Home |
Search |
Today's Posts |
#11
|
|||
|
|||
On Microclimates
In article ,
Doug Freyburger wrote: Nad R wrote: Doug Freyburger wrote: It's an issue not handled in the currect discussion. While the fact of global warming completely real it demonstrates that our current century is not the warmest of recent times. It demonstrates that the records cited do not go back as far as climate records in general. It also If there are no temperature records of the past, how do yo know that our century is not the warmest century in "human" history? There are types of records other than direct temperature measurements. Grazing cattle in the Greenland colony is one such measurement. We still can not graze cattle on Greenland therefore the claim that this is the warmest century in the last ten is a weak assertion. The primary issue is the social change triggered by climate change and what to do about it ... A point that Nad R hasn't gotten. That I object to the socialists claiming the topic as theirs and then proceeding to push their agenda based on that claim. I don't buy that the socialist approach is the right way to go. It's not like that approach worked well in the Soviet Union. Global warming is real quite independent of human causation. What to do about it and how to go about it matters. For example, not trying again that which failed in the Soviet Union matters. I do not think that taking the Soviet approach is the way to go. That's not about whether global warming is human caused or not. That's about how to react to global warming irrespective of causation. I think this is my main disagreement with Billy - He favors the socialist approach without explaining why since it failed for the Soviets we should try it again now. When has global warming happened in the past? I already mentioned the Medival warming via the Greenland colony. I will also mention the "Little Ice Age" of the 1300s that killed the Greenland colony and the 1st century AD examples of Caesar Marcus Antonius Aurelius marching his legionary vexellations across the Danube without a bridge to rush to fight against the Panonian revolt. To have two such centuries of global cooling implies at least one more century of global warming before 1000 AD on some sort of human written record that does predate the invention of the thermometer. The planet has had ice ages due to volcanos and possible meteor impacts. When the dust settled, the earth returned to normal temperatures. Because the ice melted does not constitute a global warming, higher than normal temperature.. For the last million years the planet has alternated between warm periods and ice ages. The causes have been more than volcanoes. There is variation in the orbital elipse (greater eccetricity gives harsher winters). There is precession of the equinoxes relative to the orbital elipse (axis aligned with the eccentricity gives wider range of seasons). There are cycles of variation in total solar output that have more effect than orbit/spin interaction. And now there are greenhouse gases from human activity. Remember that under 50 years ago projections of the ice age estimates suggested that the next ice age could start in this century. That the science has changed so in my lifetime tells me it's current projections remain tentative not certain. Food for Climate Skeptics "The frigid winter now ending may be, unhappily, no fluke. The warming trend that had dominated world climate during most of the years since 1880 appears to have come to an end. Murray Mitehell, Jr., of the U.S. Weather Bureau reported that mean annual temperatures have dropped in both Northern and Southern hemispheres by 0.2 degree Fahrenheit since the early 1940s. In many areas climatic conditions have already returned to those that prevailed in the 1920s. The downturn has allayed fears about the 'greenhouse effect,' in which a rising concentration of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere, due to increased use of fossil fuels, was supposed to be trapping more and more solar energy. But the reasons for the cooling are unknown." -- Daytime temperatures had fallen during the 1940s and 1950s as aerosol haze created by industrial pollution reflected sunlight. Scientific American, March, 1961 (reprinted in the March, 2011 edition) To someone 20 the projections have not changed in their lifetime. I've also read of very many scientific revolutions across history and the current science remains tentative to me. In the atomic theory of chemistry we now have photographs of atoms. In the genetic/evolutionary theory of biology we now have genetic engineering. In climatology we have a growing database and a concensus among scientists that is new in the last several decades. That's a big difference in uncertainty. We should act like it. Including the parts that are definitely certain like the CO2 release into the atmosphere being huge compared to other eras. Including the fact that the soviet socialist approach has already been shown a failure. Current concensus of scientists is the best data we have but it is a concensus. It doesn't have its equivalent of photographs of individual atoms or Xray crystalography showing the spiral structure of DNA. A cautious approach that acknowledges this difference in quality is not the same as a denial based on religious nonsense. A conservative approach that remembers the fall of the Soviet Union under socialism is not the same as jumping into socialism control because it feels good to be doing something, anything. The Soviet Union was never a Socialist, much less a Communist country any more than the colonialists who threw tea into Boston Harbor were Indians. The Soviet Union was a dictatorship under Uncle Joe, and an oligarchy afterwards. Any social benefits were incidental. An understanding that climate change need not be the actual motivation of politicians but rather their leverage to get power is not denial. To what end is this power of which you speak? My view is that it is the power to keep corporate sponsors to fund election campaigns, which is contingent on legislation which increases corporate revenues. 87% of corporate stock is owned by 1% of the population. By and large, it is the extractors of fossil fuels (which are responsible for the release of CO2 into the atmosphere) which are the most vocal deniers of Global Warming. ---- http://www.democracynow.org/blog/2011/3/7/michael_moore MICHAEL MOO America is not broke. Contrary to what those in power would like you to believe, so that you'll give up your pension, cut your wages, and settle for the life your great-grandparents had, America is not broke. Not by a long shot. The country is awash in wealth and cash. It's just that it's not in your hands. It has been transferred, in the greatest heist in history, from the workers and consumers to the banks and the portfolios of the uber-rich. Right now, this afternoon, just 400 Americans - 400 - have more wealth than half of all Americans combined. Let me say that again. And please, someone in the mainstream media, just repeat this fact once. We're not greedy; we'll be happy to hear it just once. Four hundred obscenely wealthy individuals, 400 little Mubaraks, most of whom benefited in some way from the multi-trillion-dollar taxpayer bailout of 2008, now have more cash, stock and property than the assets of 155 million Americans combined. ------ Politicians (the RNC & the DNC) are just sock-puppets of the super-rich. Democracy in America is an illusion. ---- Geologically, there isn't a fixed, standard temp for the planet. Among those who deny Global Warming, are those who will benefit from the continued release of CO2. Politicians who oppose taking action against Global Warming benefit from campaign financing provided by corporate deniers. Corporations deny Global warming, because it reduces the income of its investors. Democracy doesn't exist, because if it did, it would interfere with the (mythical) free-market. There is some small disagreement about whether "Global Warming" is actually occurring. There is no disagreement on the rise of CO2 levels. Heightened CO2 levels have preceded at least 5 GLOBAL MASS EXTINCTION'S. Plant bushes. Install solar cells. Compost. --- Meanwhile back at the ranch, Unemployment is capitalism's way of getting you to plant a garden. - Orson Scott Card After 2 days of heavy rain, the peas are lookin' good :O) If you like weekends, thank a union. == -- --------- http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hYIC0eZYEtI http://www.democracynow.org/blog/2011/3/7/michael_moore http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eZkDikRLQrw http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MyE5wjc4XOw |