone took them to task.
"Nobody" owns the property they live on or do business on. The States grant you the opportunity to "use" the property and as long as you pay your property taxes to the County and continue to abide by "Building Codes", you may continue to "use" the property....But, you will never "own" it.
Do not confuse Real Estate with "personal" property.
Yes, there is this "ugly witch" called Imminent Domain. This witch is controlled by elected officials. Only you "at the ballot box" can lock her broom in the closet only to be used in the most exigent circumstances. "Not at the whim of politicians lobbied by developers."
Imminent Domain will remain on the books. Get over it.
But, you "can" turn her back into the "good witch" she was designed to be.



Deflect, rather than address. Is this to be the order of the day? Fine, I will address your deflections.

(1) The Patriot Act needs to be eliminated and this is not just about one aspect of it. The entire act is flawed. Under the Patriot Act, phone companies were ordered to turn over ALL of their phone records. AT&T did so and without so much as a whimper. The other phone companies did as well, with varying degrees of complaints. Verizon fought this for the longest and the hardest but, eventually, did produce these records when threatened with a lawsuit and political embarrassment. ( Verizon is being unpatriotic! ) The Department of Homeleand Security, yet another expansion of government, was set up under The Patriot Act. Under The Department of Homeland Security, airport security, for one, comes under their authority and directives. Any entity, either private or public, must follow the directives of The Department of Homeland Security. Even if airport security is privatized you will still have to jump through all of these hoops when you choose to fly. You simple cannot escape this, no matter who is addressing the security issues, at airports, or who is paying for it. BTW, it is the passengers that pay for this security, in the form of additional fees. Not that the airlines are opposed to charging additional fees. ;-)

(2) Are you familiar with The Constitution of The United States of America? Are you familiar with the 5th Amendment under our constitution?

“nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation.”

You can read our constitution and its amendments here : Link

Now, the problem with the Supreme Court’s ruling, in 2005, is that they bastardised the phrase, “for the greater good of the people” to include increased tax revenues for state and local governments. Kind of smacks of communism, would you not agree?

Even this “concept” is severely flawed when you consider these things:

Under this ruling, by the Supreme Court, it was left up to the state/local government to determine what is to be, “just compensation” for the property owner. The property owner does not have the right to appeal or for arbitration. Kind of smacks of communism, does it not?
Now, even increased revenues, for the state/local government is called into question. There is not an uncommon practice, for state/local government, to offer financial incentives, to corporations that wish to build within their jurisdictions. These financial incentives may, and have, included tax breaks, no taxes for a period of time and, even, money paid to corporations to build within their jurisdiction. Are you able to guess what other financial incentives state/local government has GIVEN to corporations? Would you believe the land that they wish to build on? Even if this land was obtained through the 2005 Supreme Court ruling? There is absolutely nothing that prevents them from doing so. This kind of defeats this whole “increased tax revenue” aspect, does it not? Most especially when you consider the fact that some corporations will threaten to move to other states, or overseas, if these financial incentives do not continue, after they were due to expire. Are you beginning to see a practice being established here? What does that smack of? No, it is not communism, it is something else. Do you know what it is? No, it is not capitalism, for corporations have bastardised that as well. Guess again.

You also did not even try to address as to which Supreme Court Justices voted for this decision and which ones voted against it. Is there a reason for this? The entire Supreme Court ruling, on this, is fundamentally flawed. Why do you think so many states took actions to negate this decision?


I will tell you, and the blog, that I have very little respect for JBastardi’s input, on this blog. He seems to lack what many would term as, “common sense”. I will add, to JBastardis’s defense, that “common sense” is probably not a common as one might suspect it to be. I view your inputs, to this blog, in quite a different way. You do show a lot of “common sense” in the posts that you make and have added “food for thought”, to this blog. I like to believe that you have not fully carried out your thoughts into what it is that you think you believe in. No, I by no means intend this as an insult to you. All of us, including myself, sometimes fail to fully think through what it is that we think we believe in. I consider each day to be a lesson.

I apologize to you, Professor Rood. I seem to have strayed from the subject of climate change. I hope, that when consider the “debate” over climate change seems to be more of a philosophical and ideological debate as opposed to a debate of the science, that you will consider my “tangent” not too far off of the discussion of climate change. ….. Well, this is my excuse and I will have to go with it.
Member Since: Augusti 24, 2010 Posts: 0 Comments: 4737
This



prevents this.





Greenland's glaciers keep shrinking as higher surface temperatures have created record mass losses in 2010 and 2011, researchers announced this week.

"Our fieldwork results are a key indication of the rapid changes now being seen in and around Greenland, which are evident not just on this glacier but also on many surrounding small glaciers," study researcher Edward Hanna said in a statement. "It's clear that this is now a very dynamic environment in terms of its response and mass wastage to ongoing climate change."

A glacier's mass balance is the difference between the snow and ice it accumulates and how much of it melts and sublimates (when a solid turns directly into a gas). It is the most sensitive way of measuring climate's effects on a glacier, the researchers said. [Ice World: Gallery of Awe-Inspiring Glaciers] Mass loss is measured using a stake stuck into the glacier. The length of stake exposed is measured at the end of the melt (ablation) season, which is around August. It is measured in meters of water equivalent, the depth of the resulting melt water.

Greenland's longest-observed glacier, Mittivakkat, showed two consecutive record losses in mass during recent melt seasons. In 2010 around 7 feet of water were lost (2.16 meters, 2 percent of the total glacier volume) and in 2011 about 8 feet (2.45 m) melted away.

The researchers didn't directly determine the cause of the mass loss, but most agree increased melting from higher surface temperatures, caused by climate change, is to blame. The water lost from the glaciers ends up in the sea, raising the sea level.

Other glaciers in Greenland show comparable glacier-edge retreats from melting, and these glaciers are similar to the Mittivakkat in size and elevation range.Therefore, the researchers believe these mass losses would be representative of the broader region, which includes many hundreds of local glaciers.

"The retreat of these small glaciers also makes the nearby Greenland Ice Sheet more vulnerable to further summer warming," Hanna said. "There could also be an effect on North Atlantic Ocean circulation and weather patterns through melting so much extra ice."

The melting of glaciers has been found, for instance, to have an impact on the gravity above the area.

The 2010 results were published in April in the journal The Cryosphere. The researchers say this year's data will be published as well, though they have yet to submit a paper.


Link

Member Since: Januari 2, 2006 Posts: 127 Comments: 20393
267. CorneliaMarie 3:40 PM EDT on August 19, 2011 +1
I seriously doubt that NRAamy rubbed anything on the fake cajun....

ewww....


************************************************* ******

ROFLMAO
I seriously agree.
:)))
Member Since: Posts: Comments:
279. Some1Has2BtheRookie

(1)
IMHO: The biggest problem with the implementation of the Patriot Act and the proposterous hoops one has to jump through to travel at home between airports is the fact that airport authorities pay the US Gov't to police passengers.
Politicaly correct practices don't hold a candle to security correct practices.
When the airport authorities stop this nonsense and start contracting with "Private Industry" for the same service, conditions will improve.
You should be addressing the Airport Authorities with your exasperations, not the Gov't.

(2)
We didn't need the Supreme Court in 2005 to get involved, yet one more time, with States Rights. The only reason they did is that someone took them to task.
"Nobody" owns the property they live on or do business on. The States grant you the opportunity to "use" the property and as long as you pay your property taxes to the County and continue to abide by "Building Codes", you may continue to "use" the property....But, you will never "own" it.
Do not confuse Real Estate with "personal" property.
Yes, there is this "ugly witch" called Imminent Domain. This witch is controlled by elected officials. Only you "at the ballot box" can lock her broom in the closet only to be used in the most exigent circumstances. "Not at the whim of politicians lobbied by developers."
Imminent Domain will remain on the books. Get over it.
But, you "can" turn her back into the "good witch" she was designed to be.

Member Since: Posts: Comments:
Quoting JBastardi:


Why is it that you believe that conservatives have any less interest in protecting the environment than yourself? Environmentalists, for the most part, are aligned with communists and socialists. The green party has been absorbed by the ultra-left wing groups. In fact, the Socialist Party released their membership roles. Guess what? Seventy-five democrats in the US House of Representatives are members of the Socialist Party. So, when you say you laugh when people call you socialist or communist, you shouldn't be so condescending.

America has swung much more towards socialism than many would like you to believe. The leftists have achieved several planks of the Communist Manifesto. We have government education. We have a central bank. We have a graduated income tax. We have alphabet agencies actually putting people in jail without due process. We have confiscation of private land. The list goes on and on. Perhaps we don't have outright communism, but we are losing our liberties on a daily basis and the people don't even realize it until they are prosecuted for a crime they didn't even know existed. Your parents fled a communist society, you wrote. Do you truly trust governments to tell you what real science is? This global warming scam is just another reason to enforce more laws on a global scale.


You make some valid points there, JBartardi. Let us see who it is that is making the land grabs and taking away our rights:

1. The Patriot Act - What a misnomer that is! Who brought us this act, J? How do you feel when you have to go through what amounts to a strip search when you want to fly from one U.S. airport to another U.S. airport? How do you feel about this and knowing all the while that illegal immigrants walk across our open borders? These illegal immigrants are uncounted and unchecked. We do not even know what countries they are coming from. You, I and every other U.S. citizen and legal immigrant have to go through a strip search while just trying to fly from one city to another. By YOUR standards, aren't Bush and the Republican controlled Congress of the time nothing but a bunch of commies? Yeah, that is what I thought!

2. The Supreme Court, in 2005, ruled that land can be taken from private citizens and given to municipalities, all in the name of, "for the greater good of the community". This was not a unanimous decision by the Supreme Court. This was a split decision by a 5-4 vote. Do you know which Justices voted for this? Take a close look at who the commies are J!

Read it and weep!

3. Texas Governor, Rick Perry, was grabbing private land for The Trans Texas Corridor. 4,000 miles of toll roads that would be managed by a Spanish company.

Enjoy your movie!

After your movie and popcorn, you can read the links on this page. Enjoy!

While Governor Rick Perry holds the spotlight, let me shine it on another of his plans - Rick Perry MANDATES vaccines for TEENAGE GIRLS! Enjoy the reading, J!

Texas Governor, Rick Perry, is the leader of the Texas Tea Party and a member of the Right Wing Christian Coalition. Are you feeling a little queezy in the stomach, J?

Now, by your announcements of what constitutes a commie, isn't it REALLY the conservatives that more adequately fulfills your description? Yeah, that is what I thought! Start thinking for yourself, J, or get ready to fight the commies in the REPUBLICAN PARTY! How do you like me now?!?! Is it true that the TRUTH hurts, J?

BTW, J. Let me clear something up for you. I voted for Ron Paul in 2008 and will do so again in 2012. Why? He, for one thing, wants to overturn the Patriot Act. My personal opinion of anyone that supports The Patriot Act? They have ABSOLUTELY NO IDEA of what it means to be a patriot. They are also nothing but a bunch of wimpy cowards that has to get "BIG BROTHER" to watch over them while they go see their sports games. As far as I am concerned, they can ALL climb back onto their bellies and crawl back into their bomb shelters.

As you may have guessed, by now, J, you hit a nerve with me. The next time you point your finger at the "commies, make sure you are pointing in the right direction. Wiggle your way out of this, J, IF you can!

For your amusement, J. Conservatism is caused by AGW. ;-)
Member Since: Augusti 24, 2010 Posts: 0 Comments: 4737
Just bouncing through ~

Seeing all the rhetoric, it fits :)

Member Since: Juni 12, 2005 Posts: 6 Comments: 8185
Streamtracker- You raise some interesting points and logical ideas. The species moving one I find interesting in the fact that some species move toward the poles while others move toward the equator. This would seem to indicate AGWT can not be the main driver, also there are many more species in the tropics compared to the poles so it would only seem logical for the 88% vs 22% finding. The Monnett thing comparing Clinical peer review to most climate change peer review is incomparable. Clinical peer review is suppose to be the most thorough review and having an open peer review process would be the fairest. The salmon part I agree water is warmed by air temp. but from what I can find on the subject, over fishing, depleted oxygen, dams, land use, viruses and genetics seem to be the main drivers. Water warmed by air temperature has an effect but it seems rather small at this time. The Pine Beetle part I can not find one credible paper that blames AGWT to be a main or secondary driver but rather a POSSIBLE underlying contributor. The point of all of this is lets say at the time you die you have Heart Disease, Hypertension, Diabetes and Gout and were taking medications for these ailments which helped suppress your immune system and you catch the Flu which kills you. Question was it actually the Flu that was the main driver or second or third and so on of your demise? Once again don't confuse me with being a denier of warming but a skeptic of how great a role man has in it and if we can ever really change it to be much warmer or much cooler.
Member Since: Juli 6, 2011 Posts: 0 Comments: 2255
Quoting streamtracker:


I teach ecology, evolution, animal behavior, and conservation biology at a large university. I am not a socialist or communist. My immediate family history includes those who were driven out of their country, imprisoned, and tortured by the their like. When people call Obama a communist I laugh at them, because they have no idea what communism is. When people call those concerned about global warming communists I think they are assholes. I believe in a capitalist system whose excesses are regulated by well reasoned laws. The clean water act is the reason why I can take my daughter fishing and swimming in a local river. I am not a ludite and pursue hobbies like downhill skiing and building guitar pedals. I pick resorts that use wind energy to power them and wish the government would launch a moon-shot like program to develop alternative energy to power my drive up to my resort. I hate global warming mostly because in the long-term it will make skiing in the northeast lousy.


Why is it that you believe that conservatives have any less interest in protecting the environment than yourself? Environmentalists, for the most part, are aligned with communists and socialists. The green party has been absorbed by the ultra-left wing groups. In fact, the Socialist Party released their membership roles. Guess what? Seventy-five democrats in the US House of Representatives are members of the Socialist Party. So, when you say you laugh when people call you socialist or communist, you shouldn't be so condescending.

America has swung much more towards socialism than many would like you to believe. The leftists have achieved several planks of the Communist Manifesto. We have government education. We have a central bank. We have a graduated income tax. We have alphabet agencies actually putting people in jail without due process. We have confiscation of private land. The list goes on and on. Perhaps we don't have outright communism, but we are losing our liberties on a daily basis and the people don't even realize it until they are prosecuted for a crime they didn't even know existed. Your parents fled a communist society, you wrote. Do you truly trust governments to tell you what real science is? This global warming scam is just another reason to enforce more laws on a global scale.
Member Since: Juli 5, 2011 Posts: 0 Comments: 403
Humm, polar bears again?

Obviously most of you did not actually read the transcripts of the interview I posted prior.

So tell me, how many dead polar bears were actually viewed as part of this whole debacle,,,,, 3 or 4 ?

I understand the passion many of you have, but it should not rank higher than truth.

Here,,,, your second chance at the facts.

http://www.peer.org/docs/doi/7_28_11_Monnett-IG_i nterview_transcript.pdf
Member Since: Juni 12, 2005 Posts: 6 Comments: 8185
Quoting iceagecoming:

Well,it seems NraAmy rubbed off on you a bit.
Ancient and justified. Where the heck she get too anyhow? Puma Punku at Tiwanaku.


Shes on a permanent WU-cation I hear.

Puma Punku was done by Cajun Mason's Im leaning on as a theory.


Im mo like Tommy Gavin,

Hard to be a Cajun, with a Irish name.

Me thinks "thou do protest too much".

Espically with a Rogue Handle of a Boat from a LA'me TV show.

Bad seeds never grow here.




Ciao...
Member Since: Juli 3, 2005 Posts: 421 Comments: 127566
Quoting streamtracker:


~I hate global warming mostly because in the long-term it will make skiing in the northeast lousy.


Skiing was lousy in the NE before you were born
Member Since: Posts: Comments:
Quoting streamtracker:


I teach ecology, evolution, animal behavior, and conservation biology at a large university. I am not a socialist or communist. My immediate family history includes those who were driven out of their country, imprisoned, and tortured by the their like. When people call Obama a communist I laugh at them, because they have no idea what communism is. When people call those concerned about global warming communists I think they are assholes. I believe in a capitalist system whose excesses are regulated by well reasoned laws. The clean water act is the reason why I can take my daughter fishing and swimming in a local river. I am not a ludite and pursue hobbies like downhill skiing and building guitar pedals. I pick resorts that use wind energy to power them and wish the government would launch a moon-shot like program to develop alternative energy to power my drive up to my resort. I hate global warming mostly because in the long-term it will make skiing in the northeast lousy.
O.K. Thanks for the brief bio. I am also interested in alternative forms of energy,especially ones you can make yourself and get off the power grid. If that helps the environment then so be it!
Member Since: Juni 24, 2007 Posts: 0 Comments: 1457
Quoting overwash12:
Thank you,I thought it might be weather related. Now,are you a biology teacher?If I might ask.


I teach ecology, evolution, animal behavior, and conservation biology at a large university. I am not a socialist or communist. My immediate family history includes those who were driven out of their country, imprisoned, and tortured by the their like. When people call Obama a communist I laugh at them, because they have no idea what communism is. When people call those concerned about global warming communists I think they are assholes. I believe in a capitalist system whose excesses are regulated by well reasoned laws. The clean water act is the reason why I can take my daughter fishing and swimming in a local river. I am not a ludite and pursue hobbies like downhill skiing and building guitar pedals. I pick resorts that use wind energy to power them and wish the government would launch a moon-shot like program to develop alternative energy to power my drive up to my resort. I hate global warming mostly because in the long-term it will make skiing in the northeast lousy.
Member Since: Oktober 24, 2005 Posts: 12 Comments: 1731
Nymore:

"Next the study proving AGWT causing animals to move north to colder climates for one thing it says over 22% are moving south and they can not fully explain the altitude one maybe it is just natural to expand your habitat."

What about the rest of the 88%. And what about the strong relationship between rate of movement north and amount of warming. Yes, there are other factors that can cause range expansions, but for most of these species warming is the most reasonable explanation. And the authors are very clear about making it clear that other factors can cause range shifts. See my comment #263.

Yes, range expansion is "natural" but it doesn't occur in a vacuum. Something drives it. For coyotes it was changes in landuse and the extirpation of wolves, and in some areas hybridization with wolves (northeastern coyote). For something like the cardinal the most plausible explanation is climate change.

There is no evidence that Monnet purposefully committed fraud. At most it seems he over-reached in his conclusions. And peer-review is the first pass in the scientific process not the final. It is considered essential but not comprehensive. Any working scientist knows that once your paper is out it is now open for wider "peer-review". This is why journals publish responses to papers and this is why other scientists challenge each others work by publishing their own work. Finding one paper that may or may not be valid, does not 1) discredit all peer-reviewed papers 2) discredit a whole field of work. Rather this is how science progresses. Take for instance cancer research - there are examples of a few scientists who committed fraud and whose work slipped by peer-review. But, since science is self-correcting they were eventually found out. This does not mean that peer-review of all cancer research is in question or that the field of cancer research as a whole is in question. Politicians or others with an interest in discrediting inconvenient research may exploit the actions of one scientist to further their agenda's, but that has nothing to do with the overall pursuit of science.

This one card crumbles the castle idea is one of the most dishonest and illogical propaganda sound bites put out by the denialist mill.

At this point I am holding my judgment on the Monnet paper since what is mostly being reported is the type of trash you see in the IFT. I'm waiting for the full investigation to come out. Just as I did with the Haldey data and with Mann's work. In both cases they were exonerated by further review. This despite the misinformation pile-on from the denialist press and blogoshere.

Yes, dams warm water, but the water is warming where there are no damns and damns have been around for a while without the noticeable warming now being experienced.

Yes, I am well aware of the multiple causality of the pine bark eruptions. The experts also agree that warming changes the thresholds at which these other factors operate and makes it more likely that there will be outbreaks. And that climate change makes recovery from such outbreaks less likely. So, this is not business as usual.

As someone who studies biodiversity issues I am well aware that there are multiple stressors that impact species populations. Demonstrating that there are other factors does not discount warming as an additional and often synergistic factor. It is equally as illogical to claim warming is never a factor as it is to claim it is always a factor.

Yes, if you look at coral dynamics there are multiple factors. For many species warming is a very important one.

Northern New England is about right. To prevent J from sending his zombie army my way I won't be anymore specific.
Member Since: Oktober 24, 2005 Posts: 12 Comments: 1731
Quoting CorneliaMarie:
I seriously doubt that NRAamy rubbed anything on the fake cajun....

ewww....



Aliens Could Attack Earth to End Global Warming, NASA Frets
Published August 19, 2011

| NewsCore



UNIVERSITY PARK, Penn. – We've all heard of the ravaged rain forests and the plight of the polar bear. But as far as reasons for saving the planet go, the one offered by scientists Thursday is truly out of this world.

A team of American researchers have produced a range of scenarios in which aliens could attack the earth, and curiously, one revolves around climate change.

They speculate that extraterrestrial environmentalists could be so appalled by our planet-polluting ways that they view us as a threat to the intergalactic ecosystem and decide to destroy us.The thought-provoking scenario is one of many envisaged in a joint study by Penn State and the NASA Planetary Science Division, entitled "Would Contact with Extraterrestrials Benefit or Harm Humanity? A Scenario Analysis."

It divides projected close encounters into "neutral," those that cause mankind "unintentional harm" and, more worryingly, those in which aliens do us "intentional harm."

Extraterrestrial intelligence (ETI) "could attack and kill us, enslave us, or potentially even eat us. ETI could attack us out of selfishness or out of a more altruistic desire to protect the galaxy from us. We might be a threat to the galaxy just as we are a threat to our home planet," it warns.

One such scenario is the stuff of many a Hollywood blockbuster, a "standard fight-to-win conflict: a war of the worlds." But another might resonate more with fans of Al Gore's documentary film "An Inconvenient truth."

It speculates that aliens, worried we might inflict the damage done to our own planet on others, might "seek to preemptively destroy our civilization in order to protect other civilizations from us."

"Humanity may just now be entering the period in which its rapid civilizational expansion could be detected by an ETI because our expansion is changing the composition of Earth's atmosphere (e.g. via greenhouse gas
emissions), which therefore changes the spectral signature of Earth," the study says.

"While it is difficult to estimate the likelihood of this scenario, it should at a minimum give us pause as we evaluate our expansive tendencies."

But before we brace ourselves for alien annihilation, the report suggests things could turn in humanity's favor.

"As we continue the search for extraterrestrials into the future, perhaps our thinking about the different modes of contact will help human civilization to avoid collapse and achieve long-term survival," it suggests.





LOL! Seems like they already have!


Link


Member Since: Januari 2, 2006 Posts: 127 Comments: 20393
Quoting Patrap:
Humans are naive enough to believe this is "Our" Planet.

The Annunaki,...well they coming to collect the rent soon.

And oil aint it.



Ciao fer now

Well,it seems NraAmy rubbed off on you a bit.
Ancient and justified. Where the heck she get too anyhow? Puma Punku at Tiwanaku.
Member Since: Posts: Comments:
Looking at the pattern upcoming it appears this year will surpass 2007 on September 3rd and take over #1 for lowest sea-ice extent.

Also looking like a late minimum - 9/20 - with 4,150,000 sq.km extent and that's where I'm putting it.

Minimum one month from tomorrow about 100,000sq.km lower than 2007's low.
Member Since: Posts: Comments:
I will do this quick since I am having lunch. The polar bear review Monnett and his buddies wrote was an attempt to perpetrate a fraud on the public. I find it hard to believe 7 or 8 people never found a problem with how Monnett and Gleason came to their conclusions but when someone actually looked for them they found them, I thought that is what peer review was for. Next the study proving AGWT causing animals to move north to colder climates for one thing it says over 22% are moving south and they can not fully explain the altitude one maybe it is just natural to expand your habitat. Next the shark bite thing being caused by Global warming is non sense it is caused by human behavior not AGWT. Next the bat thing when you ever see the words might, maybe or could happen it means we have no proof in fact that it will happen or is happening kind of like the malaria thing they tried to use till it was pointed out that a very bad out break of malaria happened I believe in the early 1900's in Russia all the way to the arctic. Next the pine beetle outbreak there are several causes wildfire suppression causing thicker older forests coupled with a mild drought and a natural cycle of the beetle, the beetle kills older trees not the young healthy ones and it has happened many times in the past forest experts say it is nothing unusual to nature it is only unusual to us. Next the salmon thing warmer water in rivers primary cause man-made dams creating reservoirs that deplete oxygen and warm the waters. Next dying elkhorn coral not caused by AGWT but by human excrement from sewage plants and septic tanks. If any one would like me to source any or all of these just post it and when I get home later will be more than happy to. By the way I do believe it has warmed just that it is only minorly at best mans fault the climate is never static. BBL PS if I had to guess where you live Stream I would say somewhere around Vermont or New Hampshire.
Member Since: Juli 6, 2011 Posts: 0 Comments: 2255
Quoting JBastardi:


Anytime something appears to change in nature, the warmists are all ready to blame supposed changes in climate. The favorite buzz-phrase is "research suggests that the change might be attributable to climate change." The truth is that it might be attributable to several other factors, but it always boils down to non-existent climate change. My question to you is why is everything first blamed on "climate change" then the truth always seems to come out years later? Just like climate change was blamed for grizzly population drops and now we see that the population has increase by a factor of three. How in the hell do we know exactly what the exact range of vampire bats was in the first place? I don't trust any researchers with a predisposition to first blame global warming then look at other factors. Are we to take their word that the range of bats has actually changed?

If you want me to play your game, I will entertain you. Maybe the range changed (if it actually has) because the food supply for the bats has decreased as in cattle being less plentiful. Food supply is the primary driver of animal migration -- not a couple of negligible tenths of a degree in temperature change. How about shelter? Maybe man has encroached on areas where the bats lived? No, nothing in your mind could cause a change except global warming. The be all, end all. What will you do when the temp starts dropping? I guess you will still blame CO2.


"My question to you is why is everything first blamed on "climate change" then the truth always seems to come out years later?"

J, this one of my areas of expertise. I assure you that when researchers look at phenomenon like increased pine beetle depredation, earlier arrival dates of birds, range expansions, etc., they don't look first or just at climate change. They look at multiple alternative hypothesis that might explain the changes. In many cases, the only plausible explanation is climate change. When it's not, then the alternatives are reported as the most plausible explanation - look at range expansion in cowbirds versus cardinal for an example of that.

Food supply is primarily determined by plant associations. Plant associations are primarily determined by climate (temperature and precipitation) and soils. These are well established ecological mechanisms.

If you think it's cattle for vampire bats, show us the data that supports the idea that cattle distributions have changed.

If temperatures drop over the mid-term I predict ranges will retract to the south. If they drop enough I predict that the hemlock/northern hardwood forest around my property will be replaced by a boreal forest, and if it gets colder still by tundra. If it continues to warm the forests around me will be replaced by Oak/Hickory forests. (Where do I live?)

Further more, animals and plants often respond to the extremes and not to the "negligible" average changes.

It is very well established by physiological ecologists that temperature is one of the key factors that determines where animals and plants are found. I don't have time to get into it, but look up "climate envelope". This type of research was conducted decades before the term AGW was coined.
Member Since: Oktober 24, 2005 Posts: 12 Comments: 1731
Quoting overwash12:
I think it all boils down to what extent is man changing the climate (.001% all the way to 100%) .To say 100% would be a bold statement,unless we are preventing a mini ice-age by our c02 output and when the Earth naturally warms we will be toast!


Is it our obligation to change our contribution to it back to what it was prior to our involvement or just leave it alone and do nothing?
Member Since: Januari 2, 2006 Posts: 127 Comments: 20393
Quoting cyclonebuster:


Also the way the landmass is down there compared to the North. However,the ice area over water is declining due to the warmth of the ocean eroding it. That is where the danger waits.
That's why we need tunnels!!!
Member Since: Juni 24, 2007 Posts: 0 Comments: 1457
I think it all boils down to what extent is man changing the climate (.001% all the way to 100%) .To say 100% would be a bold statement,unless we are preventing a mini ice-age by our c02 output and when the Earth naturally warms we will be toast!
Member Since: Juni 24, 2007 Posts: 0 Comments: 1457
Quoting overwash12:
Cyclonebuster,Somehow I really do not believe the ice at the southpole is in any danger of melting anytime soon,as it is incredibly cold down there!


Also the way the landmass is down there compared to the North. However,the ice area over water is declining due to the warmth of the ocean eroding it. That is where the danger waits.
Member Since: Januari 2, 2006 Posts: 127 Comments: 20393
Quoting JBastardi:


"... but it always boils down to non-existent climate change. ..."


That one comment will probably place you in the .0001 % of the population that can actually form a thought. Are you of the opinion that our climate is stagnant? Make up your mind. Is the climate getting cooler, warmer or staying forever fixed? I see you make posts, over time, that would seem to support all 3.
Member Since: Augusti 24, 2010 Posts: 0 Comments: 4737
Quoting streamtracker:


There are several sub-species of Canada Geese. Some of these sub-species are non-migratory. In addition, the population genetics of Canada Geese can be complicated. Many varieties were artificially breed and released, some of which mixed with wild birds. Some of these artificially selected varieties are non-migratory. Finally some "non-migratory" subspecies will make short-distance migrations when conditions are poor.

As an aside migratory Geese are on average arriving earlier to breeding grounds. There is a very strong correlation between arrival date and temperature. This is also for true for many other species of migratory birds as biological Spring is pushed to an earlier average arrival date.
Thank you,I thought it might be weather related. Now,are you a biology teacher?If I might ask.
Member Since: Juni 24, 2007 Posts: 0 Comments: 1457
Cyclonebuster,Somehow I really do not believe the ice at the southpole is in any danger of melting anytime soon,as it is incredibly cold down there!
Member Since: Juni 24, 2007 Posts: 0 Comments: 1457
Quoting overwash12:
Streamtracker,I live in N.E. North Carolina,I have noticed a small amount of Canadian geese that do not make the long trip back to Canada to breed,they stay here in the marsh where I live nearby.They hatch their young here and I suppose the young will do the same as their parents when they grow up. Your thoughts on this?


There are several sub-species of Canada Geese. Some of these sub-species are non-migratory. In addition, the population genetics of Canada Geese can be complicated. Many varieties were artificially breed and released, some of which mixed with wild birds. Some of these artificially selected varieties are non-migratory. Finally some "non-migratory" subspecies will make short-distance migrations when conditions are poor.

As an aside migratory Geese are on average arriving earlier to breeding grounds. There is a very strong correlation between arrival date and temperature. This is also for true for many other species of migratory birds as biological Spring is pushed to an earlier average arrival date.
Member Since: Oktober 24, 2005 Posts: 12 Comments: 1731
This





prevents this.



Researcher: Arctic Ice Flow Map is a Game Changer

Thanks to satellite imagery and precise work, NASA researchers have pieced together a map that can track the arctic ice flow for the first time ever.The result is a possible game changer for the scientific community says Eric Rignot, a Professor at Earth System Science School of Physical Sciences at UC. Rignot, also the Principal Scientist at the Radar Science and Engineering Section at NASA's Jet Propulsion Laboratory (JPL), lead the team of researchers in piecing together the arctic map.

Using billions of data points from European, Japanese and Canadian satellites, Rignot and his team were able to piece together a map of the ice flow. Rignot says this is a huge development which could help track future sea-level increases from climate change.



"This is like seeing a map of all the oceans' currents for the first time. It's a game changer for glaciology," Rignot said. "We are seeing amazing flows from the heart of the continent that had never been described before."

For 15 years, NASA worked in conjunction with various space agencies across the world to collect the data points that helped create this map. While some of the information was already known, the scientists made certain discoveries.

The researchers discovered a new ridge splitting the 5.4 million-square-mile (14 million-square-kilometer) landmass from east to west. They also found unnamed formations moving up to 800 feet, which move annually across large plains to the Antarctic Ocean.

"The map points out something fundamentally new: that ice moves by slipping along the ground it rests. That's critical knowledge for predicting future sea level rise. It means that if we lose ice at the coasts from the warming ocean, we open the tap to massive amounts of ice in the interior," said Thomas Wagner, NASA's cryospheric program scientist in Washington.



Link
Member Since: Januari 2, 2006 Posts: 127 Comments: 20393
Quoting streamtracker:


Did you read the info on bats? Not very closely it seems: "Although vampire bats currently are found only in Latin America, research suggests that the range of these bats might be expanding as a result of changes in climate."

So why else might they be expanding their range? I am open to plausible hypothesis.

Please look at post#229 for the latest paper published in the US's top science journal that documents range expansion of species linked to warming.

Not everything on that list is things that scientists have attributed to AGW. Here's just one for example:

"The founder member of Strange Phenomena Investigations, added: "There has been an unusual number of sightings recently.

"Some experts believe it could be linked to global warming and craft from outer space are appearing because they are concerned about what man is doing to this planet."

Strange Phenomena Investigations is not exactly a credible scientific body. Your list is padded with BS.


Anytime something appears to change in nature, the warmists are all ready to blame supposed changes in climate. The favorite buzz-phrase is "research suggests that the change might be attributable to climate change." The truth is that it might be attributable to several other factors, but it always boils down to non-existent climate change. My question to you is why is everything first blamed on "climate change" then the truth always seems to come out years later? Just like climate change was blamed for grizzly population drops and now we see that the population has increase by a factor of three. How in the hell do we know exactly what the exact range of vampire bats was in the first place? I don't trust any researchers with a predisposition to first blame global warming then look at other factors. Are we to take their word that the range of bats has actually changed?

If you want me to play your game, I will entertain you. Maybe the range changed (if it actually has) because the food supply for the bats has decreased as in cattle being less plentiful. Food supply is the primary driver of animal migration -- not a couple of negligible tenths of a degree in temperature change. How about shelter? Maybe man has encroached on areas where the bats lived? No, nothing in your mind could cause a change except global warming. The be all, end all. What will you do when the temp starts dropping? I guess you will still blame CO2.
Member Since: Juli 5, 2011 Posts: 0 Comments: 403

Viewing: 303 - 253

Page: 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10Blog Index

Top of Page

About RickyRood

I'm a professor at U Michigan and lead a course on climate change problem solving. These articles often come from and contribute to the course.