climate change

[DiscoBiscuit]

Did Carlin's karma run over his dogma or is it satire?

Did Carlin's karma run over his dogma or is it satire?

More species have died on our watch than any other time. The degree of loss, all the way down to the bottom of the food chain effects us is ways we understand and ways we don't. It's already happening to us but we don't see it because we're looking at the wrong things. How can 6.5 billion people possibly go extinct? I don't know the answer but dogma might have something to do with it.

I usually see the logic in Carlin's humor but this one's a 180. Seems like a me-first capitalistic-sense-gone-planetary, i.e. "Leave everything alone and... chase your plastic wealth?" I guess there's a chance it could be satire and if that's the case, he got me.

 

[gaiusmarius]

this is just him using shock tactics and being generally over the top. i'm sure he isn't expecting anyone to base their beliefs on his sketch. at least i hope not. extinction after all of the wrong species can cause us sever problems as humans. jut think about the bees and the important roll they play in agriculture. some crops would just not be possible without bees pollinating them. also i can hardly believe 25 species are extincting every day, seems hard to accept.

 

[trichrider]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DoZRNDjkfx4

...goin to hell in a bucket baby...but at least I'm enjoying the ride.

 

[DiscoBiscuit]

this is just him using shock tactics and being generally over the top. i'm sure he isn't expecting anyone to base their beliefs on his sketch. at least i hope not. extinction after all of the wrong species can cause us sever problems as humans. jut think about the bees and the important roll they play in agriculture. some crops would just not be possible without bees pollinating them. also i can hardly believe 25 species are extincting every day, seems hard to accept.

Now that makes sense and thanks.

 

[HempKat]

More species have died on our watch than any other time. The degree of loss, all the way down to the bottom of the food chain effects us is ways we understand and ways we don't. It's already happening to us but we don't see it because we're looking at the wrong things. How can 6.5 billion people possibly go extinct? I don't know the answer but dogma might have something to do with it.

I usually see the logic in Carlin's humor but this one's a 180. Seems like a me-first capitalistic-sense-gone-planetary, i.e. "Leave everything alone and... chase your plastic wealth?" I guess there's a chance it could be satire and if that's the case, he got me.

How would we know that? How could we possibly determine with any accuracy, the rate of extinction before man existed?

 

[Stoner4Life]

high high high high there.......




[YOUTUBEIF]_NVVe1DkVsQ[/YOUTUBEIF]

 

[trichrider]

The Conversion of a Climate-Change Skeptic

By RICHARD A. MULLER

Published: July 28, 2012

CALL me a converted skeptic. Three years ago I identified problems in previous climate studies that, in my mind, threw doubt on the very existence of global warming. Last year, following an intensive research effort involving a dozen scientists, I concluded that global warming was real and that the prior estimates of the rate of warming were correct. I’m now going a step further: Humans are almost entirely the cause.

My total turnaround, in such a short time, is the result of careful and objective analysis by the Berkeley Earth Surface Temperature project, which I founded with my daughter Elizabeth. Our results show that the average temperature of the earth’s land has risen by two and a half degrees Fahrenheit over the past 250 years, including an increase of one and a half degrees over the most recent 50 years. Moreover, it appears likely that essentially all of this increase results from the human emission of greenhouse gases.

These findings are stronger than those of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, the United Nations group that defines the scientific and diplomatic consensus on global warming. In its 2007 report, the I.P.C.C. concluded only that most of the warming of the prior 50 years could be attributed to humans. It was possible, according to the I.P.C.C. consensus statement, that the warming before 1956 could be because of changes in solar activity, and that even a substantial part of the more recent warming could be natural.

Our Berkeley Earth approach used sophisticated statistical methods developed largely by our lead scientist, Robert Rohde, which allowed us to determine earth land temperature much further back in time. We carefully studied issues raised by skeptics: biases from urban heating (we duplicated our results using rural data alone), from data selection (prior groups selected fewer than 20 percent of the available temperature stations; we used virtually 100 percent), from poor station quality (we separately analyzed good stations and poor ones) and from human intervention and data adjustment (our work is completely automated and hands-off). In our papers we demonstrate that none of these potentially troublesome effects unduly biased our conclusions.

The historic temperature pattern we observed has abrupt dips that match the emissions of known explosive volcanic eruptions; the particulates from such events reflect sunlight, make for beautiful sunsets and cool the earth’s surface for a few years. There are small, rapid variations attributable to El Niño and other ocean currents such as the Gulf Stream; because of such oscillations, the “flattening” of the recent temperature rise that some people claim is not, in our view, statistically significant. What has caused the gradual but systematic rise of two and a half degrees? We tried fitting the shape to simple math functions (exponentials, polynomials), to solar activity and even to rising functions like world population. By far the best match was to the record of atmospheric carbon dioxide, measured from atmospheric samples and air trapped in polar ice.

Just as important, our record is long enough that we could search for the fingerprint of solar variability, based on the historical record of sunspots. That fingerprint is absent. Although the I.P.C.C. allowed for the possibility that variations in sunlight could have ended the “Little Ice Age,” a period of cooling from the 14th century to about 1850, our data argues strongly that the temperature rise of the past 250 years cannot be attributed to solar changes. This conclusion is, in retrospect, not too surprising; we’ve learned from satellite measurements that solar activity changes the brightness of the sun very little.

How definite is the attribution to humans? The carbon dioxide curve gives a better match than anything else we’ve tried. Its magnitude is consistent with the calculated greenhouse effect — extra warming from trapped heat radiation. These facts don’t prove causality and they shouldn’t end skepticism, but they raise the bar: to be considered seriously, an alternative explanation must match the data at least as well as carbon dioxide does. Adding methane, a second greenhouse gas, to our analysis doesn’t change the results. Moreover, our analysis does not depend on large, complex global climate models, the huge computer programs that are notorious for their hidden assumptions and adjustable parameters. Our result is based simply on the close agreement between the shape of the observed temperature rise and the known greenhouse gas increase.

It’s a scientist’s duty to be properly skeptical. I still find that much, if not most, of what is attributed to climate change is speculative, exaggerated or just plain wrong. I’ve analyzed some of the most alarmist claims, and my skepticism about them hasn’t changed.

Hurricane Katrina cannot be attributed to global warming. The number of hurricanes hitting the United States has been going down, not up; likewise for intense tornadoes. Polar bears aren’t dying from receding ice, and the Himalayan glaciers aren’t going to melt by 2035. And it’s possible that we are currently no warmer than we were a thousand years ago, during the “Medieval Warm Period” or “Medieval Optimum,” an interval of warm conditions known from historical records and indirect evidence like tree rings. And the recent warm spell in the United States happens to be more than offset by cooling elsewhere in the world, so its link to “global” warming is weaker than tenuous.

The careful analysis by our team is laid out in five scientific papers now online at BerkeleyEarth.org. That site also shows our chart of temperature from 1753 to the present, with its clear fingerprint of volcanoes and carbon dioxide, but containing no component that matches solar activity. Four of our papers have undergone extensive scrutiny by the scientific community, and the newest, a paper with the analysis of the human component, is now posted, along with the data and computer programs used. Such transparency is the heart of the scientific method; if you find our conclusions implausible, tell us of any errors of data or analysis.

What about the future? As carbon dioxide emissions increase, the temperature should continue to rise. I expect the rate of warming to proceed at a steady pace, about one and a half degrees over land in the next 50 years, less if the oceans are included. But if China continues its rapid economic growth (it has averaged 10 percent per year over the last 20 years) and its vast use of coal (it typically adds one new gigawatt per month), then that same warming could take place in less than 20 years.

Science is that narrow realm of knowledge that, in principle, is universally accepted. I embarked on this analysis to answer questions that, to my mind, had not been answered. I hope that the Berkeley Earth analysis will help settle the scientific debate regarding global warming and its human causes. Then comes the difficult part: agreeing across the political and diplomatic spectrum about what can and should be done.

http://www.nytimes.com/2012/07/30/o...climate-change-skeptic.html?pagewanted=1&_r=1

 

[DiscoBiscuit]

That's the fella who took Koch money to basically say, "thermometers are too close to asphalt to be anything other than deliberate attempts to corrupt the debate".

Now's he's 180'd but he's still rogue because he publishes his 'work' absent peer-review. Climate study is made up of multitudes of professional fields of study. This fella approaches these specialized aspects like "I am, therefore I'm correct".

Even the Koch's can no longer pay enough to squelch the debate. I wouldn't be surprised if phase two of the obfuscation involves "how" we affect action.

I half expect this guy to say, "There's nothing we can do to alter events" sooner than later.

Four of our papers have undergone extensive scrutiny by the scientific community, and the newest, a paper with the analysis of the human component, is now posted, along with the data and computer programs used. Such transparency is the heart of the scientific method; if you find our conclusions implausible, tell us of any errors of data or analysis.

12 people do not comprise the plurality of opinion this guy disregards at will.

tell us of any errors of data or analysis

I thought "consensus' was supposed to be effected before you publish? NYT means scientific journals at-best were ignored or at-worst took a pass.

 

[Luv-U-Long-Time]

lol

 

[DiscoBiscuit]

Another thing that's kinda sad is the plurality of Americans who will go to their graves imagining it's all Al Gore's greed for more money, like the guy couldn't start a hedge fund and make just as much w/o all the frantic back-and-forth.

 

[ijim]

Most developed countries have reduced their population growth to neutral. But for the sake of corporate market shares and economic growth. We import millions of immigrants to insure there is a growing number of consumers. Thus we cannot and will not reduce our depletion of natural resources and fossil fuels. Population reduction is the only chance of reducing the effects of the changing climate.

 

[Quiet_Riot]

Bill G got the worlds back!

Bill Gates backs climate scientists lobbying for large-scale geoengineering
Other wealthy individuals have also funded a series of reports into the future use of technologies to geoengineer the climate

http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2012/feb/06/bill-gates-climate-scientists-geoengineering
or not... Global sulphur dioxide spraying? Fail...

 

[trichrider]

Another thing that's kinda sad is the plurality of Americans who will go to their graves imagining it's all Al Gore's greed for more money, like the guy couldn't start a hedge fund and make just as much w/o all the frantic back-and-forth.

Tipper? is that You?

 

[Luv-U-Long-Time]

Flights of fantasy and self-importance....the 8th deadly sin

 

[Nor'Easter]

whoa a climate change thread around since 2007? how did I miss that? will be back with more for sure!

 

[Luv-U-Long-Time]

Because we all know Gore could have traded in on his proven intelligence on a proven subject.Stick to burning excessive fossil fuels and growing tobacco,Al.

Don't be so naive....he'd need more then an abacus

 

[headband 707]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BB0aFPXr4n4&feature=youtube_gdata_player

Oh George ignorance is bliss isn't it LOL

Nah we didn't fuck up the planet LOL,, not us...
headband 707

 

[Stoner4Life]

Dog Days of summer.......

Dog Days of summer.......

The Romans referred to the dog days as diēs caniculārēs and associated the hot weather with the star Sirius. They considered Sirius to be the "Dog Star" because it is the brightest star in the constellation Canis Major (Large Dog). Sirius is also the brightest star in the night sky. The term "Dog Days" was used earlier by the Greeks.

The Dog Days originally were the days when Sirius rose just before or at the same time as sunrise (heliacal rising), which is no longer true, owing to precession of the equinoxes. The Romans sacrificed a brown dog at the beginning of the Dog Days to appease the rage of Sirius, believing that the star was the cause of the hot, sultry weather.

Dog Days were popularly believed to be an evil time "the Sea boiled, the Wine turned sour, Dogs grew mad, and all other creatures became languid; causing to man, among other diseases, burning fevers, hysterics, and phrensies." according to Brady’s Clavis Calendaria, 1813.

The modern French term for both this summer period (and for heat waves in general) "canicule", derives from this same term. It means "little dog", again referring to Sirius.

The Dates:

In Ancient Rome, the Dog Days ran from July 24th through August 24th, or, alternatively, from July 23 through August 23rd. In many European cultures (German, French, Italian) this period is still said to be the time of the Dog Days. Jeff Kinney's Dog Days The Old Farmer's Almanac lists the traditional period of the Dog Days as the 40 days beginning July 3rd and ending August 11th, coinciding with the ancient heliacal (at sunrise) rising of the Dog Star, Sirius. These are the days of the year with the least rainfall in the Northern Hemisphere.

According to the 1552 edition of the The Book of Common Prayer, the "Dog Daies" begin July 6th and end August 17th. But this edition, the 2nd book of Edward VI, was never used extensively nor adopted by the Convocation of the Church of England. The lectionary of 1559 edition of the Book of Common Prayer indicates: "Naonae. Dog days begin" with the readings for July 7th and end August 18th. But this is noted as a misprint and the readings for September 5th indicate: "Naonae. Dog days end". This corresponds very closely to the lectionary of the 1611 edition of the King James Bible (also called the Authorized version of the Bible) which indicates the Dog Days beginning on July 6th and ending on September 5th. A recent reprint of the 1662 edition of the Book of Common Prayer contains no reference to the Dog Days.

 

[trichrider]

http://www.heraldsun.com.au/technol...ce-melt-observed/story-fn5iztw3-1226434343203

Unprecedented Greenland ice melt observed
From: AAP
July 25, 20125:18AM

Tourists in Greenland duck for cover as a massive iceberg breakaway causes a localised tsunami.

A TOURIST boat has captured dramatic footage of a glacier avalanche in as NASA says that Greenland's surface ice melted over a larger area than ever detected in more than 30 years of satellite observations.

According to measurements from three separate satellites analysed by NASA and university scientists, an estimated 97 per cent of the ice sheet surface thawed at some point in mid-July, the agency said in a statement.

"This was so extraordinary that at first I questioned the result: was this real or was it due to data error?," said NASA's Son Nghiem.

Pictures: The incredible view of Earth from Space

The expert recalled noticing that most of Greenland appeared to have undergone surface melting on July 12 while analysing data from the Indian Space Research Organisation's Oceansat-2 satellite.

Results from other satellites confirmed the findings. Melt maps drawn up showed that on July 8 about 40 per cent of the ice sheet's surface had melted, rising to 97 per cent four days later.

The news comes just days after NASA satellite imagery showed that a massive iceberg twice the size of Manhattan had broken off a glacier in Greenland.

"This event, combined with other natural but uncommon phenomena, such as the large calving event last week on Petermann Glacier, are part of a complex story," said Tom Wagner, NASA's cryosphere program manager.

In the summer, on average about half of the surface of Greenland's ice sheet melts naturally, NASA said. Normally, most of that melt water quickly refreezes at high elevations, while in coastal regions some of it is retained by the ice sheet while the rest flows into the ocean.

"But this year the extent of the ice melting at or near the surface jumped dramatically," NASA added.

Researchers have yet to determine whether the melt, which coincided with an unusually strong ridge of warm air over Greenland, will contribute to a rise in sea level.

NASA said that even the area near the highest point of the ice sheet, located three kilometres above sea level, showed signs of melting.

According to glaciologist Lora Koenig, who was part of the team analysing the data, melting incidents of this type occur every 150 years on average.

"With the last one happening in 1889, this event is right on time," Koenig said. "But if we continue to observe melting events like this in upcoming years, it will be worrisome."

every 150 years? isn't that climate change? i wish it would hurry up! it's the end of July and i have yet to see 90*.
I know it's been hot elsewhere (and dry) but shouldn't global warming be based on an average increase in temperatures?
and Disco pointed out some discrepencies with this guys methods/results previous.
...anyway, it'll take more than this 'revelation' to convince me...about ten degrees more.

 

[WelderDan]

The Earths climate has shifted from very hot to very cold, low oxygen levels to high oxygen levels, and all manner of variations in between over the course of its existence.

Volcanic eruptions, asteroid impacts and solar fluctuations are a few examples of many variables that have caused short and long term temperature variances.

A little over 10,000 years ago we were in an Ice Age. What is now Canada and the Northern US was under ice over a mile thick.

Undoubtedly this cycle will continue. The Earth WILL alternately warm and freeze again and again until the Sun goes supernova and fries the Earth forever.

What needs to be understood is that we humans have only been on the planet for a mere blink of an eye in terms of the age of the Earth. Life has bloomed and gone extinct many times before we came along. We are lucky that we came along in between the many extinction level events that have plagued this planet in the 4.5 billion or so years it has existed.

We may or may not be affecting the climate with our raping and pillaging of our natural resources, but we sure as hell are not HELPING, that is a fact.

The climate WILL change, with or without us. However that is no reason to continue poisoning the planet we live on with total disregard for the consequences.