# Thank the Deity we are in global warming!



## theonlyzarathu (Nov 24, 2012)

Up here Downeast(on the coast near Ellworth, Maine) the temperatures have been the next months temps all during the fall and into the winter. Right now we are having historical temperatures that are typical of the third week in December not the fourth week in November.

Just imagine what kind of temps it would be if we didn't have Global Warming.

Stove runs nice, but I've been working hard to make semi portable R-8 shutters for the windows. Hopefully by january when we have temperatures more like Caribou than the coast, I'll have all my shutters up and done.


----------



## begreen (Nov 24, 2012)

Ya think your neck of the woods is the center of the planet for climate? Think locally, but act globally.


----------



## BrotherBart (Nov 24, 2012)

God doesn't like Maine.


----------



## theonlyzarathu (Nov 25, 2012)

begreen said:


> Ya think your neck of the woods is the center of the planet for climate? Think locally, but act globally.


 
Its the center of MY CLIMATE WORLD!  I always thought it was the other way around:  Think globally, but act locally---which makes more sense, since I don't live globally.


----------



## begreen (Nov 25, 2012)

I was riffing on old saying as another way of saying that from a climate perspective the local weather doesn't mean a whole lot. Good idea to work on the shutters. Let us know how they work out. Pics are always welcome.


----------



## woodgeek (Nov 25, 2012)

the Deity has nothing to do with it.....this is the Goddess' work.


----------



## Ehouse (Nov 25, 2012)

woodgeek said:


> the Deity has nothing to do with it.....this is the Goddess' work.


 

She's sleeping with Father Time.


----------



## Dune (Nov 25, 2012)

I worked outside in a tee shirt friday. Maine is just freaking cold.


----------



## Seasoned Oak (Nov 25, 2012)

Just the opposite here ,next week 50s and sunny during the day. were running last months temps all fall.


----------



## semipro (Nov 25, 2012)

You're always going to have temp extremes. 
The impact of Global Warming Its that now there are many more high ones than low ones (on average).


----------



## theonlyzarathu (Nov 25, 2012)

semipro said:


> You're always going to have temp extremes.
> The impact of Global Warming Its that now there are many more high ones than low ones (on average).


 
Not where I live.  And in fact, world temnperatures have not risen in the past 12 years.  ONE  hasto be careful that one is not reading the models instead of the data.


----------



## WhitePine (Nov 25, 2012)

theonlyzarathu said:


> Not where I live. And in fact, world temnperatures have not risen in the past 12 years. ONE hasto be careful that one is not reading the models instead of the data.


 
World ocean temperatures are the most important indicator, since they have a major impact on global weather patterns. They have in fact risen during that period.







The graph is from the US EPA. Feel free to criticize the source.


----------



## velvetfoot (Nov 25, 2012)

I heard America's Next Top Model came from just north of here.


----------



## semipro (Nov 25, 2012)

theonlyzarathu said:


> Not where I live. And in fact, world temnperatures have not risen in the past 12 years. ONE hasto be careful that one is not reading the models instead of the data.


One can pick out relatively short time periods in historical records that show global cooling.  This misrepresents the long term trends though that definitely show a warming trend when all the short term trends, whether warming or cooling, are connected together.


----------



## Highbeam (Nov 26, 2012)

That graph demonstrates the point that you need to look at data and not the model. Look at what the graph actually displays. It is implied that the temperatures are being shown and that they have dipped but then risen. Wait now, the graph actually shows "temperature anomoly" over time. Who knows what that is but I can guarantee, it helps push an agenda better than showing the actual temperatures. If the temps did that much of a dip then they would be on the graph.

Also, who the heck was accurately measuring average world temperatures of the oceans in 1880? For crying out loud, does anyone know what was happening in 1880? We didn't even have commercial electricity until after 1880, 1882 was the first power plant.


----------



## WhitePine (Nov 26, 2012)

Highbeam said:


> That graph demonstrates the point that you need to look at data and not the model. Look at what the graph actually displays. It is implied that the temperatures are being shown and that they have dipped but then risen. Wait now, the graph actually shows "temperature anomoly" over time. Who knows what that is but I can guarantee, it helps push an agenda better than showing the actual temperatures. If the temps did that much of a dip then they would be on the graph.
> 
> Also, who the heck was accurately measuring average world temperatures of the oceans in 1880? For crying out loud, does anyone know what was happening in 1880? We didn't even have commercial electricity until after 1880, 1882 was the first power plant.


 
Ship's navigators, voyaging scientists, and explorers, who recorded and logged sea temperatures well before 1880. One of them is on the US $100 bill. Science has been around for a long time.


----------



## Highbeam (Nov 26, 2012)

So some guy dipping his toe in the water saying, "whew, that's cold"? I imagine there may have been some sort of crude mercury thermometer back then but we're getting all excited about 0.5 degrees F which is reasonable accuracy with today's common tools.


----------



## WhitePine (Nov 26, 2012)

Highbeam said:


> So some guy dipping his toe in the water saying, "whew, that's cold"? I imagine there may have been some sort of crude mercury thermometer back then but we're getting all excited about 0.5 degrees F which is reasonable accuracy with today's common tools.


 
Not crude at all. Mercury thermometers are pretty easy to calibrate and have been around since 1714. All you need is boiling water (at sea level) and a bucket of ice water. Ships routinely measured ocean temperatures with mercury thermometers by hauling up a bucket of seawater and taking its temperature. Ocean temperatures were a major navigational tool at one time. They are still relevant today.


----------



## Highbeam (Nov 26, 2012)

Compare the accuracy of that digital gauge measuring to the hundredth with some pirate trying to read a really really old fashioned mercury thermometer with his one non-patched eye. Also the pirate was coming from or going somewhere on purpose and while he was at it, measured temperature for the sake of navigation. Not a good average temperature representative of the world's oceans. These days we measure all over the place to get a global average on purpose. How can you get a useful comparison from that very different data?

I still doubt the technology from the 1880s was even sufficient to determine much of anything other than relative temps, as in, it is getting warmer as we head towards the tropics where we will take over a shipment of curry powder, har har har.


----------



## fossil (Nov 26, 2012)

How anyone could seriously deny that it's actually happening is completely beyond me.  It's undeniably happening.  The facts are clear and irrefutable. Some of the most obvious evidence includes the loss of polar ice, the receding of glaciers, the rise in sea level, the gradual shifting of animals' habitat, and on and on.  We are living in a period of warming, and it is threatening a bunch of things that are important to us (ask Pacific Islanders and folks living along coasts worldwide).  The politicization of it is disgusting and non-productive.  Are we the cause? Dunno.  Does it matter?  No.  Is there anything we can do to mitigate it?  Dunno...might be way too late in a lot of ways.  Is it worth trying?  Well, I'd say it is.  Rick


----------



## GaryGary (Nov 26, 2012)

theonlyzarathu said:


> Up here Downeast(on the coast near Ellworth, Maine) the temperatures have been the next months temps all during the fall and into the winter. Right now we are having historical temperatures that are typical of the third week in December not the fourth week in November.
> 
> Just imagine what kind of temps it would be if we didn't have Global Warming.
> 
> Stove runs nice, but I've been working hard to make semi portable R-8 shutters for the windows. Hopefully by january when we have temperatures more like Caribou than the coast, I'll have all my shutters up and done.


 

What's the shutter design like?
R8 is very nice.

Gary


----------



## jharkin (Nov 26, 2012)

theonlyzarathu said:


> Not where I live. And in fact, world temnperatures have not risen in the past 12 years. ONE hasto be careful that one is not reading the models instead of the data.


We have discussed this one to death in the can. A bunch of climate deniers cheery picked one very warm year and compared it to 2010 to make that false claim.


----------



## WhitePine (Nov 26, 2012)

Highbeam said:


> Compare the accuracy of that digital gauge measuring to the hundredth with some pirate trying to read a really really old fashioned mercury thermometer with his one non-patched eye. Also the pirate was coming from or going somewhere on purpose and while he was at it, measured temperature for the sake of navigation. Not a good average temperature representative of the world's oceans. These days we measure all over the place to get a global average on purpose. How can you get a useful comparison from that very different data?
> 
> I still doubt the technology from the 1880s was even sufficient to determine much of anything other than relative temps, as in, it is getting warmer as we head towards the tropics where we will take over a shipment of curry powder, har har har.


 
Deny it all you want. Merchant and naval ships kept detailed records of their observations of all types. These were later transcribed and recorded at various institutes of learning in all the countries that could be considered advanced in those days. This information was invaluable and essential for the expansion of commerce and empires. 

Science is capable of correlating old and new data, including compensating for known errors in the old data. We progress because of science, despite the vigorous attempts of those who deny science in the name of politics, religion, profit, and ignorance .


----------



## TradEddie (Nov 26, 2012)

Highbeam said:


> Compare the accuracy of that digital gauge measuring to the hundredth with some pirate trying to read a really really old fashioned mercury thermometer with his one non-patched eye. Also the pirate was coming from or going somewhere on purpose and while he was at it, measured temperature for the sake of navigation. Not a good average temperature representative of the world's oceans. These days we measure all over the place to get a global average on purpose. How can you get a useful comparison from that very different data?
> 
> I still doubt the technology from the 1880s was even sufficient to determine much of anything other than relative temps, as in, it is getting warmer as we head towards the tropics where we will take over a shipment of curry powder, har har har.


 
Those pirates could find their way across thousands of miles of empty ocean, and back home, with not a GPS to be seen, measuring temperature accurately would be easy in comparisson.  Nobody's life depends on the accuracy of that digital gauge, unlike the navigational tools on a ship.

TE


----------



## Ehouse (Nov 27, 2012)

fossil said:


> How anyone could seriously deny that it's actually happening is completely beyond me. It's undeniably happening. The facts are clear and irrefutable. Some of the most obvious evidence includes the loss of polar ice, the receding of glaciers, the rise in sea level, the gradual shifting of animals' habitat, and on and on. We are living in a period of warming, and it is threatening a bunch of things that are important to us (ask Pacific Islanders and folks living along coasts worldwide). The politicization of it is disgusting and non-productive. Are we the cause? Dunno. Does it matter? No. Is there anything we can do to mitigate it? Dunno...might be way too late in a lot of ways. Is it worth trying? Well, I'd say it is. Rick
> 
> View attachment 82690


 

I'd say it does matter, because if we do have a hand in it, we can cease and desist and thereby mitigate the effects.

Ehouse


----------



## schlot (Nov 27, 2012)

WhitePine said:


> Deny it all you want. Merchant and naval ships kept detailed records of their observations of all types. These were later transcribed and recorded at various institutes of learning in all the countries that could be considered advanced in those days. This information was invaluable and essential for the expansion of commerce and empires.
> 
> Science is capable of correlating old and new data, including compensating for known errors in the old data. *We progress because of science*, despite the vigorous attempts of those who deny science in the name of politics, religion, profit, and ignorance .


 
No we progress because of our willingness to do so as mankind. Science is a tool in which we explain and understand what's around us. As an engineer it would sound self righteous and wrong to say the world's improvements are do to engineering (a form of science). It is do to man and his creativity and inspiration to do so. Engineers use science, whereas others use art and other ways to improve their surroundings.


----------



## WhitePine (Nov 27, 2012)

schlot said:


> No we progress because of our willingness to do so as mankind. Science is a tool in which we explain and understand what's around us. As an engineer it would sound self righteous and wrong to say the world's improvements are do to engineering (a form of science). It is do to man and his creativity and inspiration to do so. Engineers use science, whereas others use art and other ways to improve their surroundings.


 
Science has been under attack, thus the emphasis on the subject.


----------



## Highbeam (Nov 27, 2012)

The science that I question here is very specific. I find it weak, and a stretch, to try and use 1880 era water temp records to prove a point about a global  temperature difference of less than a degree. I know about precision and accuracy and how these things determine the final results. Ever hear of significant digits? You can't use a pirate thermometer that is labeled with round numbers (at best) to report to the hundredth or even tenth of a degree as the original graph does. Worse yet, the data was not collected globally but rather on trade routes or wherever the ships happened to be vs. a specific effort to determine global temperatures as we can do today. The error in pirate thermometer technology can just as easily make the warming trend worse as it can make it less. I question the method of collection, not the results. This particular graph is bunk but surely there is better information out there actually collected and reported by real scientists that know about data collection and computations.

Whatever you are trying to prove, you must do so using good data for it to be valid. Pirate measurements made with ancient technology are not enough to prove the very small change that can have such a huge effect on the earth.

I'm with Fossil on this one. I do believe that the earth is warming for the period in which we have good records. Not sure I know why, how, or whether we can or should try and stop it.


----------



## Highbeam (Nov 27, 2012)

WhitePine said:


> Science has been under attack, thus the emphasis on the subject.


 
Science as this thread begins with should be under attack. It is science like this that hurts the credibility of actual science.


----------



## TradEddie (Nov 27, 2012)

Highbeam said:


> I'm with Fossil on this one. I do believe that the earth is warming for the period in which we have good records. Not sure I know why, how, or whether we can or should try and stop it.


 
You can't cherry-pick the data; the overwhelming consensus of independent experts in the field is that the earth is warming AND that this warming can only be explained by man-made influences.  I'm not saying they are right, or if the problem could or should be fixed, even without the politics and special interests. You don't have to believe the scientists, but you can't accept one half of their findings and reject the other unless you present an equally compelling scientific counter-argument.

I haven't studied the data, but my take is that if the huge resources of the fossil fuel / energy business can't find any substantial flaw in the scientific data, and have to resort to conspiracy theories, I'm not likely to find any either.

TE


----------



## semipro (Nov 27, 2012)

Ehouse said:


> I'd say it does matter, because if we do have a hand in it, we can cease and desist and thereby mitigate the effects.
> 
> Ehouse


 
I get what you're saying. Admitting you're part of the problem is the first step towards improvement. We humans aren't always so good at that.
However, many deniers have a more basic belief that the world was given to them to do with as they please.
You can't appeal to those types by placing blame.
One can appeal to the selfish instincts of these types by making it about them and their needs rather than the needs of the many and the ecosystem.
I think its more important to realize that whether we caused the problem or merely exacerbated it, we humans like the climate the way it is.
Regardless of cause, we should make changes to avoid catastrophe even if this means counteracting what might be natural trends.

Some might say this is unnatural, that we'd be working against nature.
I'd argue that an asteroid taking out the earth is "natural" and that we should still try to redirect it.


----------



## Highbeam (Nov 27, 2012)

That's a great cartoon.


----------



## Ehouse (Nov 27, 2012)

semipro said:


> I get what you're saying. Admitting you're part of the problem is the first step towards improvement. We humans aren't always so good at that.
> However, many deniers have a more basic belief that the world was given to them to do with as they please.
> You can't appeal to those types by placing blame.
> One can appeal to the selfish instincts of these types by making it about them and their needs rather than the needs of the many and the ecosystem.
> ...


Glad to see somebody else reads "Funny Times".


----------



## oldspark (Nov 27, 2012)

"Some might say this is unnatural, that we'd be working against nature"
That's rich, man has been working against nature since the begining of time.


----------



## macmaine (Nov 27, 2012)

Yup I love that cartoon thanks for posting!!

Regarding the idea that this is all a hoax and those geeky scientists are wrong....
As Fossil said you cannot ignore some of these major changes.
Melting over 1/2 of the  NORTH POLE does really mean we have global cooling
(3.5 million km squared Sept 2012; normally 8 million km squared)
No other way to  melt that ice than to COOL the globe down.

I guess NOAA NASA and all of those glaciologists are in on  a sick joke?

If you have not read this, enjoy. I think .
http://www.rollingstone.com/politics/news/global-warmings-terrifying-new-math-20120719


----------



## oldspark (Nov 28, 2012)

That makes sense, its cooler because of the cold air coming off the ice melting.
That is one great cartoon.


----------



## Highbeam (Nov 28, 2012)

macmaine said:


> Regarding the idea that this is all a hoax and those geeky scientists are wrong....


 
Did anybody say this? I certainly think that the graph was crap but only that particular graph and it could be wrong by underestimating the amount of warming.


----------



## blades (Nov 28, 2012)

2 cents worth, If and when the talking heads quit blaming mankind as the sole propagator of "Global Warming" I just might pay closer attention. As it stands it is more of an effort to create another cash cow for a few. I have yet to read articles that take into consideration volcanic activity.


----------



## semipro (Nov 28, 2012)

blades said:


> 2 cents worth, If and when the talking heads quit blaming mankind as the sole propagator of "Global Warming" I just might pay closer attention. .


I"m glad you spoke up on this as I"m curious to get a better understanding of the reasons behind views like yours and others.  
If you found out tomorrow with 100% certainty that global climate change was directly due to man's activities would you then support some sort of action?
I think its been shown before that mankind's activities can affect earth's systems and that we can also effect positive change (e.g. DDT, ozone depletion, etc.).
I guess I'm trying to get a better handle on why so many are disinterested in this issue when it could be the single biggest challenge to humankind ever or is that an example of the kind of hyperbole that turns people off? 
Is it because its so contentious?  Is it because the warnings are coming from scientists? Political reasons?  Other?


----------



## macmaine (Nov 28, 2012)

"Did anybody say this? I certainly think that the graph was crap but only that particular graph and it could be wrong by underestimating the amount of warming."

HighBeam:

I was responding the OP confusing weather with climate change : YES it is cold in Maine this week, NO this does not override all the data scientists spend decades  collecting showing warming globally

Blades: 

? Volcanoes?    
Yes they have studied them

http://www.pbs.org/programs/earth-the-operators-manual/

Look at the 18-25 minutes of this video:

Check out this video  there is  400,000 years of ice core data,
They even show an ice core with a Icelandic Volcano dust smudge on it!
They address your very question regarding the Volcanoes contribution at minute 35
CO2 is 180 ppm and 280 ppm has been natural variation for last 400,000 years.
We are now at 390 ppm and rising like a rock star.

http://www.pbs.org/programs/earth-the-operators-manual/




Tom


----------



## Frozen Canuck (Nov 28, 2012)

Just my 2 cents.
I have to agree with the folks that are saying let's slow down/curb our pollution. Old farts like me have a hard time believing that all the mess we create goes nowhere & does nothing. Just cant fathom why so many non science folks spend so much time alleging that science is wrong. While offering no proof of any kind, just allegations. Other than money & not wanting to do without anything of course.


----------



## blades (Nov 29, 2012)

I am not saying that man kind is not part of the problem,  I just cannot and will not get behind a  horse that is being created by a few for personal gain at the determent to 95% to the rest of us.  Me I'm just an old fart also, but not senile enough to not remember the conservation fiascos ( in my mind ) of the mid 70's. Nothing wrong with the conservation effort as a whole, just the effect it has on my wallet due to rising costs, The bulk of us can not with stand another round of exponential cost increases of staples due to the kind of thinking being promoted ( carbon credits)


----------



## Jags (Nov 29, 2012)

semipro said:


> I
> I guess I'm trying to get a better handle on why so many are disinterested in this issue when it could be the single biggest challenge to humankind ever or is that an example of the kind of hyperbole that turns people off?
> Is it because its so contentious?


 
My guess is that it is probably some of this. To formally state that this "could be the single biggest challenge to humankind ever" is inherently wrong (that would have been fire). Blanket statements and fear mongering of the warming crowd disenfranchises the other side of the fence, or possible even turns off some of the fence sitters. I think it is the "method" of the message that gets people all fired up.

Can we prove that the earth is warming? Yes.
Can we prove all of the elements that are causing this? No - not yet. We have our fingers on a few. Some are pretty well known, no doubt. Some are swept to the side (on both sides of the argument).

My point - blanket statements hurt both sides of the argument and does nothing to advance our knowledge about it.

Also - the approach to curbing stuff...you get more flies with honey than vinegar. Carbon tax?? How about an incentive to do the right thing? Why does everything have to be a punishment? (payment).  I have heard of a dog that even had that figured out.


----------



## jharkin (Nov 29, 2012)

blades said:


> 2 cents worth, If and when the talking heads quit blaming mankind as the sole propagator of "Global Warming" I just might pay closer attention. As it stands it is more of an effort to create another cash cow for a few. I have yet to read articles that take into consideration volcanic activity.


 

A cash cow for what "few" exactly?

The real cash cow is the one the oil/gas/coal industry is riding that depends on us doing nothing to change our current consumption.  If you want to find ulterior motives for either side of the debate that is the first place I would look.


----------



## TradEddie (Nov 29, 2012)

blades said:


> I am not saying that man kind is not part of the problem, I just cannot and will not get behind a horse that is being created by a few for personal gain at the determent to 95% to the rest of us


 
Once upon a time we threw our toilet waste out the window into a drain down the middle of the street, and I bet people said the exact same when asked to run pipes into their houses.  After that we had factories pouring so much chemicals into our rivers that they caught fire, and I bet the factory owners said the same thing then too.


----------



## schlot (Nov 30, 2012)

TradEddie said:


> Once upon a time we threw our toilet waste out the window into a drain down the middle of the street, and I bet people said the exact same when asked to run pipes into their houses. After that we had factories pouring so much chemicals into our rivers that they caught fire, and I bet the factory owners said the same thing then too.


 
My paltry two cents.

There is inherent good behind not dumping excess CO2 into the atmosphere, to not dumping so much into landfills that could be recycled, to not using fossil fuels where renewable energy can be used,etc. But I think many people resist these efforts because the push to reduce emissions/etc. is tied so closely to preventing global warming instead of stating waste/etc. is not making us good guardians of the world around us.

I think part of the problem with tying it almost solely to global warming is that we all know the world's weather is cyclical. Ice age followed by warming followed by ice age/etc. People (especially conservatives) do not want to pay for something that may do nothing (if you believe it's just part of a cycle) to fix the problem. Throwing money at problems is very seldom a good solution.

That being said, the cartoon encapsulate how I feel. We shouldn't need a global warming scare to say we need to curb excesses that do NOTHING good for the world around us. We do need leadership to step forward and say...."even if this doesn't stop global warming, what we are doing is bad for our world."

Also, someone said something about religion standing in the way. As a Christian, I believe we are directed to be good stewards of the land. So simply lumping religion into one side is not accurate and sounds short sided to say so.

Ok, I'm done now.


----------



## Highbeam (Nov 30, 2012)

Why should I care about global warming? Really, don't tell me about polar bears because I don't eat them. Don't tell me about the sea rising three feet because I live 700 feet above sea level. Yes, it is selfish but this is how the world runs. One of the challenges in getting the population on board with this is convincing us that any of this matters. Right now, it's just a bunch of marketing and we've grown accustomed to people trying to convince us to do something with advertising as the ads on the bottom of this screen.  

I'm an engineer and a natural skeptic. I have seen and believe data that shows warming but we're talking a couple of degrees. Why should I care?


----------



## jharkin (Nov 30, 2012)

Because that couple of ft rise will destroy the homes of millions or billions worldwide. People who will draw on insurance or govt disaster relieve to move or rebuild - a cost that hits us all. And that couple degrees temp change will cause droughts and crop shifts that will threaten the food supply of millions more. Plus more frequent storms like Sandy and Irene causing more billions in damage.


----------



## Highbeam (Nov 30, 2012)

Oh good, I see this as the problem. Insufficient drawbacks

 A couple feet of additional sea water won't bother any place that I've ever been in my entire life, certainly not where I live. All the coast locations that I've visited, none of them were within 2 feet of being damaged, maybe 10 feet. I don't see this being a significant problem, if you live on the ocean then maybe you feel differently or maybe you will adapt.

A couple of degrees cause droughts? That seems silly since the year to year and day to day temps swings are much more than that. I could use a couple more degrees to help my garden and all of the places that are too dry to grow crops might now be more feasible. The glass is 98% full.

I had zero effect from either of those storms you mentioned. If not for media, I would not have known they even happened.

So, got anything else? I am not yet convinced that the population should care.


----------



## woodgeek (Nov 30, 2012)

Highbeam, the best theoretical work currently being done is conclusive that a few degrees of GW will significantly increase the incidence of drought. While this seems counterintuitive, its actually not. All the (net) rainfall that lands on the continents evaporated from the ocean. The amount of vapor leaving the ocean and falling on the land is sensitive to the temperature *difference* between those two locations. The models suggest that GW will heat the land first, and the ocean will take a couple centuries to catch up. Moreover, the warmer land will dry out faster, requiring more rainfall to maintain the same soil moisture, when in fact it will get less on average.

Middle of the road prediction is that non-irrigated agriculture in most of the US 'breadbasket' will not be feasible under current CO2 projections before 2100.

This really points out how useless the historical record is....slowly increasing GW....midwest becomes a jungle, same amount of GW faster...a desert.

Since the current rate of CO2 increase far exceeds anything in the historical/fossil record, we can only rely on models to predict the outcome. If you don't like models, then ok, but what should we do if history cannot provide a guide??


----------



## Highbeam (Nov 30, 2012)

woodgeek said:


> what should we do


 
I'm way over my head here but perhaps the question is, why should we do anything? or what could we do? The difference between could and should is profound.

I didn't get too excited about the year 2000 switch either.


----------



## woodgeek (Nov 30, 2012)

how about...

1) build better models (negligible cost compared to world GDP)
2) implement energy efficiency programs economy wide that save consumers and businesses money (negative cost)
3) take steps to limit minor greenhouse gas emissions that are easier/cheaper than CO2....like freon recycling and fixing gas pipeline and wellhead leakage.

Y2K was a jobs program for geeks.


----------



## semipro (Nov 30, 2012)

A little off topic but I have to ask...
I keep reading that sea levels are rising faster than predicted.  Some of this has been explained by water pumping subsidence and reduction in the gulf stream flow rate which decreases the Sargasso Sea swell (in addition to polar bear habitat disappearing).  
Since someone mentioned increasing ocean temps earlier I'm wondering if models are accounting for the volumetric expansion of a substance, in this case, sea water, that occurs with warming?  
Sometimes the simplest explanations are overlooked.


----------



## woodgeek (Nov 30, 2012)

I'm not that into the sea level rise stuff.  IIRC, thermal expansion of the surface layer of the ocean accounts for a significant portion of the observed rise, along with the other effects you mentioned.

Its in there.


----------



## Ehouse (Nov 30, 2012)

Highbeam said:


> I'm way over my head here but perhaps the question is, why should we do anything? or what could we do? The difference between could and should is profound.
> 
> I didn't get too excited about the year 2000 switch either.


 

Would you get excited about Ranier sloughing off it's considerable mass of muck and burying you?


----------



## GaryGary (Dec 1, 2012)

Highbeam said:


> ...  or what could we do?


 
This is what we did: http://www.builditsolar.com/References/Half/Half.htm

Applied on a wide scale, it would be a good step in the right direction and save people a ton of money as well.

I'm an engineer as well and have been following climate change for some time -- have to say I am much less relaxed about it than you are.  I think there is a good chance it is going to profoundly change both physical and political world that my kids and grandkids live in.

Gary


----------



## Highbeam (Dec 1, 2012)

Ehouse said:


> Would you get excited about Ranier sloughing off it's considerable mass of muck and burying you?


 
That's happened before and greatly influenced nearby topography, but not in my location. Are you implying that "the sky is falling"?


----------



## jharkin (Dec 1, 2012)

Highbeam said:


> Oh good, I see this as the problem. Insufficient drawbacks
> 
> A couple feet of additional sea water won't bother any place that I've ever been in my entire life, certainly not where I live. All the coast locations that I've visited, none of them were within 2 feet of being damaged, maybe 10 feet. I don't see this being a significant problem, if you live on the ocean then maybe you feel differently or maybe you will adapt.


 

Highbeam I think you are taking a very narrow viewpoint that looks only at the United States.

It might well be that 2ft of sea rise wont hurt us... But there are countries that have almost there entire populations within a few feet of the current sea level.  Ive heard estimates that 3ft could innundate half the population of places like Indonesia.  Sure that doesnt hurt you or me but with half their people drowning do you think those countries governments will have the resources to cope? Doubt it, and the next thing you know we will be sending in a carrier or monetary aid.



> A couple of degrees cause droughts? That seems silly since the year to year and day to day temps swings are much more than that. I could use a couple more degrees to help my garden and all of the places that are too dry to grow crops might now be more feasible. The glass is 98% full.
> 
> I had zero effect from either of those storms you mentioned. If not for media, I would not have known they even happened.
> 
> So, got anything else? I am not yet convinced that the population should care.


 
Day to day weather variation and changes in average temperatures are two different things.  We have had a decade of record hot years, and record droughts here in the US, in China, in Russia and Europe over that time. Las year we had all time record droughts both in here and in Western China. The chinese had to buy more and more food from us to cope driving up the prices for the food you and I eat.  Recall a few years ago the temps around Moscow hit something like 105F and the wheat crops caught fire? Or the monsoon floods in Pakistan last year (or was it 2010?) that left 10s of millions homeless? Or the heat wave in Europe a few years before that that killed thousands?  Events like that are becoming more common and as with teh above when the local government hasent the resources to cope they ask the world for aid and more often than not its us who provide that aid.

The world is interconnected. Just because an event doesn't happen in your back yard doesn't make you immune. Most of the time you (and I and all of us) are paying for it whether you realize it or not.


----------



## Ehouse (Dec 1, 2012)

Highbeam said:


> That's happened before and greatly influenced nearby topography, but not in my location. Are you implying that "the sky is falling"?


 

No. I agree that there are too many Chicken Littles looking for research grants, admin. positions, funding to combat this or that invasive species (and moving on to the next as soon as the money is pocketed) or to sell us aging boomers some more snake oil or pills. Catastrophe economics is everywhere, but disturbing trends towards increasing instability in our environment are staring us in the face. Perhaps you don't give a rat's ass about polar bears, but coal miners are smart enough to hightail it to the surface when the canary stops singing.

Ehouse


----------



## Frozen Canuck (Dec 1, 2012)

Not to worry folks. If we lose the Artic ice things should speed up fast. Then we will all have our answer. It maybe too late then but...


----------



## Highbeam (Dec 2, 2012)

jharkin said:


> Highbeam I think you are taking a very narrow viewpoint that looks only at the United States.


 
You're right, I could care less if microindonesia was totally wiped out. Just as I don't expect to see a microindonesian helicopter swoop in to rescue me if my house falls down in an earthquake I do not feel responsible to guarantee the well being of other populations.

jharkin, you're argument seems to be fueled by theoretical catastrophies happening in a land far far away that have little or no influence on america's world. We are similar in age and I think we both grew up watching the commercials on TV about the starving ethiopians. Guess what? They're still there starving, and breeding, and we're still sending money.

There are some things worth fighting for globally. Temporary disaster relief will always be something that america should provide and that aircraft carrier would have been somewhere anyway. When and if an area becomes uninhabitable for whatever reason, the residents should scatter naturally. That might mean me moving to another place or accepting new populations from elsewhere. Adapt or die.

Thank you all for tolerating me and helping me wander into these topics for the first time in my life. It is not necessary for most americans to think about these things at all. We could spend our lives totally oblivious to the GW crying and I can't think of a single side effect. Might be better, less arguing.


----------



## woodgeek (Dec 2, 2012)

Highbeam said:


> Thank you all for tolerating me and helping me wander into these topics for the first time in my life. It is not necessary for most americans to think about these things at all. We could spend our lives totally oblivious to the GW crying and I can't think of a single side effect. Might be better, less arguing.


 
Always try to be tolerant....but not sure what you are saying at the end there....are there no side effects relevant to americans from GW? americans in PNW? from the crying?

My take all along is that there is so much varied news coverage on AGW (hot spells, hurricanes, arctic ice, droughts, sea level, bark beetles, fires, glaciers, polar bears, gulf stream, permafrost, tipping points, etc) that many/most folks just shut down and filter the whole thing out. All that stuff makes for better news stories than 'scientists reduced the error bar on their projected 2050 temperature by 40%', but the latter 'boring' result would be far more important.

IMO a classic 'forest through the trees' problem. The bottom line is that scientists are very confident that current and projected CO2 releases will change seasonal temperature and rainfall patterns in a way that will severely affect humanity and the natural biosphere, in our children's lifetime. The major problem for humans will be changing/decreased land available for agriculture and for the biosphere changes in habitat. Many species that don't move will become extinct.

And contrary to doomers....the worst projections are completely avoidable with inexpensive policy changes.


----------



## jharkin (Dec 2, 2012)

I don't think the doomer crowd believes its impossible to avoid., rather they don't see the political/societal will to do it before the repercussions become so impossible to ignore that its to late.


----------



## Ehouse (Dec 2, 2012)

Would you elaborate on these policy changes?


----------



## woodgeek (Dec 2, 2012)

Ehouse said:


> Would you elaborate on these policy changes?


 
Primarily, I figure geoengineering will go from unthinkable to very popular at some point.

If we do a great job reducing carbon intensity of the global economy in the next decade or two, I think we won't need much geoengineering, if we (or folks overseas) take a couple more decades, then we will need more geoengineering.

And I **think** both sides of the fence, reducing carbon intensity and geoengineering, will turn out to be cheaper than we currently think, once we start to do them at greater scales. Not free, but not so expensive as to be infeasible or kill the economy either.

A separate open question is our psychological connection to 'growth'. A lot of macroeconomic trends are tied to population growth and demographic waves. The US in the 60s and China now were/are on the crest, The US and Japan now are at the bottom. How do we need to modify our economic structures and trade to have a healthy economy in a flat or declining population?? I don't think we have figured that out yet!


----------



## begreen (Dec 7, 2012)

Highbeam said:


> You're right, I could care less if microindonesia was totally wiped out. Just as I don't expect to see a microindonesian helicopter swoop in to rescue me if my house falls down in an earthquake I do not feel responsible to guarantee the well being of other populations.
> 
> jharkin, you're argument seems to be fueled by theoretical catastrophies happening in a land far far away that have little or no influence on america's world. We are similar in age and I think we both grew up watching the commercials on TV about the starving ethiopians. Guess what? They're still there starving, and breeding, and we're still sending money.
> 
> ...


 
At our current pace, the entire world will be affected. A billion people displaced would impact all. The effect would be global. Agricultural changes also would be dramatically noticeable as would bugs and disease moving northward. We are already seeing these effects. Insurance costs for the losses of crops and large coastal areas would also impact us.

This video was in the biochar thread but I think it bears posting here too. Take time to watch this presentation. It is enlightening and offers a positive solution.


----------



## ailanthus (Dec 9, 2012)

WhitePine said:


> World ocean temperatures are the most important indicator, since they have a major impact on global weather patterns. They have in fact risen during that period.
> The graph is from the US EPA. Feel free to criticize the source.


 
When the ocean temps rise (i.e. due to increased solar intensity) CO2 would be released. Do some reading on it- interesting stuff. It's generally assumed that CO2 is causing the ocean temperature to rise, but I don't believe that anyone truly knows which is causing which.


----------



## sesmith (Dec 18, 2012)

Just in (maybe some heads will come out of the sand long enough to read it   :

http://green.blogs.nytimes.com/2012...ment-on-a-warming-planet/?partner=rss&emc=rss


----------



## jharkin (Dec 18, 2012)

Don't hold your breath.....


----------



## SmokeyTheBear (Dec 21, 2012)

WhitePine said:


> World ocean temperatures are the most important indicator, since they have a major impact on global weather patterns. They have in fact risen during that period.
> The graph is from the US EPA. Feel free to criticize the source.


 
Looks like it is going down hill since 1998 or so.


----------



## Highbeam (Dec 22, 2012)

SmokeyTheBear said:


> Looks like it is going down hill since 1998 or so.


 
They call that cherry picking and it is ultra common and another of the tricks folks use to try and prove their point. Folks on both sides use this trick so as consumers of this "science" we need to watch for it.


----------



## begreen (Dec 22, 2012)

Locally we had a "king" tide last week coupled with high winds. Locals that have lived here all their lives report that it is the highest they've ever seen. Several yards and some houses flooded. Up on Whidbey island it took out a house. California coastal towns noted the same thing. These shoreline areas will be seeing greater impacts as the seas rise.


----------



## Doug MacIVER (Dec 22, 2012)

hey the seas rise they fall , seas up what 2cm last year? just think the temps have been slowly going up since that last ice age some 10 to 12,000 yrs ago. ice age every 10-12,000 yrs what does that mean?how long will halocene period last???????????


----------



## gmule (Dec 23, 2012)

Not to kick the hornets nest but....haven't we been getting warmer since the end of the last ice age? I think the real discussion is are we the cause or is this a normal cycle of the earth?


----------



## farmerblue (Dec 23, 2012)

I thought we were in global wobble not global warming.

If you go back and look at post #12. That graph clearly shows that in 1910 the north poll had wobbled away from the sun and then we started to wobble back towards the sun.

The earth is like an unstable spinning top. I think we need to ship a few hundred billion tons of trash back to china to try to redistribute the weight and slow the wobble back down.


----------



## Doug MacIVER (Dec 23, 2012)

round about way of saying natural mostly. if history tells us anything it's that climate is not stable in either direction, within a range yes in one direction no. most temp stuff based on satellite since '79 and local like US hottest ever 2012 . alot of answers next few years when amo catches up with pdo.more like 1950-1980 than 1920 1950. good art by dr roy spencer "our chaotic climate system"


----------



## begreen (Dec 23, 2012)

Doug MacIVER said:


> hey the seas rise they fall , seas up what 2cm last year? just think the temps have been slowly going up since that last ice age some 10 to 12,000 yrs ago. ice age every 10-12,000 yrs what does that mean?how long will halocene period last???????????


 
We're talking rapid rise here, not one that lasts millennia. Long term rises allow civilization to adapt to them. Rapid rise can be catastrophic to coastal towns and cities. (Guess where the major population centers are). This rapid rise is going to be very costly. You can't move southern FL's population overnight.


----------



## Doug MacIVER (Dec 23, 2012)

begreen said:


> We're talking rapid rise here, not one that lasts millennia. Long term rises allow civilization to adapt to them. Rapid rise can be catastrophic to coastal towns and cities. (Guess where the major population centers are). This rapid rise is going to be very costly. You can't move southern FL's population overnight.


sorry i have not read every post on this thread but first i've seen on on rapid rise. if that is the topic where is it going to come from,79-97 temp up alot, 98- 2012  temp flat.don't hear much about glaciers anymore? surface temp expansion? greenland 100,200,xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx 1000 years, antartic ice growing! tell us where rapid rise will occur,happen or when. backbay ,boston , man made land couple feet above high tide land, battery, new york, man made land couple feet above sea level , no, la  below  well enough


----------



## begreen (Dec 23, 2012)

Actually the west Antarctic temp average is rising much faster than we thought. We are still learning the dynamics of this precious blue marble spaceship.

http://www.nytimes.com/2012/12/24/s...ing-faster-than-thought-study-finds.html?_r=0


----------



## Doug MacIVER (Dec 23, 2012)

Doug MacIVER said:


> sorry i have not read every post on this thread but first i've seen on on rapid rise. if that is the topic where is it going to come from,79-97 temp up alot, 98- 2012 temp flat.don't hear much about glaciers anymore? surface temp expansion? greenland 100,200,xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx 1000 years, antartic ice growing! tell us where rapid rise will occur,happen or when. backbay ,boston , man made land couple feet above high tide land, battery, new york, man made land couple feet above sea level , no, la below well enough


 oh mass state house on beacon hill cant give you elevation but hill give you a hint. it isn't on the beach!


----------



## Doug MacIVER (Dec 23, 2012)

begreen said:


> Actually the west Antarctic temp average is rising much faster than we thought. We are still learning the dynamics of this precious blue marble spaceship.
> 
> http://www.nytimes.com/2012/12/24/s...ing-faster-than-thought-study-finds.html?_r=0


 sorry  but please read spancer and add  1+1 and you just answered your dynamic question, time for you to rebutt in kind , for you what is the area  in west ant. compareed to the whole  of our smallest cont.









=


----------



## jharkin (Dec 24, 2012)

Huh?


----------



## Highbeam (Dec 26, 2012)

The jibberish does not help you make a point. Maybe if you slow down and form complete sentences. I'm all for hearing both sides of this but not in that language.


----------



## Doug MacIVER (Dec 27, 2012)

Highbeam said:


> The jibberish does not help you make a point. Maybe if you slow down and form complete sentences. I'm all for hearing both sides of this but not in that language.


 west ant=west antarctica  smallest cont.=smallest continent.sorry reading too much twitter stuff i guess.


----------



## oldspark (Dec 27, 2012)

Another skill is lost!


----------



## begreen (Jan 9, 2013)

It's official, last summer was the hottest on record in the US and not by a small amount. Australia is now experiencing record heat in their summer.
http://www.nytimes.com/2013/01/09/science/earth/2012-was-hottest-year-ever-in-us.html
http://www.heraldsun.com.au/news/br...uring-a-heatwave/story-e6frf7kf-1226550602740
They actually had to extend the heat range of their charts to accommodate the record breaking temps in the center of the country that pushed 50 (122)

So far it is still dry in the middle of the US. Hope we have a wet spring in the midwest or shipping is in trouble.
http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/...etch-of-mississippi-river-ghost-town/1818997/


----------



## nate379 (Jan 9, 2013)

Climate cooling here in Alaska.

http://thewatchers.adorraeli.com/20...wn-despite-a-global-trend-of-warming-climate/


----------



## oldspark (Jan 9, 2013)

Well if its dry again here in the midwest shipping wont be the only problem.


----------



## Doug MacIVER (Jan 9, 2013)

begreen said:


> It's official, last summer was the hottest on record in the US and not by a small amount. Australia is now experiencing record heat in their summer.
> http://www.nytimes.com/2013/01/09/science/earth/2012-was-hottest-year-ever-in-us.html
> http://www.heraldsun.com.au/news/br...uring-a-heatwave/story-e6frf7kf-1226550602740
> They actually had to extend the heat range of their charts to accommodate the record breaking temps in the center of the country that pushed 50 (122)
> ...


 given but remember it's called "global climate change" the press loves heat never seems to talk abouth the cold. record low arctic ice never mentions record anarctic ice.u.s. is what 3 to 5% land globally austrailia about the same,the local aspect is not global.points to ponder ,web site "whats up with that" has in interesting article on noaa climate data breifly it states july '36 warmer than july '12, check out both sides. as dr. spencer points out until someone comes up with the amount of natural warming that is adding to the currently stalled global warming,  the models do not have all the answers.lastly the weekend climate this weekend will be talked up as it warms to 60 in dc and maybe even further north but on the other side of the world china and siberia are at record cold! stoves in the u.s. get a workout jan 15th and beyond.


----------



## semipro (Jan 9, 2013)

Record breaking temps in Australia.  So much so they had to revise their contour map scale.
http://www.reuters.com/article/2013/01/09/us-australia-wildfires-maps-idUSBRE90806V20130109


----------



## Doug MacIVER (Jan 9, 2013)

semipro said:


> Record breaking temps in Australia. So much so they had to revise their contour map scale.
> http://www.reuters.com/article/2013/01/09/us-australia-wildfires-maps-idUSBRE90806V20130109


 ok,let's stay with local stories. from yahoo's "china's extreme cold snaps records" a quote from the article"brital cold is also shattering records acress russia. this winter is the coldest on record since 1938,and temperatures plunged as low as -58f (-50c)in some areas." gee 1938 was also in a warm period globally.


----------



## jharkin (Jan 9, 2013)

Doug MacIVER said:


> ok,let's stay with local stories. from yahoo's "china's extreme cold snaps records" a quote from the article"brital cold is also shattering records acress russia. this winter is the coldest on record since 1938,and temperatures plunged as low as -58f (-50c)in some areas." gee 1938 was also in a warm period globally.


 
The overall warming effect could also eventually redirect or even break the gulf stream- resulting in the UK suffering record cold winters while we bake in the lower 48.

Your point?


----------



## oldspark (Jan 9, 2013)

There cant be global warming its cold here today, give me a break, odds are we are causing a problem with all the pollutants we are injecting into the air or do you want to argue about that also. Time will tell and when we all know the truth it will be too late and life will change forever, did you hear about the southern butterflys they are finding up north in large numbers.


----------



## Jags (Jan 9, 2013)

Maybe I won't have to move south after all.


----------



## begreen (Jan 9, 2013)

nate379 said:


> Climate cooling here in Alaska.
> 
> http://thewatchers.adorraeli.com/20...wn-despite-a-global-trend-of-warming-climate/


 
The Pacific NW was the exception last summer.


----------



## Doug MacIVER (Jan 9, 2013)

jharkin said:


> The overall warming effect could also eventually redirect or even break the gulf stream- resulting in the UK suffering record cold winters while we bake in the lower 48.
> 
> Your point?


 if the thermohaline circulation breaks we're all in the freezer, point is global climate change is just that ,not how hot or cold it is at any one place at one time. since the satellite era began in 1979 global  temps rose rapidly to '98 the last 15 have been globally flat, no hockey stick yet where it was predicted.question sticks in my mind how much is manmade and how much is natural . my guess mostly natural


----------



## begreen (Jan 9, 2013)

Doug MacIVER said:


> given but remember it's called "global climate change" the press loves heat never seems to talk abouth the cold. record low arctic ice never mentions record anarctic ice.u.s. is what 3 to 5% land globally austrailia about the same,the local aspect is not global.points to ponder ,web site "whats up with that" has in interesting article on noaa climate data breifly it states july '36 warmer than july '12, check out both sides. as dr. spencer points out until someone comes up with the amount of natural warming that is adding to the currently stalled global warming, the models do not have all the answers.lastly the weekend climate this weekend will be talked up as it warms to 60 in dc and maybe even further north but on the other side of the world china and siberia are at record cold! stoves in the u.s. get a workout jan 15th and beyond.


 
long run-on sentences without capitalization or paragraph breaks are really hard to read. typos make it evon wirs. spenser has always been tilting against the wind, it's good to have skeptics. but at times this guy seems to be a bit off the deep end. his creationist intelligent design theories are pretty far out there. "in the book _the evolution crisis_, spencer wrote, "i finally became convinced that the theory of creation actually had a much better scientific basis than the theory of evolution, for the creation model was actually better able to explain the physical and biological complexity in the world. [...]"


----------



## jharkin (Jan 9, 2013)

The "no temp increase in the last 12 years" claim has been debunked many times - on this site and elsewhere. Its all cherry picking the years you compare. The overall trends are obvious if you dont have an agenda.


----------



## Doug MacIVER (Jan 9, 2013)

begreen said:


> long run-on sentences without capitalization or paragraph breaks are really hard to read. spenser has always been tilting against the wind, it's good to have skeptics. but at times this guy seems to be a bit off the deep end. his creationist intelligent design theories are pretty far out there. "in the book _the evolution crisis_, spencer wrote, "i finally became convinced that the theory of creation actually had a much better scientific basis than the theory of evolution, for the creation model was actually better able to explain the physical and biological complexity in the world. [...]"


 religion left out here, spencer believes the globe is warming, but not in co2 as the cause.


----------



## Doug MacIVER (Jan 9, 2013)

jharkin said:


> Hte "no temp increase in the last 12 years" claim has been debunked many times - on this site and elsewhere. Its all cherry picking the years you compare. The overall trends are obvious if you dont have an agenda.


 the cherry pick is also in citing locally versus globally. global temperautre for  2012  .161c above the 1979-2012 norm not exactly hockey stick stuff.  agenda yes i'm afraid of ed markey's cap and trade tax on carbon in the name of climate change, add the UN to it, global tax. sorry i've strayed.


----------



## Doug MacIVER (Jan 9, 2013)

Doug MacIVER said:


> the cherry pick is also in citing locally versus globally. global temperautre for 2012 .161c above the 1979-2012 norm not exactly hockey stick stuff. agenda yes i'm afraid of ed markey's cap and trade tax on carbon in the name of climate change, add the UN to it, global tax. sorry i've strayed.


 one last word, a great read is michael crichton's "state of fear" 2004. makes alot of sense today and it's fiction! only fictional novel that i've read that is footnoted


----------



## semipro (Jan 9, 2013)

jharkin said:


> The overall warming effect could also eventually redirect or even break the gulf stream- resulting in the UK suffering record cold winters while we bake in the lower 48.


Its interesting too that the slowing of the Gulf Stream has been attributed with the decrease it the swell that occurs in the Sargasso Sea resulting in higher than expected sea level rises on the east coast.


----------



## semipro (Jan 9, 2013)

Doug MacIVER said:


> ok,let's stay with local stories. from yahoo's "china's extreme cold snaps records" a quote from the article"brital cold is also shattering records acress russia. this winter is the coldest on record since 1938,and temperatures plunged as low as -58f (-50c)in some areas." gee 1938 was also in a warm period globally.


Agreed that local highs or lows are really outliers.
The temps cited in the link are crazy though! 
Its interesting that many climatologists have said that global climate change will be most evident from temp extremes (high and low) and increasingly violent storms.


----------



## begreen (Jan 9, 2013)

Doug MacIVER said:


> religion left out here, spencer believes the globe is warming, but not in co2 as the cause.


 
Dissenting opinions are good in science. Quite frankly, it doesn't matter if he is wrong or right in the sense that even if we are on a natural cycle, we are exacerbating it. Once we pass the point where thermoclines stop or methane volume releases from permafrost are accelerating unchecked, there will be huge impacts and costs. To ignore change or to hold up planning for what seems to be inevitable is like telling the watch on the Titanic to go to bed while cruising at maximum speed through an iceberg field. The odds of a major catastrophe occurring go up exponentially.

As a counterpoint to Spenser I recommend you read up a bit of info left by Dr. Stephen Schneider: http://stephenschneider.stanford.edu/index.html


----------



## begreen (Jan 9, 2013)

Doug MacIVER said:


> one last word, a great read is michael crichton's "state of fear" 2004. makes alot of sense today and it's fiction! only fictional novel that i've read that is footnoted


 
Not uncommon. It's sometimes used to imply credibility to the text. And sometimes the footnotes are just made up. Look at Manual Puig’s Kiss of the Spider Woman or Vladimir Nabokov’s novel, Pale Fire or The Athenian Murders, by José Carlos Somoza. Often they are used comically like in The Bartimaeus Trilogy by Jonathan Stroud

You might be interested in this review (by a doctor of meteorology) of Crichton's novel. Here's a sample:

"On a scientific level, Crichton has obviously done a lot of research. The high-tech schemes of the baddies to create fake climate mayhem are all delightfully improbable, but based in fact just enough to leave you wondering if such things are really possible (not!). Unfortunately, Crichton presents a error-filled and distorted version of the Global Warming science, favoring views of the handful of contrarians that attack the consensus science of the IPCC."

http://www.wunderground.com/resources/education/stateoffear.asp?MR=1


----------



## Doug MacIVER (Jan 9, 2013)

begreen said:


> Dissenting opinions are good in science. Quite frankly, it doesn't matter if he is wrong or right in the sense that even if we are on a natural cycle, we are exacerbating it. Once we pass the point where thermoclines stop or methane volume releases from permafrost are accelerating unchecked, there will be huge impacts and costs. To ignore change or to hold up planning for what seems to be inevitable is like telling the watch on the Titanic to go to bed while cruising at maximum speed through an iceberg field. The odds of a major catastrophe occurring go up exponentially.


 only if you believe one side,  and you do. good luck, you bought it. to quote  h. clinton "never waist a good crsis" it helps to create a "state of fear"


----------



## Doug MacIVER (Jan 9, 2013)

begreen said:


> Not uncommon. It's sometimes used to imply credibility to the text. And sometimes the footnotes are just made up. Look at Manual Puig’s Kiss of the Spider Woman or Vladimir Nabokov’s novel, Pale Fire or The Athenian Murders, by José Carlos Somoza. Often they are used comically like in The Bartimaeus Trilogy by Jonathan Stroud
> 
> You might be interested in this review (by a doctor of meteorology) of Cricton's novel. Here's a sample:
> 
> ...


 ever read it?


----------



## begreen (Jan 9, 2013)

What I believe doesn't really matter. I'm not a climatologist. What I respect a large body of evidence and concerns presented by scientists that have been studying this for a long time.


----------



## begreen (Jan 9, 2013)

Doug MacIVER said:


> ever read it?


 
Not yet. Probably unlikely too.


----------



## jharkin (Jan 9, 2013)

Somebody gave me that book  State of Fear as a gift. 

One glance and I circular filed it.


----------



## Hearth Mistress (Jan 9, 2013)

Not sure how I missed this thread but can this be as simple as weather just runs in patterns,way beyond our life spans and we just happen to be living during the "warm time" (which I'll take over an ice age any day)

Have you ever noticed a 7 day weather pattern, like it rains every Tuesday until the jet streams change? I'm not sure what to believe or really what I can do about it but am facinated by the passion of both sides.

Since this a forum for burning....here's fuel for the fire....feel free to discuss 

http://www.greatglobalwarmingswindle.com/pdf/2007 05-03 AusIMM corrected.pdf


----------



## begreen (Jan 10, 2013)

Good fuel for another day Jeni. It's late and time for bed. I agree that this needs to be an open scientific debate, not an emotional one and certainly not a political one.


----------



## Doug MacIVER (Jan 10, 2013)

Doug MacIVER said:


> only if you believe one side, and you do. good luck, you bought it. to quote h. clinton "never waist a good crsis" it helps to create a "state of fear"


 even i know that should be waste


----------



## Doug MacIVER (Jan 10, 2013)

Hearth Mistress said:


> Not sure how I missed this thread but can this be as simple as weather just runs in patterns,way beyond our life spans and we just happen to be living during the "warm time" (which I'll take over an ice age any day)
> 
> Have you ever noticed a 7 day weather pattern, like it rains every Tuesday until the jet streams change? I'm not sure what to believe or really what I can do about it but am facinated by the passion of both sides.
> 
> ...


 now you did it under "is there consensus" that discredited mike critchton is quoted. that'll throw that paper out!


----------



## jharkin (Jan 10, 2013)

My wife has this fascination with meteorology and forward me this blog from her favorite local weatherman.

http://www1.whdh.com/weather/blog/posts/BO149512/

Sadly I fear he is right that people just dont care enough to be bothered to make radical change... And I fear that his proposed savior of CCS is going to turn out to be too energy expensive on the down slope of the fossil fuel age to be of much help.


----------



## oldspark (Jan 10, 2013)

Well we have to get the rest of the world on board, we cant do it by ourselves, so it might not work no matter what we think, time to invest in air conditioning companies maybe.


----------



## Frozen Canuck (Jan 11, 2013)

Your wife has a weatherman thats not afraid to be honest. Trouble is he has it pretty much pegged too.

Forget about radical change, how about any change? Heck how about some education so folks are able to think big picture rather than..... the world that matters stops at the end of their nose. As long as people are willing to have others tell them what to think in the forum of a political slogan, do no research/reading/investigation, never mind independant thought...well lets just say it's going to be a long tough row to hoe.

Most folks on this forum are the exeception rather than the rule when it comes to energy conservation. Bottom line in much of the world energy is just too cheap to encourage any kind of conservation......Drill baby drill......Burn baby burn.......was spoken along time ago & holds true to this day.

Oh yes CCS as it exists right now = non starter. Big bucks being spent but so far......


----------



## woodgeek (Jan 12, 2013)

Climate change? What Climate Change??

Say I get my news from network television. In the entire year of 2012 ABC,NBC and CBS had a total of 12 segments on the subject of climate change. Those commies at PBS did have 23, one every couple weeks.

http://mediamatters.org/blog/2013/01/09/what-nightly-news-shows-can-learn-from-pbs-clim/192127

The sunday morning news/talk shows clocked in at a total of 8 minutes of coverage in 2012.


----------



## Doug MacIVER (Jan 12, 2013)

begreen said:


> Dissenting opinions are good in science. Quite frankly, it doesn't matter if he is wrong or right in the sense that even if we are on a natural cycle, we are exacerbating it. Once we pass the point where thermoclines stop or methane volume releases from permafrost are accelerating unchecked, there will be huge impacts and costs. To ignore change or to hold up planning for what seems to be inevitable is like telling the watch on the Titanic to go to bed while cruising at maximum speed through an iceberg field. The odds of a major catastrophe occurring go up exponentially.
> 
> As a counterpoint to Spenser I recommend you read up a bit of info left by Dr. Stephen Schneider: http://stephenschneider.stanford.edu/index.html


 Geez, I see that Dr. Schneider predicted back in 1979 that the west antarctic ice shelf would melt as early as 2000.That would also be accompanied with a 25 foot sea level rise. Did we miss sometyhing,shame he''s not here to expain it, maybe he did,but I have seen it yet.


----------



## vinny11950 (Jan 12, 2013)

woodgeek said:


> Climate change? What Climate Change??
> 
> Say I get my news from network television. In the entire year of 2012 ABC,NBC and CBS had a total of 12 segments on the subject of climate change. Those commies at PBS did have 23, one every couple weeks.
> 
> ...


 
the carbon industry bullies the networks not to mention climate change.  on the Sunday shows i always see commercials for gas and oil companies.  money talks and ... well you know the rest.

even when debating it, people who don't understand the issues still give equal weight to both sides of the argument, not realizing that most of the science supports climate change/warming.  enough think tanks have been set up to counter and put into doubt climate change, even when it is already making havoc in our own back yards.

millions of tons of carbon fuels still have to be pumped and profited from so i doubt anything will be done.  we will just have to continue to endure the effects until we can't anymore and then who knows.

but the rich usually get what they want, so i completely expect the rich oil companies to get their way and block any reasonable approach to energy conservation or carbon tax.


----------



## Redskins82 (Jan 12, 2013)

woodgeek said:


> Climate change? What Climate Change??
> 
> Say I get my news from network television. In the entire year of 2012 ABC,NBC and CBS had a total of 12 segments on the subject of climate change. Those commies at PBS did have 23, one every couple weeks.
> 
> ...


 

Yep, and now the NYT is closing their environment desk. Maybe they know we'll never survive a large arctic methane release and the environment is toast so there's no reason the report on it anymore.


----------



## oldspark (Jan 12, 2013)

Why is it that a lot of people who believe in god dont believe in man made global change?


----------



## begreen (Jan 12, 2013)

Redskins82 said:


> Yep, and now the NYT is closing their environment desk. Maybe they know we'll never survive a large arctic methane release and the environment is toast so there's no reason the report on it anymore.


 
Corporate economic decisions often do not relate to reality.


----------



## woodgeek (Jan 16, 2013)

More climate change in the media....

http://mediamatters.org/research/2013/01/08/study-warmest-year-on-record-received-cool-clim/192079

RE climate change coverage on the sunday morning news shows....for the last 4 years on all three networks, ALL the interviews of people on the climate change issue have been with GOP pols.  So much for 'balanced'.


----------



## begreen (Jan 16, 2013)

A man will say anything when his salary depends on it.


----------



## Ehouse (Jan 16, 2013)

Or a woman.


----------

