Global Geological Climate Change... Conference

[Tuco]

Originally Posted by PaulnGina

I say it's time for the human-caused-climate-change worshippers to put your money where your beliefs are and park your RV's. More room in the parks and on the roads for the rest of us.

Better yet, they should reduce their carbon foot print as close to zero as possible! Denounce that evil Satan called technology! REPENT!

[J. Morgan]

Yes we must roll back the technological revolution and the industrial evolution and live as we were meant to live.

Man, I am going to miss hot showers and air conditioning!


Brevi tempore!

[Tuco]

Only the true believer's need apply. Just think of the carbon savings if 30% of the population does just that!

I think you could keep the hot showers and air conditioning.

[Len n Jeanne]

This thread saddens me mightily. How many posters are climatologists?

We used to work with these scientists, prior to our retirements: the ones who went out measuring sea ice and looking at tree ring data. I once put some of the climate-change denial arguments to one of these scientists who noted that of course, climate has always fluctuated, but the best models indicate that the global climate should be moving the opposite way (i.e. colder on global average) rather than warmer-- unless we account for anthropogenic inputs. A little atmospheric C02 goes a long way because of its heat-absorbing capacity.

We are losing the glaciers of Glacier National Park and the Columbia Ice Field, for those hoping to see them next summer. The diminution of sea ice is threatening polar bears and small Pacific island nations. The warmer climate may have contributed to the multi-origin devastation of western conifer forests by bark beetles, for those of you who don't enjoy seeing dead forests while on holiday. People in downstream areas all over the world who depend upon glaciers and snow packs for their year-round water supply (like those in the Himalayas) can't just move if this reservoir dries up.

We need to discuss global change, more than global warming. There is simply more energy in the global climate system today than in decades past, and, while overall the global climate is warming, it may not do so where you live due to changes in air and ocean currents. Moreover, since more heat in the oceans equals more evaporation equals more precipitation-- which may fall as snow-- there is a connection with more severe winter storms.

The idea that low-lying coastal areas are protected by dykes and levees didn't help the residents of the 9th Ward during Hurricane Katrina. It may not help coastal peoples globally, most of whom are not lucky enough to be cared for by FEMA or the Army Corps of Engineers.

The notion that anthropogenic climate change is false has been promoted by the major fossil fuel companies and politicians bankrolled by big oil or coal, and adopted by folks who have been upset with scientists ever since Charles Darwin proposed his theory of natural selection. Let's follow the money. Which industry benefits the most from climate change denial?

Yes, the earth's climate has always fluctuated, but if you're driving a car that is veering off the highway, generally you input a course correction. You don't step on the gas in the direction you're heading. Suppose the climate were heading into more scorching hot summers, droughts, and forest fires. Why would we wish to contribute further to such problems? Again, it's not just the US being affected, but vulnerable people internationally.

Some of us got into camping in the beautiful spots of North America through a love of the natural environment. Let's pass on our beautiful wild plants and wildlife to those children and grandchildren with whom so many of you love to go 'streaming.

[ijustlee]

I think it's very important to discuss every topic with no limits, if you don't think the topic is OK to talk about you don't have to read the thread. If enough different opinions are discussed eventually the truth should come to light. An intelligent person would consider all the available information and educate themselves and make up their own minds. The more viewpoints the better I say! I think the carbon tax is just a scam to extract money from the masses. I also think that public opinion is manipulated for the benefit of the 1%. When I was a child scientists were predicting another ice age was coming soon and the vapor trails from jet plane exhaust never lasted anywhere near as long! Leland

[Protagonist]

I'm getting out of this one. No one here is ever going to convince anyone else who holds a differing opinion, and those who are undecided probably aren't even reading the thread to have a chance be convinced one way or another.

The world is what it is, and none of us are on a level where we have enough influence to change it. The best we can do is live with it, and live according to our consciences. So if you're one of those people who thinks that mankind is responsible for climate change, do your own small part to help. If you're not, then don't. But please, whatever you do, don't become like those people who protest the wearing of fur but still have leather shoes, belts and handbags. Hypocrisy helps no one.

All of you, enjoy the discussion. But as for me, I'm outta here.

[tevake]

Just 500 years or so ago European settlers in America felt the forests to be limitless and available for the taking at will. Then came power saws, big trucks, more efficient mills. And suddenly the limits of the Forrest's became clear, and changes had to be made.
Only less than 200 years ago fishing fleets started to really grow. Then along came powered boats and trawling capabilitys improved. Then refergerated storage and transportation made larger scale fishing profitable. And suddenly seemingly limitless fish stocks in the oceans started to dwindle and some became so overfished and deminished as to cause wholesale loss of earlier productive fisheries.

These are just a couple of examples of short sighted ness and misunderstanding the possible impacts of rapidly increasing technology and human numbers.

I'm not in a position to judge the realities about the degree of our impact in climate change. But it is clear that modern humand are capable of huge impacts on parts of the earth thought to be limitless. Like the boundless atmosphere.

The concept of Gaia. The earth as a total living entity is an interesting one.

The interconnectedness is hard to miss at times. How far was the plume from mount Saint Helen felt? The smoke from the fires in the west this summer was to be seen east of the Rockies.
The sunami from the earth quake in Japan caused the closing of a wonderful resort on the big Island in Hawaii where I used to work. And debris from Japan started to show up not too long afterward.
I too feel these conversations are important and need to be constructive. Which requires restraint from saying things that will just inflame those with different views. The well being of earth and all that inhabit her require that we all pull together in some of these issues. Or so I sees it.

Cheers Richard

[jcl]

Originally Posted by J. Morgan

Like I stated earlier, the theory is ENTIRELY based on models. The hard science that a rational person would assume is in place IS NOT THERE.

Study for yourself and see for yourself.

The body of science that supports the conclusion that humans cause most of the warming that we are seeing is not just based on models. Models help to understand the issues, but they are not the evidence. This is easily seen by studying it yourself, as you suggest. Use real science sites, like Skeptical Science, not contrarian sites run by shysters.

Originally Posted by Jaxon

Lets not be disingenuous... in our lifetime, probably not but you know that.

Strongly disagree. But for many it will be more concerning thinking about our children's lifetimes, for those that have families.

Originally Posted by J. Morgan

In some way is probably true, but the link between warming and CO2 in trace amounts has not been made.

It has been made. You just have to look with an open mind to see. The science has been published. Some seem to think this is a matter of opinion, theirs vs others. It isn't opinion. It is science. There is a cost to ignoring it.

Originally Posted by Len n Jeanne

This thread saddens me mightily.

Me too. The level of disinformation is very high. Agree with the rest of your post too, thanks for posting.

Jeff

[Len n Jeanne]

J. Morgan, I don't know what you would accept as "proof" of the CO2 contribution to global change. You will find the basic science in articles like these:

http://scholar.google.ca/scholar?q=e...hCB_sQgQMIGTAA

Why does CO2 get most of the attention when there are so many other heat-trapping gases (greenhouse gases)? | Union of Concerned Scientists

If carbon dioxide makes up only a minute portion of the atmosphere, how can global warming be traced to it? And how can such a tiny amount of change produce such large effects? - Scientific American

Carbon Dioxide and Climate - Scientific American

Climate and Earth’s Energy Budget : Feature Articles

I'm not a scientist, so I hope that someone who is will give a better explanation than I can.

During past geologic periods when the climate was warmer, a lot of carbon became stored in biomass. Overtime and under the right geological conditions, much of this biomass became converted to fossil fuels. This process of carbon storage occurred over many millions of years.

The problem today is that, as these fossil fuels are extracted and burned, C02 that was laid down and locked up over 10s of millions of years has been suddenly released into the atmosphere in just a couple of centuries-- mostly during the 20th century, but continuing at a rapid rate.

Although C02 is taken in by today's plants through photosynthesis, a major concern is that rapid deforestation (notably of tropical rain forests, where so much of the biomass is or was,) and ocean pollution are removing the very means whereby carbon is taken out of the atmosphere and stored in plant tissues.

While CO2 comprises a tiny part of our atmosphere, it plays a major role in heating the earth close to the surface: sunlight reaches the earth, warms the surface, and then the C02 helps warm our air and water temperatures by trapping the heat released by the earth's surface that is being radiated back into space. Apparently it doesn't take a huge variation in this heat and atmospheric chemistry balance to bring about significant shifts in places like the polar ice caps and deserts.

Much of the initial work on C02 was based on modeling and theory, but lately accumulated evidence has backed them up.

http://climate.nasa.gov/evidence/

http://scholar.google.ca/scholar?q=e...hCB_sQgQMIGTAA

Even if you aren't convinced that this process leads to global warming, think about what else gets burned and released into the atmosphere with fossil fuel burning: particulates, sulfur, and nitrous oxides that produce smog and acid deposition. These aren't good for you or people you care about to breathe, especially in places prone to temperature inversions, where the stuff hangs around in the air for long periods of time.

This thread may seem a long distance from Airstreams, but as some have pointed out, we are all responsible for what we put into our common natural resource: the atmosphere.

[jcl]

Originally Posted by Protagonist

If you look at all causes of global warming, volcanoes probably head the list, not only because they vent a number of greenhouse gases and ozone-depleting gases, but also because they vent heat directly into the atmosphere from the earth's molten mantle.

Fortunately, scientists have looked at all the causes.

CO2 has been found to be the dominant factor.

And humans have been found to emit 100 times the CO2 as volcanos.

https://www.skepticalscience.com/vol...al-warming.htm

There are other effects from volcanic activity, notably sulphur dioxide. That restricts incoming solar radiation, cooling the planet.

[jcl]

Originally Posted by Len n Jeanne

J. Morgan, I don't know what you would accept as "proof" of the CO2 contribution to global change. You will find the basic science in articles like these:

In a recent thread, J. Morgan wrote that he has never seen evidence that CO2 can impact climate, and if such evidence existed he would review it.

I posted links and information, and followed up with a request for his thoughts. No response.

http://www.airforums.com/forums/f463...-141615-5.html

[xrvr]

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!!

[ROBERT CROSS]

It looks like I will need to become part of a larger community of people prepared for survival.

Some tip's for the community to remember….

You can make a fire by vigorously rubbing elk together, Also beavers, rub those beavers.

You can make a signal fire by burning Celine Dion CDs.

There’s no need to be afraid of strange noises in the night. Anything that intends you harm will stalk you silently.

If you encounter a black bear, attempt to cross the road or distract it with rap music.

If you encounter a grizzly bear, attempt to punch it in the eye. This will not scare the bear off, but you’re dead anyway so you don’t want to go out like a wus.

You can determine which direction is north by asking someone.
Failing that, float a stick on a still body of water. North will be the direction that is opposite of south.

Never make RIGHT turns when you’re lost in a forest. Right turns attract left wing zombies.

Punch squirrels to vent your frustrations.

Plant a garden.
Vegetables can sustain you if you plan on sitting still for the better part of a growing season, and you have vegetable seeds handy.

If you brought a cow, milk it.

....your welcome.

Bob

[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.

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.

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"?

Interesting post Ray, thanks; keep being the "Sheep Dog" on these types of issues.

Bud

[ALANSD]

The guy that invented the Segway, Dean Kamen ( an no he was not killed riding one off a cliff), and prior to that invented life saving medical related items- has a machine that will extract distilled pure water from any liquid, no matter how polluted or salty. This little machine would be life changing for the millions of people world wide who have little or no access to clear drinkable water. Why aren't governments interested in investing in this? Not wasting money on global warming bulls**t.


Water - Dean Kamen

[tevake]

Flat earth proponents were very adamant in their day, as were many church leaders when faced with the inconvenient details coming from those newfangled scientist of those early days of the Age of Enlightenment .

I'm 66 yo now, and the more I learn the more questions I see. Our knowledge is increasing at an ever accelerating rate yet can only be given due consideration by an open mind willing to grow.

Accept all new insight as fact, never. Look around and see what is going on and plane to see with open eyes, hopefully.

Cheers Richard

[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.

[PaulnGina]

Oh, can't do that!!! That will actually HELP someone.

Originally Posted by ALANSD

The guy that invented the Segway, Dean Kamen ( an no he was not killed riding one off a cliff), and prior to that invented life saving medical related items- has a machine that will extract distilled pure water from any liquid, no matter how polluted or salty. This little machine would be life changing for the millions of people world wide who have little or no access to clear drinkable water. Why aren't governments interested in investing in this? Not wasting money on global warming bulls**t.


Water - Dean Kamen

[J. Morgan]

Originally Posted by jcl

The body of science that supports the conclusion that humans cause most of the warming that we are seeing is not just based on models. Models help to understand the issues, but they are not the evidence. This is easily seen by studying it yourself, as you suggest. Use real science sites, like Skeptical Science, not contrarian sites run by shysters.







Strongly disagree. But for many it will be more concerning thinking about our children's lifetimes, for those that have families.







It has been made. You just have to look with an open mind to see. The science has been published. Some seem to think this is a matter of opinion, theirs vs others. It isn't opinion. It is science. There is a cost to ignoring it.







Me too. The level of disinformation is very high. Agree with the rest of your post too, thanks for posting.



Jeff

Too many folks jump to conclusions.

I have scoured the sources available to me over the entire WWW and asked here, and numerous other sites for someone, for ANYONE,,, to post a practical and repeatable experiment that proves CO2 in concentrations relative to atmospheric content is capable of inciting any heating whatsoever.... No one ever has.

I have scoured all kinds of resources INCLUDING pro-AGW sites in search of this data to no avail.

This is why the theory rests entirely on models and not hard science. If the theory rested on real science, the theory would be built on the proof of the ability of trace CO2 to incite and retain warming. It isn't. It is built on climate models.

In short, the concentrations of CO2 that we are talking about, .0004 to .001, are far to thin to be a driver of climatic change.


Brevi tempore!

[J. Morgan]

Beyond this, there is ample evidence that the data has been manipulated to make it appear that much or the warming claimed did not happen, and that we have been cooling over the past twenty years.


Brevi tempore!