Global Geological Climate Change... Conference

[PaulnGina]

And..... if you don't agree to drink the kool-aid:

Al Gore at SXSW: We Need to 'Punish Climate-Change Deniers' and 'Put a Price on Carbon'

These folks just can't STAND independent, free, thinkers!!!!

Algore, still trying to be relevant.

[cwf]

Here is a new way to incorporate self protective layers... And perhaps make a new "beanie" to mitigate the "thought waves"...you could really seal yourself up!!!

Aint technology fun!!!
Electromagnetic Field Shielding Fabrics

.

[Len n Jeanne]

Thanks, jcl

Originally Posted by avionstream

Because your links are all connected to the flawed studies by the same interconnected groups that have a political agenda. Almost all the studies are done by the UN or other political agency's. The scientists must come up with the prearranged conclusions or have there funding cut off. This is a fact. Follow the politics from the universities on up to the federally govt and the UN. Lockstep. Studies done by nongovernmental connected organizations are generally ignored out of hand. Why? Someone doesntvwant the pot stirred or the truth to come out. Yes, oil companies have a vested interest in climate change studies, financially. But govt funded studies have a politically vested interest, world domination through legislation based on false assumptions. And the polis are winning!!

Actually it works the opposite way. A major source of funding for academic earth scientists comes from contracts with industry. A credentialed climatologist proposing to demonstrate that climate change was bogus would have no trouble getting funded by Big Energy. Moreover, climate scientists come from nations all around the globe. Scientists in Britain or Japan are not beholden to the US federal government for research funds. The UN is not a major source of funding.

It is now known that Exxon was conducting climate impact studies decades ago but decided to suppress the evidence found by their own scientists. (A charge, in fairness, that Exxon denies.) However:
ExxonMobil pioneered climate-change research in the 1970s, and now it’s attacking media reporting on that - Quartz

[Len n Jeanne]

Originally Posted by paiceman

Its pretty simple really and Ray is 100% correct. Climate is in simple terms long range weather, predicted by climatologists who are weather people with slightly more schooling or no more at all above the BS in Meteorology, which I have among other GI paid for degrees.

Academic and government scientists should not be confused with the broadcast meteorologists that you see on television. The former generally have doctorate degrees and post-doc experience.

So, weather people cannot accurately predict the weather five days out, how then is it possible to predict the weather 100 years out. It is not. Then to spend globally Trillions of dollars each year to prevent what even the most ardent supporters of man-made climate change agree is a 1 degree increase in world temperature is absurd. Then take the climate forecasts as reported on Good Morning America in June of 2008 of what would happen by June of 2015 - reported by Climatologists: NYC would be under water; a gallon of milk will cost $12.99, due to climate change; a gallon of gasoline will cost $9.00, due to climate change. Then go back to 1973 when the same group predicted that the world was entering a new Ice Age and would be in frozen by 2000.

It is important to look at time scales. Climatologists (so far as I know from talking with them personally, back when we were employed by a university) generally work with 30-year running averages. If you were to look at graphs of annual temperature or precipitation, you would see a lot of bumps and wiggles from year to year. Some ups and some downs. The 30-year average smooths these out. Most atmospheric scientists don't like to say that a given year shows evidence of global warming, although they do note how many heat records have been broken in recent years.

I don't know who your Climatologists are, but this report sounds nothing like the researchers we knew. Of course, a bunch of the NYC metropolitan area was under water in 2012 due to Hurricane Sandy.

Nothing has happened, a global climate change of 1 degree is insignificant and will not flood coastal areas not change the price of anything. One side of the political spectrum states that Climate Change is the biggest world threat. Interesting statement, but again all a financial power play and one that takes the world focus off the real threats out there. Keep in mind that the disappearing Ant Aritic Ice Cap is growing substantially over the past two years - "warming"?

We are losing the world's alpine and continental glaciers. Yes, in a given year an ice cap may expand. But scientists look at running averages over decades. I recommend a trip to Glacier NP and the Columbia Ice Fields in the Canadian Rockies for some dramatic "then and now" examples.

This is important because in the US and globally, many people depend upon the fresh water "reservoir" provided by mountain snow melt.

Scarce fresh water resources will surely become a bigger issue in the Near East.

Also, climate change models don't suggest that each and every place will get warmer, due to north-south patterns in the jet stream and ocean currents. Some think that the Northeast will get more nor'easters, for example. This is why many scientists prefer terms like "climate change" or "global change" to "global warming."

[Len n Jeanne]

Originally Posted by Ultradog

I would be less hostile to the notion of man made climate change if I didn't see so many people poised to make a bundle of dough off of it if new laws are enacted.

We might also consider the people making a bundle of dough now with our present systems of mining and burning fossil fuels.

Of course one would need to ban second houses, more than a couple pairs of shoes, thermostats that can be turned up over 68 degrees, fishing boats, snomobiles, pro sports games and stadiums, Airstreams, toys, makeup, sexy clothing, more than a 2000 calorie/day intake, personal transportation televisions, lawn mowers, and a huge list of other things that are unnecessary for general survival.
Right?

This is the old "freeze in the dark" argument. The fact is that we are all well advised not to buy expensive stuff we don't need or use often, not to eat more calories than we burn, and not to waste money unnecessarily with super-heated poorly insulated houses.

Even for serious anti-environmentalists, downshifting is a great way to trim ugly fat out of our budgets.

[DPRoberts]

I'm new here (I think this is my third post). I don't have an Airstream yet, just looking around really, but I had a strange experience with a dealer recently and I wanted to share it. I hope this is the right place.

I live in a really mountainous area, and I've never towed a trailer before. I do have a half ton truck, but I'm not sure that's going to be enough for the trailer I'm looking at. The dealer was kind enough to let me hook up the trailer to my existing truck and try it out - provided he rode along with me for the test drive.

It was really freaky at first, but we spent some time in the parking lot before heading out onto the roads. Within 30 minutes or so, we had gone many miles up into the mountains. After going up and down several reasonable inclines, I was feeling pretty comfortable - until we started the trip back down the mountain.

We started gaining too much speed - or at least, what felt like too much speed. "Am I going too fast?" I asked the dealer.

"Naw, we're fine," he replied. "Airstreams are built to move."

"But it seems like I have less control than I did earlier. The whole rig doesn't feel like it's responding the way it did a while ago."

"Don't worry about it," he said. "Like I said, you've been moving for a long time, you're moving right now, and you're going to keep moving in the future. Motion is constant. There's nothing you can do about it anyway."

"Well, I could apply the brakes," I said.

"The brakes?" He laughed. "Son, those brakes aren't going to do anything. You're being sold a bill of goods by the braking industry. They just want to make money off of you by selling you new brake pads that you don't need! Don't be a sucker!"

"I'm fairly certain that brakes are necessary," I told him. "In fact, in a survey of automotive experts, 97% of them recommended slowing down by applying the brakes in this particular scenario."

He frowned. "Think about it, son. Use your head. You're going down a mountain in several tons worth of metal. The mountain itself is thousands of feet high. And you really think you can do anything about it by wiggling your foot a little?"

"Well, like I said, I'm new at this, and I don't really know all the technical details. However, from what I understand, the mechanisms behind hitting the brake pedal & creating friction on the wheels to slow them down is fairly well understood."

"It's only a model," he said.

"It's not just a model," I replied. "The real-world effects of momentum-arresting are being studied around the world every day in real-life situations, and pretty much everyone who studies these things says I should slow the heck down right now!"

"You're a pawn! You're being duped!" he shouted. "The effects of engine braking, trailer sway, trailer brakes, vehicle brakes, mass and momentum, etc. are all really complicated, hard to sort through, and difficult or impossible to predict! Therefore, it's best to just not do anything at all!"

"I'm beginning to think that all this arguing is getting us nowhere!" I shouted. "And we're just going faster and faster!"

And then we drove right off a cliff...

[Len n Jeanne]

Originally Posted by Ray Eklund

I am disappointed that those with the weakest facts believe this is a debate over Gun Control and Concealed Carry Permits.

Point One. Melting glaciers due to Global Warming. True. They are melting and not because of human activity. The planet is in a Inter Glacial period of warming. It has happened numerous times... even when humans were in small numbers. ....

Ray, maybe you'd like to talk about the Little Ice Age (so called) that was a cooling trend particularly noticeable in the 17th and 18th centuries. Some climatologists argue that this should have been a longer-term trend, based on causal factors, that reversed abruptly in the 19th century, coinciding with noticeable increases in atmospheric CO2.

The issue with climate change isn't only the "what" but how quickly change is occurring. Geologic time is much slower than what is happening today.

When the Ice retreated, the continent rebounded from the weight removed on the surface. Continents FLOAT on the mantle like ice cubes in a glass of water. Shocked? Like forcing a basketball into a bucket and reducing the pressure, it rises.

The subject is only divisive when one side has no proof to prop up their beliefs. Science provides proofs that a Theory is correct and facts that a layman can go out and discover it for themselves. I do not need a computer to know that the sea level has been rising since the retreat of each and every Ice Age.

Isostatic rebound is a known phenomenon that is still taking place over thousands of years, but it certainly isn't the only one that determines whether we are gaining or losing coastline. With isostatic rebound we might expect some land masses to continue to rise higher than the oceans, so when something unanticipated happens in a much faster time than the norm, it may take some science a little more advanced than a basket ball in a bucket of water to determine why.

...of the Planet when the mountain chains were bringing up rich petroleum and coal formations to the surface, polluting the atmosphere. Most cannot, as it happens slowly. There are underground coal fires, I call steamers, in Wyoming within geologic formations. Does anyone want to put them out to reduce pollution, or fine VW for its diesel exhaust?

Ray, as you know, anthropogenic burning of fossil fuels is putting carbon into the atmosphere at a far more rapid rate than simple mountain-building processes would, given that you are talking about 10s of millions of years, not a few centuries. You may be fortunate enough to live well inland in an area without major temperature inversions that trap auto exhaust, but not everybody is.

Moreover, (CDONA) if we have a natural process like volcanoes already dumping fumes into the atmosphere, human activity is adding to that process. It's not a comparison (a=b or a>b), but additive (a+b).

Dare I even bring up Human Evolution and Darwin?

Well, sure. No problem there.

J. Morgan, would you mind saying what evidence you actually would accept as evidence of human-caused climate change?

Because if you're looking for some type of catastrophe ready-to-hand, it's sort of like knowing that your AS has a propane leak, and being warned that you risk an explosion. Yet you've seen no evidence of any explosion, the propane leak seems small, and so you dismiss the risk. By the time you've seen the tangible evidence of an explosion, however, it's too late to fix the problem.

DPRoberts said this better than I did.

Again, a little atmospheric carbon goes a long way.

Just wondering how many of the anti-environmentalists here have a strong scientific background.....

[jcl]

Originally Posted by PaulnGina

What timing.......
The fiddling with temperature data is the biggest science scandal ever - Telegraph

PaulnGina

I don't think that that is a good example of timing. That is an article from February, almost 10 months ago. But there is an upside to the passage of time in this case.

The article was very widely criticized for false information.

Do you know why the temperature records were adjusted? Only to be able to compare them. Some weather stations used temperatures sampled in the mornings. Some in the afternoons. Different types of thermometers. Standardizing the readings is a form of calibration to better be able to compare across sites and over time. Calibration is generally considered a good thing, as owners of torque wrenches and gun sights (among others) will tell us. It produces more consistent results. If you object to calibration when you know that a measurement device has a repeatable offset, you are choosing to go with a wrong number.

The largest adjustments were in the high Arctic. The location where the Telegraph article drew a link to warmer temperatures (claiming they weren't reliable because the readings were adjusted upward. But those adjustments were downwards. That is what some would call an inconvenient truth. The author ignored that detail, claiming the opposite.

The adjustments occurred primarily in the pre 1960s, which is not the period when we are tracking the greatest warming effect.

There is a graph in the link below showing the temperatures with and without the correction. Take a look at the difference. The Telegraph didn't.

The Telegraph article is selling a viewpoint based on headlines. The link below explains the changes, but also gives you the actual weather station data so that you can decide for yourself. This takes us back to the need for critical thinking.

But most telling to me is what happened when it was pointed out to the Telegraph (publication standards) that the article was misleading. They wrote, and I quote:

"This is clearly an opinion article and identifiable as such. Against the background described above, readers can be expected to understand that any evidence offered is almost certainly contestable"

What they are saying is that they know it isn't right, but that readers will understand that it isn't a scientific article, that the numbers are not correct. In other words, that nobody should take it seriously.

All they want to do is sell newspapers. And ten months after they published this opinion piece, as they call it, it appears to be working because people are linking to it thinking that the numbers in it mean something.

If you want to look at scientific data, look to published papers.

For a list of many papers that discuss the subject, and more details on the above, see this link:

Telegraph wrong again on temperature adjustments

If you don't like that site (John Cook is an award winning climate science communicator) then there are many others. Lots of links available.

Originally Posted by avionstream

Pretty much confirms what many if us are saying.

The above is very unfortunate for those "many" who are saying that.

[Ray Eklund]

Reading these posts, I must point out one important term used in the title of this thread... Geological. Much like the Broncos football game last evening... you can dissect the game as much as you want, but the score remains the same.

Geology. The Study of the HISTORY of the Earth.

I did not mention politics, until now. I did not predict what geologic formations to expect tomorrow... only what are already deposited within Geologic Time. Anyone that knows the Geologic Eras, Periods and Life Forms must understand that Climate Change is obvious and continues to this moment. We are just parroting what others have said and know no more or less from this, nor will anyone change the mind of another.

Until the brightest minds of SCIENCE focus on those events that actually have OCCURRED, we still understand very little. Weathermen cannot predict the weather on October 14, 3204 no better nor worse than next month, even using current time information and facts. Weather changes. We cannot even control the wind, as much as we think it possible.

Humans are opportunists by nature. Caterpillars are much like us. They will devour the leaves that give them life, morph into a winged insect that leave the denuded bush/tree to fend for what is left of itself. We have a special ability and that is to think our way out of problems. Sometimes. We put to ruin one place today and are now discovering that there are few places NOT in the same situation we find ourselves. Maybe wanting you to move out for their benefit.

Survival of the Fittest? Maybe. I have yet to see my Blue Heeler dogs fight over a television set on Black Friday, but they sure will fight over some rotting dead animal when starving. Survival.

Humans are motivated by rewards that are pleasant or improve their lives. A stranger, without an unpleasant response from yourself, might move into your home while you are on vacation and raise their family. Birds do it every year. Many return to the same nesting area, if not the same nest. You see a difference, but birds accept this as normal behavior.

Each change in the geological formations where you live are Climate Change. Understand why and you will have gained some knowledge that might apply to the present.

The cunning minds of our fellow humans find a way to be opportunists... again. Ignoring that change will come with or without our propensity to copy the caterpillar with no memory to guide their decisions. They just do it and move on. Humans... no longer can move on, but still do what serves themselves best.

Once we have exploited one resource and consumed all that remains, new ones will be put to use. Geologic time is patient. The Earth rotates slower today than in the geologic past. Eventually we will be found within one thin group of rock formations as a stark reminder that some life forms devour their own. Our fate is not yet written within the rocks of time... but we may be getting there as a specie, that consumed itself into a very thin slice of stone as our legacy. Not much to show at all.

[xrvr]

Originally Posted by Len n Jeanne

Ray, maybe you'd like to talk about the Little Ice Age (so called) that was a cooling trend particularly noticeable in the 17th and 18th centuries. Some climatologists argue that this should have been a longer-term trend, based on causal factors, that reversed abruptly in the 19th century, coinciding with noticeable increases in atmospheric CO2.

The issue with climate change isn't only the "what" but how quickly change is occurring. Geologic time is much slower than what is happening today.

Isostatic rebound is a known phenomenon that is still taking place over thousands of years, but it certainly isn't the only one that determines whether we are gaining or losing coastline. With isostatic rebound we might expect some land masses to continue to rise higher than the oceans, so when something unanticipated happens in a much faster time than the norm, it may take some science a little more advanced than a basket ball in a bucket of water to determine why.

Ray, as you know, anthropogenic burning of fossil fuels is putting carbon into the atmosphere at a far more rapid rate than simple mountain-building processes would, given that you are talking about 10s of millions of years, not a few centuries. You may be fortunate enough to live well inland in an area without major temperature inversions that trap auto exhaust, but not everybody is.

Moreover, (CDONA) if we have a natural process like volcanoes already dumping fumes into the atmosphere, human activity is adding to that process. It's not a comparison (a=b or a>b), but additive (a+b).

Well, sure. No problem there.

J. Morgan, would you mind saying what evidence you actually would accept as evidence of human-caused climate change?

Because if you're looking for some type of catastrophe ready-to-hand, it's sort of like knowing that your AS has a propane leak, and being warned that you risk an explosion. Yet you've seen no evidence of any explosion, the propane leak seems small, and so you dismiss the risk. By the time you've seen the tangible evidence of an explosion, however, it's too late to fix the problem.

DPRoberts said this better than I did.

Again, a little atmospheric carbon goes a long way.

Just wondering how many of the anti-environmentalists here have a strong scientific background.....

Wow, you've got this down pat. What's your stake in this? You state exactly what all proponents say, lock step. There is enough countrary info to dispute what you say. I'm just not the one with the ability to do that. Regardless of who is funding the studies, the fact is there still is no absolute evidence that they are accurate. Easier for scientists to Prove gw is happening when they use the same models and stats over and over. The stats they use today were used in the nineties, in the nineties they used info from the eighties, as so on back. The original models and data were incorrect., yet are used and reused as a starting point today. Kinda like insanity if if one does the same thing over and over and get the same results. Gw people get the same results and make the same predictions over and over, and yet nothing happens! No warming, no permanent climate change! Yet when a contrary opinion is made, it is considered heresy because, quote, we have all the facts and know everything, unquote. Thus is fun, glad we don't all agree on everything, what a boring world this would be. Just remember, no matter which side is correct, if we end up under sharia law in the future, climate change will be a moot point.

[kscherzi]

Sharia law? That came from nowhere!

[markdoane]

Originally Posted by kscherzi

Sharia law? That came from nowhere!

No, it's a common tactic when you run out of valid arguments and are losing.

[J. Morgan]

These posts are getting entirely too long, too many points being made in one breath.

My short answer to a multitude of questions is this.

If there was evidence that trace concentrations of CO2, in the amounts consistent with the current and projected future concentrations, are even capable of generating an increase in temperature then the theory would gain more traction in my thinking.

Fact is, there is no such practical and repeatable evidence available in the public domain. As such, the argument FOR AGW ALWAYS rests mostly on models and/or the so called temperature record which has arguably been manipulated.

People can say what they like, but fact is, AGW proponents have been caught manipulating data multiple times. If in fact the "evidence" supports their position, why the multiple manipulations?

Sorry, when a position constantly resorts to lies, I tend to suspect that it is untruthful.

Skepticism in the face of lies is not an adherence to "conspiracy theory", but instead it is good sense.

A good argument is built on a firm foundation of verifiable truths, not a floating arrangement of supposition and budding emotional rhetoric that asserts that the sky is falling.


Brevi tempore!

[xrvr]

Originally Posted by markdoane

No, it's a common tactic when you run out of valid arguments and are losing.

Just trying to put this into perspective. If we lose our freedom, the climate will be a secondary concern to most of us, of course not according to our president.

[cameront120]

Originally Posted by avionstream

Just trying to put this into perspective. If we lose our freedom, the climate will be a secondary concern to most of us, of course not according to our president.

How is this going to affect your freedom? And why do you think climate only impacts your country?

[xrvr]

The reference to sharia law in post 130 and and that some politicians think our loss of freedom to terrorists is secondary to climate change.

[cameront120]

Stop watching Fox news.

[rostam]

Originally Posted by avionstream

... Just remember, no matter which side is correct, if we end up under sharia law in the future, climate change will be a moot point.

The first amendment to the US Constitution states "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof" -- We must thank Thomas Jefferson for this. I don't think ANY religious law, whether Islamic, Christian, Jewish, Hindu, Buddhist, etc is going to be passed without violating this clause. Your worries are unwarranted, unless the constitution changes, and the chances of that happening is 0. We might as well worry about a meteor hitting the earth and ending life.

[Ray Eklund]

I enjoy the long posts and other sites to visit. I am getting a diversified flood of information.

Anyone who watched the movie on Mozart... Amadeus... when he was told his music had "too many notes"... Mozart asked "which would you want me to remove?" Of course, his principal supporter had no clue.

The best any of us can do is our own small part in keeping our environment clean and conserve what we can, when we can. Those that throw out trash along the highway will continue to do so, even with signs that say it is illegal and fines of $1,000.

When forest fires occur on a clear day in California... I tell my wife... "a meteorite" did it. I suspect it human caused, but no body knows for sure. Then proving it is another problem.

The Earth is a speck of dust in the Universe. It is our responsibility to take our activities seriously enough to come, enjoy and leave it as you found it. It is the best we can do. Even if the majority care less.

Thank you for all of the generous taking of time to present your views on this and other issues. I am most comfortable climbing among the rocks that whisper to me their secrets. It gives me great comfort knowing that we are recording our presence on this Blue Globe with whatever is to become solid sedimentary rock in the distant future. No matter the outcome... we have left our mark.

[cwf]

Would someone cut off the volcanoes, space debris (meteorites/ Mennonites?) and the fuel Wasted By our "leaders" on vacations and "summits"? Has any of them Heard of "online meetings"?