No more global warming?

[Subotan]

How interesting. When you're a "Rightist" (To use the inverse of Fragony's favourite word), it's good to say to put down opponents as utilising the "politics of envy" and "class warfare". But when that opponent is, say, a world renowned speaker on climate change, then it's OK to rant about the excesses of the wealthy

[drone]

How interesting. When you're a "Rightist" (To use the inverse of Fragony's favourite word), it's good to say to put down opponents as utilising the "politics of envy" and "class warfare". But when that opponent is, say, a world renowned speaker on climate change, then it's OK to rant about the excesses of the wealthy

It's not a rant against the excesses of the wealthy, it's a rant against the hypocrisy of Al Gore. Nothing new really, it's been known since http://www.snopes.com/politics/bush/house.asp

Gore's new villa is in Cali, so it probably gets some power from wind/solar, but judging from past actions it's unlikely he's paying the premiums to get all green energy.

[Beskar]

Actually, anyone who cares about Climate Change doesn't give two hoots about Al Gore. I never cared for him, I haven't even seen his film.

[Fragony]

How interesting. When you're a "Rightist" (To use the inverse of Fragony's favourite word), it's good to say to put down opponents as utilising the "politics of envy" and "class warfare". But when that opponent is, say, a world renowned speaker on climate change, then it's OK to rant about the excesses of the wealthy

Don't you think it's kinda funny if the man who warned the world for DEATH BY SEA buys a house at the coast?

[Furunculus]

der-spiegel has another big article about the climate-gate affair:

http://www.spiegel.de/international/...694484,00.html

[Beskar]

der-spiegel has another big article about the climate-gate affair:

http://www.spiegel.de/international/...694484,00.html

It is surprising you posted that, you just made all the rabid Climate Skeptics look like sheeples for industry and big corperations which are desperate to cover up the facts and try to denounce it.

Then it is obvious that this abuse from the industry ended up meaning innocent people have to huddle together in the dark, scared, because of the witch-hunt.

[Furunculus]

you shouldn't be surprised i posted that, unless you have utterly failed to understand my position on climate change in spite of the many times i have explained it.

[InsaneApache]

Dear oh dear oh dear.

Spoiler Alert, click show to read: 

A recent scientific theory called the "hydrate hypothesis" says that historical global warming cycles have been caused by a feedback loop, where melting permafrost methane clathrates (also known as "hydrates") spur local global warming, leading to further melting of clathrates and bacterial growth.

In other words, like western Siberia, the 400 billion tons of methane in permafrost hydrate will gradually melt, and the released methane will speed the melting. The effect of even a couple of billion tons of methane being emitted into the atmosphere each year would be catastrophic.

The "hydrate hypothesis" (if validated) spells the rapid onset of runaway catastrophic global warming. In fact, you should remember this moment when you learned about this feedback loop-it is an existencial turning point in your life.

By the way, the "hydrate hypothesis" is a weeks old scientific theory, and is only now being discussed by global warming scientists. I suggest you Google the term.

Now that most scientists agree human activity is causing the Earth to warm, the central debate has shifted to when we will pass the tipping point and be helpless to stop the runaway Global Warming.

There are enormous quantities of methane trapped in permafrost and under the oceans in ice-like structures called clathrates. The methane in Arctic permafrost clathrates is estimated at 400 billion tons.

Methane is more than 20 times as strong a greenhouse gas as CO2, and the atmosphere currently contains about 3.5 billion tons of the gas.

The highest temperature increase from global warming is occurring in the arctic regions-an area rich in these unstable clathrates. Simulations from the National Center for Atmospheric Research (NCAR) show that over half the permafrost will thaw by 2050, and as much as 90 percent by 2100.

Peat deposits may be a comparable methane source to melting permafrost. When peat that has been frozen for thousands of years thaws, it still contains viable populations of bacteria that begin to convert the peat into methane and CO2.

Western Siberia is heating up faster than anywhere else in the world, having experienced a rise of some 3C in the past 40 years. The west Siberian peat bog could hold some 70 billion tonnes of methane. Local atmospheric levels of methane on the Siberian shelf are now 25 times higher than global concentrations.

By the way, warmer temperatures and longer growing seasons have caused microbial activity to increase dramatically in the soil around the world. This, in turn, means that much of the carbon long stored in the soil is now being released into the atmosphere.

Releases of methane from melting oceanic clathrates have caused severe environmental impacts in the past. The methane in oceanic clathrates has been estimated at 10,000 billion tons.

55 million years ago a global warming chain reaction (probably started by volcanic activity) melted oceanic clathrates. It was one of the most rapid and extreme global warming events in geologic history.

Humans appear to be capable of emitting CO2 in quantities comparable to the volcanic activity that started these chain reactions. According to the U.S. Geological Survey, burning fossil fuels releases more than 150 times the amount of CO2 emitted by volcanoes.

Methane in the atmosphere does not remain long, persisting for about 10 years before being oxidized to CO2 (a greenhouse gas that lasts for hundreds of thousands of years). Chronic methane releases oxidizing into CO2 contribute as much to warming as does the transient methane concentrations.

To summarize, human activity is causing the Earth to warm. Bacteria converts carbon in the soil into greenhouse gasses, and enormous quantities are trapped in unstable clathrates. As the earth continues to warm, permafrost clathrates will thaw; peat and soil microbial activity will dramatically increase; and, finally, vast oceanic clathrates will melt. This global warming chain reaction has happened in the past.

Atmospheric concentrations of CO2 rose by a record amount over the past year. It is the third successive year in which they have increased sharply. Scientists are at a loss to explain why the rapid rise has taken place, but fear the trend could be the first sign of runaway global warming.

Runaway Global Warming promises to literally burn-up agricultural areas into dust worldwide by 2012, causing global famine, anarchy, diseases, and war on a global scale as military powers including the U.S., Russia, and China, fight for control of the Earth's remaining resources.

Over 4.5 billion people could die from Global Warming related causes by 2012, as planet Earth accelarates into a greed-driven horrific catastrophe.

http://www.agoracosmopolitan.com/hom.../08/01291.html

I don't know what I'm getting smug about. There's only two years left. Run for the hills!

[Fragony]

Owwwwwwwwwwwww 4.5 billion will be DEAD. Not alive. Muerto. IF WE DO NOT ACT RIGHT NOW

Forgive me mother nature for I bought kewl stuff.

WE ARE DOOMED

[Subotan]

if validated

It pains me that I have to actually point this out.

[InsaneApache]

It pains me that I have to actually point this out.

So, you agree, the writer was wrong then?

(It's called a start. You befriend them, put a arm around their shoulder, then hold a mirror up to the face)

[Beskar]

So, you agree, the writer was wrong then?

No, he said it wasn't validated yet, which means it is in that terrority of "we don't know" the merits of that theory yet.

[InsaneApache]

No, he said it wasn't validated yet, which means it is in that terrority of "we don't know" the merits of that theory yet.

Hang on a minute. According to the 'climologists' the science is settled. So which is it?

[Philippus Flavius Homovallumus]

No, he said it wasn't validated yet, which means it is in that terrority of "we don't know" the merits of that theory yet.

4.5 million dead would be a good thing for the planet though, wouldn't it? If you're a Gaiaist surely this is just mother nature bitch-slapping hummanity back down to a reasonable population size.

2 years is absurd, even assuming systemic collapse of global society and economy people will persit in larger numbers longer than that.

Interestingly, the Climate Change lobby has been very seriously hurt by A: the attack of science on religion and philosophy and B: the recent scandals of scientists "sexing" up their data because they feel they need to scare the general populace into complience. "climate Change" is now being lumped in with "moral reletivism" as well as "militant atheism" and "multiculturalism".

Bluntly, the physical scientists would probably be getting more traction if men like Dawkins had confined themselves to useful research instead of populist rubbish, and we might all suffer as a result.

The fact is, it's quite clear that the scientists aren't really sure what's going on, but instead of trying to present the ecological and economic case for renewable energy and sustainabl development, not to mention the moral case on which they are silent, they resort to absurd scare tactics that cause them to be generally ignored.

[LittleGrizzly]

I don't know if you read the article but it seemed to be a theory of one of the effects climate change could have and the potential acceleration it could cause, an unvalidated thoery which is an addition to exsisting thought on the matter is of no consequence to the original matter...

For example if i had a theory on a side effect of gravity which was not yet validated that would not make a difference to the validity of gravity, gravity is fully validated it is my new theory which is yet to be approved.

[Fragony]

It pains me that I have to actually point this out.

You and me bro. But it's so much easier to say it's a given and print it in schoolbooks. Kids are easier to scare. And repeat repeat keep repeating.

[Philippus Flavius Homovallumus]

I don't know if you read the article but it seemed to be a theory of one of the effects climate change could have and the potential acceleration it could cause, an unvalidated thoery which is an addition to exsisting thought on the matter is of no consequence to the original matter...

For example if i had a theory on a side effect of gravity which was not yet validated that would not make a difference to the validity of gravity, gravity is fully validated it is my new theory which is yet to be approved.

I did read the article, and I recognise the theory as something that has been mooted for several years. The problem is that although it makes a reasonable amount of sense the theory is, like the rest of the climate change hypothesis, incomplete; it lacks experimental data. What we see with the whole thing, again and again, is a constant modifiction of the theory as new conceptsd are bolted on, or the planet's failure to perform as expected has to be taken into account. There's nothing to say that, for example, a rapid warming will not trigger another process that causes rapid cooling.

Honestly, if the science really was closed then the developed world would be working a lot harder at this, and they would be enforcing change on the developing world. Right now the inaction of countries due to an insufficient feeling of urgency is the greatest argument against the whole edifice.

I mean, look at what the author is saying; in the next 2 years the breadbaskets (most of which are in the developed world) will litterally burn up to dust. That won't happen, because if it did get that hot then the relevent governments would intervene and irrugate the land to prevent complete destruction.

[Furunculus]

i don't know that paper is descibing the theory as brand new, i have a distinct memory of talking with my boss about the feedback loop from methane release of warming permafrost all the way back in 2005!

we did run an envirmental company tho.

[Subotan]

Hang on a minute. According to the 'climologists' the science is settled. So which is it?

There is a consensus that human activity is warming the planet, and we have some pretty good ideas by how much, but that doesn't mean that climatologists shut themselves off from all new theories which may add to that.

4.5 million dead would be a good thing for the planet though, wouldn't it? If you're a Gaiaist surely this is just mother nature bitch-slapping hummanity back down to a reasonable population size.

I couldn't care less about the natural world. The sodding polar bears can drown for all I care. I care about people.

[Fragony]

People in the artic regions do care about polar bears, there are too many of them they are a serious problem. These wooly buggers are thriving, almost trippled in population since the fifties. Good news no? Waving not drowning.

[Philippus Flavius Homovallumus]

I couldn't care less about the natural world. The sodding polar bears can drown for all I care. I care about people.

That is exactly the attitude that has caused the problem to begin with!

If people cared about the planet then we would already be doing everything needful to stop global warming, even if we didn't believe in it. The failure of the ideaology of human stewardship has caused every major ecological disaster. Consider, for example, the recent oil spill and the decidedly lacklustre response.

[Subotan]

Dinosaurs probably more than tripled in population from 225 million years ago to 65 million years ago. What's your point?

[Fragony]

Dinosaurs probably more than tripled in population from 225 million years ago to 65 million years ago. What's your point?

That the symbol that is drowning fluffies is just useless as the rest of the settled science. Polar bears are bouncing.

[Philippus Flavius Homovallumus]

Dinosaurs probably more than tripled in population from 225 million years ago to 65 million years ago. What's your point?

What's yours? An asteroid wiped out the Dinosaurs.

[Subotan]

That the symbol that is drowning fluffies is just useless as the rest of the settled science.

Yawn.

http://www.sciencemag.org/cgi/conten...306/5702/1686#

That hypothesis was tested by analyzing 928 abstracts, published in refereed scientific journals between 1993 and 2003, and listed in the ISI database with the keywords "climate change" (9).

The 928 papers [on climate change] were divided into six categories: explicit endorsement of the consensus position, evaluation of impacts, mitigation proposals, methods, paleoclimate analysis, and rejection of the consensus position. Of all the papers, 75% fell into the first three categories, either explicitly or implicitly accepting the consensus view; 25% dealt with methods or paleoclimate, taking no position on current anthropogenic climate change. Remarkably, none of the papers disagreed with the consensus position.

That is settled science. You really need to come up with some new good factually correct arguments.

Polar bears are bouncing.

No, they're not, and you know it.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Polar_bear

What's yours? An asteroid wiped out the Dinosaurs.

Exactly

The fact that Polar bears may have done well in the past is irrelevant. They are suffering now.

But like I said, I do not give a flying **** about the polar bears. The polar bears can all be cut up to make poison liver and onions for all I care. I'm concerned about the effect climate change will have on people, not animals.

[Fragony]

Pick one you like http://www.google.nl/search?hl=nl&so...=Google+zoeken

[Beskar]

Fragony is correct, but he forgets something.

Polar Bears are thriving because of climate change, because the snow and ice is melting, there is more land and plants, producing resources for Polar bear food.

[gaelic cowboy]

Is it not more likely that the polar bears have moved south to eat peoples rubbish and cats and dogs etc rather than eating seals. The loss of sea ice benefit's the seal because the bear requires it to sneak up on the pups to catch them. Also there may be more polar bears in a given area but I suspect not in an overall context the history of man is the history of the destruction of megafauna and this will continue.


Also this may be an example of whats know as prey switching that is usually a sign of something being wrong in an area or evidence of a collapse of a particular prey a good example of a switching predator is man or funnily enough a hedgehog if you don't mind.

wikipedia prey switching sorry I know wiki but could only find this link handily

[Furunculus]

29 months late and utterly distorted:

http://blogs.telegraph.co.uk/news/ja...a-level-rises/

[Subotan]

"Pack of lies" seems disproportionate.