Eaarth

[Thymeclock]

Originally Posted by NeilBlanchard

It is the military itself that provides all the proof we need. They are switching to renewable energy as fast as they can, and they have to adjust all their plans for what is happening in the world.

That's your spin on it. Let's see real proof, Neil.

The insurance companies also provide direct proof of global climate change. They have either raised their premiums a lot, or stopped writing policies when the risks are too high.

That's your spin on it. Let's see real proof, Neil.

Another undeniable proof of global climate change is the fact that Russia has planted a titanium flag on the bottom of the Arctic ocean, at the North Pole. Why would they bother to do this?

I don't know why and neither do you, Neil.

They are claiming the rights to the mineral resources that are now becoming accessible -- because the Arctic ice cap is melting.

That's your spin on it. Let's see real proof, Neil.

These extreme and "freak" weather events are part and parcel of what has started to happen because of anthropogenic global climate change. It is affecting all of us, along with all the other life forms that totally depend on this Earth we live on. Our food comes from the Earth, our energy comes from the Sun (except for geothermal) and our water, and the atmosphere are all interdependent. Plants take in carbon dioxide and put out oxygen; and this is balanced by the rest. Change one thing drastically, and everything else is affected.

Of course. "The sky is falling! The sky is falling!"

The world will end at 10 PM. Late breaking news at 11...

[roflwaffle]

I think saying it's proof is a bit strong, at least in the context of something like a math proof. Taken collectively extreme changes in weather provide evidence that we're seeing climate change, but we need more years of data before we can say anything conclusive. Ironically enough, if we wait and collect a lot of data while trundling along with business as usual we could make things a lot more expensive to deal with for later generations. Generally speaking it's at least worthwhile to go with cost neutral GHG abatement. If we're wrong and GCC isn't an issue, we wouldn't be spending any more than we normally would have, and if we're right we probably saved ourselves a bundle in GCC costs down the road. Of course doing to would really cut the profit margins for fossil fuel energy producers, so we're probably seeing a two prong advertising approach by PR firms on their behalf. One is to convince people that those FF companies are looking for alternatives to solve the problem, and another to try to convince people that there really isn't a problem. Cutting FF demand in half would crater the bottom line of those companies because their net production would fall and prices would fall. They could see net revenue drop to a third or less of what it was when demand for FFs was stronger.

[NeilBlanchard]

This is as sober as it gets.

[t vago]

Yawn. I am unsubscribing from this thread. There's no use arguing science with religious converts who believe in something in the face of all evidence to the contrary (that mankind is somehow the sole or major cause of global warming).

[Arragonis]

Neil,

Let it go. I have no doubt you earnestly believe we are doomed without action on AGW but I for one don't - and I suspect I am not alone here.

I believe we have threats to our continued civilisation but at the moment those threats are mainly coming from our own policies to combat AGW. For example the head of the UK national power grid is saying that continued power to homes is going to be a thing of the past. Is this due to a shortage of resources ? No.

Its because we are madly committed to reducing CO2 emissions with renewables with just don't ****ing work without mega subsidies and therefore we won't invest in technology that really does work.

And even when renewabls are used they only make up 0.4% of the demand in the uk, and the only for 28% of the time. I looked at a wind farm today - no turbines turning.

However the subsidies are great. It was so great that business worked out they could make money from it, which was not what the government had expected - maybe there is a message there. So they froze the subsidies.

To prove AGW you have to prove three things.

1. Unusual or unprecedented climate change is happening.
Nope.
Not here either.
Not even in Antarctica.
And its been snowing in SFO. Not for the first time though ?

2. That the climate change is caused directly by greenhouse gasses.
Possibly, but isolating those from other factors (without useless high school experiments involving light bulbs and glass jars full of CO2) is hard. Which is why the models fail to even predict the weather. Of course weather is not climate, except when its a disaster - hot or cold.

But of course there is a feedback idea. Or maybe not.

The climate sensitivity CS as a measure for the temperature increase found, when the actual CO2-concentration is doubled, assumesCS = 0.41 ̊C for the tropical zone, CS = 0.40 ̊C for the moderate zones and CS = 0.92 ̊C for the polar zones. The weighted average over all regions as the global climate sensitivity is found to be CS = 0.45 ̊C with an estimated uncertainty of 30%, which mostly results from the lack of more precise data for the convection between the ground and atmosphere as well as the atmospheric backscattering…. The values for the global climate sensitivity published by the IPCC [3] cover a range from 2.1 ̊C – 4.4 ̊C with an average value of 3.2 ̊C, which is seven times larger than that predicted here.

3. That our creation of such gasses is tipping us over the edge.
Seeing as 1 and 2 are at nope then nope.

That tapped as I have said several times before we are all here for different reasons but with the same aim if not the same outcome idea - reducing how much oil / fuel we use to the minimum we need.

If you believe this will improve the climate then great. If you believe it will improve security of energy then great too. If you do it to save money then thats good too.

I'm not watching this thread any more either.

[MetroMPG]

I'd be happy if everyone "let it go" or unsubscribed from this thread.

[gone-ot]

...if you're looking for someone to suggest "locking" this, then I just DID so.

[Frank Lee]

The American 'allergy' to global warming: Why? - Yahoo! News

[Arragonis]

Originally Posted by Frank Lee

The American 'allergy' to global warming: Why? - Yahoo! News

His numbers have proven almost dead-on correct

Bollocks.

[Thymeclock]

Originally Posted by Arragonis

Bollocks.

The entire content of it is a highly partisan piece, extremely one-sided. It would lead you to believe that all scientists agree on this issue, but that is simply not the case. Suggesting that anyone who disagrees is either a political hack or being paid off by oil companies amounts to propagating a lie.

By definition this is a propaganda piece, not a news story. But nowadays the news is so slanted or 'spun' by the entire media that we can no longer tell the difference.

Quoted from the piece: "EDITOR'S NOTE: Climate change has already provoked debate in a U.S. presidential campaign barely begun. An Associated Press journalist draws on decades of climate reporting to offer a retrospective and analysis on global warming and the undying urge to deny."

That's a disclaimer. This is an EDITORIAL, and the disclaimer admits it. It is OPINION (meant to persuade and influence). It is not FACT.