I Fear For the US of A

[sundaymorningstaple]

Gaia has her own way of cleaning up her house. She's done it before and she'll do it again. We wont be around to see it though.

[Strong Eagle]

I remember the 1950s. I'm still waiting on the Ice Age that was coming. We were constantly bombarded with all the 'proof' and we all listened to all the scientists predictions that assured us that we were on the cusp of the next Ice Age. Now, 65 years later, I'm still waiting for it.

You shouldn't be waiting for it because it aint gonna happen... not soon, anyway. More like this:

http://climate.nasa.gov/climate_resources/4/

http://climate.nasa.gov/interactives/gl ... wer/#/1/13

http://climate.nasa.gov/interactives/gl ... ewer/#/1/8

[JR8]

To expect absolute proof of something this significant is ludicrous.
There may be no individual piece of evidence that proves that man is the cause of the increasing temperature trend. However, the vast collection of varied observations provide the evidence supporting the explanation that man, through an increasing population burning a variety of fuels, has increased the atmospheric CO2 levels significantly (e.g. FTIR studies show that 33% of what's up there came from such non-natural sources).

I didn't say absolute proof, that would be even more ludicrous , what I had in mind was akin the the legal hurdle of 'beyond reasonable doubt'. Though TBH I'd have thought the magnitude to suggest scientific proof is materially higher. IMHO that hurdle has not been persuasively approached never mind crossed. And furthermore when you consider the multi trillion dollar industry that thrives on persuading us that the case for AGW is validly proven, then (IMO) the hurdle that needs to be crossed is higher still. Perhaps you can suggest why there is no Scottish wine these days; it seems a contradiction, the Scots are notorious for how much they drink? Perhaps Roman horses farted more than modern-day cars pollute?

Consider the frequency with which flawed or misrepresented/manipulated data has been put forward as 'proof'. It's always by vested interests, so the dots are simple to join.

Here, you might enjoy this: http://www.telegraph.co.uk/comment/colu ... -told.html
'Rise of sea levels is 'the greatest lie ever told'

Al Gore claimed sea-levels will rise 20 feet; how much of SG would that leave under-water and what are the gubment doing about it? I don't recall them proposing the need for a 20 foot sea-wall around the island, is that negligent in your view? Come to think of it, why don't you hear SGns more generally expressing fear of any threatened rise? Why are they spending billions reclaiming land from the sea, when in a generation is it alleged it will be under water? It would be interesting to know what the SGn gubment view is on this alleged threat.

From the same article:
-----
'But if there is one scientist who knows more about sea levels than anyone else in the world it is the Swedish geologist and physicist Nils-Axel Mörner, formerly chairman of the INQUA International Commission on Sea Level Change. And the uncompromising verdict of Dr Mörner, who for 35 years has been using every known scientific method to study sea levels all over the globe, is that all this talk about the sea rising is nothing but a colossal scare story.

Despite fluctuations down as well as up, "the sea is not rising," he says. "It hasn't risen in 50 years." If there is any rise this century it will "not be more than 10cm (four inches), with an uncertainty of plus or minus 10cm". And quite apart from examining the hard evidence, he says, the elementary laws of physics (latent heat needed to melt ice) tell us that the apocalypse conjured up by Al Gore and Co could not possibly come about.

The reason why Dr Mörner, formerly a Stockholm professor, is so certain that these claims about sea level rise are 100 per cent wrong is that they are all based on computer model predictions, whereas his findings are based on "going into the field to observe what is actually happening in the real world".
-----

You should read the whole article, the writer has a veeeery long record in the field of climate change, and also more generally in investigative journalism.

-----
'One of his most shocking discoveries was why the IPCC has been able to show sea levels rising by 2.3mm a year. Until 2003, even its own satellite-based evidence showed no upward trend. But suddenly the graph tilted upwards because the IPCC's favoured experts had drawn on the finding of a single tide-gauge in Hong Kong harbour showing a 2.3mm rise. The entire global sea-level projection was then adjusted upwards by a "corrective factor" of 2.3mm, because, as the IPCC scientists admitted, they "needed to show a trend".
-----
and
-----
'When I spoke to Dr Mörner last week, he expressed his continuing dismay at how the IPCC has fed the scare on this crucial issue. When asked to act as an "expert reviewer" on the IPCC's last two reports, he was "astonished to find that not one of their 22 contributing authors on sea levels was a sea level specialist: not one". Yet the results of all this "deliberate ignorance" and reliance on rigged computer models have become the most powerful single driver of the entire warmist hysteria.'
-----

Inaction is inexcusable.

Per previous, how happy are you with the SGn governments efforts?

In fact, doing something should provide an opportunity for new jobs in what should be a vibrant new industry of sustainability.

Hmmm... do you work in that or an associated industry?

[JR8]

I remember the 1950s. I'm still waiting on the Ice Age that was coming. We were constantly bombarded with all the 'proof' and we all listened to all the scientists predictions that assured us that we were on the cusp of the next Ice Age. Now, 65 years later, I'm still waiting for it.

Well quite, and QED.
In the early 70s I recall we had a General Studies lesson each week, and we often got to discuss a popular topic of the day. The class might start with a pretty candid film about drugs and their impacts, clinical depression, global migration of people/demographics, nuclear proliferation, or the impending ice-age.

Many left me better informed but the ice-age one left me terrified. It was presented as a given, proven, a scientific fact beyond doubt. I remember at that tender age asking myself 'why should we bother getting an education, when one way or another we'll all be soon dead?'. That honestly was the scale of the impact it had on me, and most back then.

So, how the story has rotated through 180 in such a short time eh? No wonder it is met with such cynicism...

[x9200]

Sorry, I didn't bother to read recently anything on the ice age coming subject, but I was always under the impression that what concerns this sort of climate changes takes like thousand of years (hundred at best). This is not the thing that happen over a single generation life-span.

[maneo]

Gaia has her own way of cleaning up her house. She's done it before and she'll do it again. We wont be around to see it though.

How about your grandchildren?

[Sporkin]

Referring to JR8's article: Everyone has their entrenched opinions and vested interest, climate scientists are not going to admit it if any data runs contrary to their supposition, and neither are the industries. Just like the charities, if poverty and hunger is eradicated same goes the reason for their existence. Better keep things the way it is, balanced between a knife's edge, some glimmer of hope tempered with a yawning abyss.

[maneo]

I remember the 1950s. I'm still waiting on the Ice Age that was coming. We were constantly bombarded with all the 'proof' and we all listened to all the scientists predictions that assured us that we were on the cusp of the next Ice Age. Now, 65 years later, I'm still waiting for it.

You shouldn't be waiting for it because it aint gonna happen... not soon, anyway. More like this:

http://climate.nasa.gov/climate_resources/4/

http://climate.nasa.gov/interactives/gl ... wer/#/1/13

http://climate.nasa.gov/interactives/gl ... ewer/#/1/8

Yes, the photo of the Andean glacier shows a 24 year span, the photo of the Muir Glacier shows a 63 year span, and the photo of the Arapaho Glacier in the Rocky Mountains shows a 105 year span.

However, all these do not support your statement that “You shouldn't be waiting for it because it aint gonna happen... not soon.”

Whoever put together the compilation was not creating a study for extrapolation, but rather using whatever old photographs were available for reference.

A better indication of what has been happening recently comes from using a more recent reference, like the photo of the Kilimanjaro glacier, which shows a dramatic recession in just 7 years:
http://climate.nasa.gov/interactives/global-ice-viewer/#/1/16

By the way, as the text on the NASA main “Glaciers” page says, “400 billion tons - approximate total glacier loss per year since 1994”:
http://climate.nasa.gov/interactives/global-ice-viewer/#/1

Or, for Greenland and Iceland: “287 billion metric tons - approximate ice loss per year.”

This is what is most worrying.
This shows an accelerating trend.

Sorry, I didn't bother to read recently anything on the ice age coming subject, but I was always under the impression that what concerns this sort of climate changes takes like thousand of years (hundred at best). This is not the thing that happen over a single generation life-span.

This is the reason for concern.
On top of all the "natural" contributing factors (e.g. volcanoes, meteor impacts, etc.), man's impact has also become significant in the past several decades.

Oh, and man's impact is not limited to just fossil fuel burning.
It even includes cow flatulence, since the increasing population of cattle is brought about by man.

This is a complex subject that needs collective thought towards a common objective of coming up with creative, economically viable solutions.

[x9200]

Sorry, I didn't bother to read recently anything on the ice age coming subject, but I was always under the impression that what concerns this sort of climate changes takes like thousand of years (hundred at best). This is not the thing that happen over a single generation life-span.

This is the reason for concern.
On top of all the "natural" contributing factors (e.g. volcanoes, meteor impacts, etc.), man's impact has also become significant in the past several decades.

Oh, and man's impact is not limited to just fossil fuel burning.
It even includes cow flatulence, since the increasing population of cattle is brought about by man.

This is a complex subject that needs collective thought towards a common objective of coming up with creative, economically viable solutions.

Yes, but as far as I could read at our favorite Wikipedia the contribution of the greenhouse gases to the ice age is the other way around (what seems to be the common sense too). How is it linked with the (rapid?) temperature drop?

[maneo]

Here, you might enjoy this: http://www.telegraph.co.uk/comment/colu ... -told.html
'Rise of sea levels is 'the greatest lie ever told'
Al Gore claimed sea-levels will rise 20 feet.

I would agree that this “sea-levels will rise 20 feet” idea seems to be a nonsense figure.
However, this does not mean that man’s impact is not significant.

It simply means that some are exaggerating far too much in their zeal to get our attention.
There is politics in science, as in any endeavour.
It is unfortunate, as this exaggeration just becomes fodder for those that wish to deny this impact.

You should read the whole article, the writer has a veeeery long record in the field of climate change, and also more generally in investigative journalism.

People at opposite end of the spectrum think otherwise about that writer's credibility:
http://www.theguardian.com/environment/georgemonbiot/2011/oct/13/christopher-booker

Ideologues on both ends of the spectrum always seem to be able to find someone that on the surface seems credible that will support their agenda.

I would think that NASA could be considered an impartial observer.
There does not seem to be any vested financial interest, like those in the renewable energy industry have. They just seem to have extraordinary means to observe our planet (and beyond).
NASA’s estimate for sea level rise by the end of the century is “by as much as 3 feet” :
http://climate.nasa.gov/climate_resources/125/

Even if the sea level were to rise just by one foot, a substantial amount of currently arable land (particularly in Asia) will disappear.
That is something to be concerned about.

Perhaps you can suggest why there is no Scottish wine these days

Whatever happened back then is not relevant to this discussion.
The issue is that man’s impact has grown to the point where is can be added to the list of significant contributing factors.

In fact, doing something should provide an opportunity for new jobs in what should be a vibrant new industry of sustainability.

Hmmm... do you work in that or an associated industry?

No.
Am basically retired, but after reviewing all this info again, am feeling like maybe I should get into something that would have a significant positive effect on global sustainability.

[JR8]

'Yawn-warn': Long: If you aren't interested in the debate of AGW, then don't read....
----

I would agree that this “sea-levels will rise 20 feet” idea seems to be a nonsense figure. However, this does not mean that man’s impact is not significant.

I think that is a problem; there is an awful lot of nonsense out there, so it very hard to know if any of it is worth believing. If even the IPCC, the supposed world authority, bends ‘hockey-sticks’ to create added impact... and look at the shady personal character and history of the guy used to chair it, Pachauri...
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rajendra_K._Pachauri
If we are sure ‘beyond reasonable doubt’ of the case of AGW, then yes it should be addressed. But, to me, that’s lacking. That’s important because the suggested required steps are so radical they would permanently alter life and lifestyles as we know it. One example is Monbiat, he advocates shutting down 90% of the airports in the UK. Consider the wide fall-out from that one thing alone... it is impossible to conceive.
BTW, Monbiat is widely referred to in the UK as ‘Moon-bat’, and IMO it’s not hard to see why. Comes from a rich family, went to a $ private school, Oxford Uni, read politics (IIRC) and as often seems to happen with some such people is now, what... a very rich hard-left militant anarchist?

It simply means that some are exaggerating far too much in their zeal to get our attention.

As above, ‘I think that is a problem’, and I don’t think it constitutes science either.

There is politics in science, as in any endeavour.
It is unfortunate, as this exaggeration just becomes fodder for those that wish to deny this impact.

Perhaps there is in some facets, but then I wonder if it constitutes science at all. And where such exists, similar to how UK politicians have to declare a personal interest in any matters they wish to debate, I think that scientists should declare them right up-front. Then there wouldn’t be employment for the likes of Booker who was very good at sniffing them out.
The advocates of AGW can be their own worst enemies, it is they that bring much of any cynicism on themselves. Monbiat drives a diesel car, can you imagine? The headlines on that were memorable enough that you’ll find it in his Wiki entry. Pachauri was a board-member of the Indian’s largest oil+gas company ONGC. Actions speak louder than words. The same reason I wondered what anti-AGW measures arch-pragmatist Singapore is making.

In the 70s we were all going to die in an imminent new ice-age. You know what they say: ‘Fool me once, shame on you; fool me twice, shame on me’. What might be the extended version that incorporates the person doing the fooling taking lots of your money, impoverishing your children’s future, but then they and their offspring inhabit an ‘Al Gore type’ palatial and polluting mansion paid for by you... hmmm.

People at opposite end of the spectrum think otherwise about that writer's credibility:
http://www.theguardian.com/environment/georgemonbiot/2011/oct/13/christopher-booker
Ideologues on both ends of the spectrum always seem to be able to find someone that on the surface seems credible that will support their agenda.

If you accurately needle a worm it tends to squirm, and that is what Booker regularly did to Monbiot. And really, The Guardian is pretty whacko-left in itself, and Monbiat is the same, perhaps more so. Put the two together ...I don’t know if you can expect anything worth the time reading, except perhaps for amusement.

I would think that NASA could be considered an impartial observer. There does not seem to be any vested financial interest, like those in the renewable energy industry have. They just seem to have extraordinary means to observe our planet (and beyond). NASA’s estimate for sea level rise by the end of the century is “by as much as 3 feet” :

http://climate.nasa.gov/climate_resources/125/

Why ‘should one think NASA could be considered impartial’? I’d have assumed, as a starting point and until proven otherwise, that they are as self-serving as they can get away with. Perhaps another case of ‘follow the motive, and then follow the money’? Plus one of the key figures in this debate at NASA, James Hansen, has been arrested more times than any of us would care to risk. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/James_Hansen Again it’s an issue that makes it difficult to take him, and ‘this cause’, seriously. Breaking the law is no way to argue a point: Especially in a democracy with constitutionally enshrined freedom of speech.

Even if the sea level were to rise just by one foot, a substantial amount of currently arable land (particularly in Asia) will disappear.
That is something to be concerned about.

How much of Singapore would that flood btw, do you know?

Perhaps you can suggest why there is no Scottish wine these days

Whatever happened back then is not relevant to this discussion.

Heh? Are you suggesting we should not seek to learn from history?

Am basically retired, but after reviewing all this info again, am feeling like maybe I should get into something that would have a significant positive effect on global sustainability.

Some say that it is a noble calling to go and directly participate (or work) in a cause that you fervently believe in. I suppose that requires that the methods are equally as ‘noble’. I used to work as a volunteer part-time (say 5*1/2days/week, over c3 years) for an eminent ecologist. Imagine my consternation a couple of years in to learn that he was both an eminent zoologist/ecologist, but also apparently a bought ‘useful expert’ by NYREX, a UK nuclear power body, who primarily back then advocated that spent uranium fuel could be safely discarded in the deep shafts of redundant coal mines. And surprise, his position was that that was true. Perhaps my first experience of decent, eminent, 'noble' people being bought for a cause.

[JR8]

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fPJQw-x-xho
Richard Dawkins - "What if you're wrong?" South Park

[nakatago]

Who are you and what did you do to JR8?!?!

This has been a very short post!

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fPJQw-x-xho
Richard Dawkins - "What if you're wrong?" South Park

[sundaymorningstaple]

[JR8]

-----
'Statler and Waldorf are a pair of Muppet characters known for their cantankerous opinions and mutual penchant for heckling. The two elderly men first appeared in The Muppet Show, where they consistently jeered the entirety of the cast and their performances from their balcony seats....
... In contrast, they found themselves vastly entertaining and inevitably burst into mutual laughter at their own witticisms.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Statler_and_Waldorf
-----
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=14njUwJUg1I - Statler and waldorf