NASA/ JPL Report Antarctic Ice Melt Unstoppable

Plants, animals, botanicals, crystals, eco-systems. Wonders of Ga'ia

Moderator: Super Moderators

User avatar
kbot
Pirate
Posts: 6685
Joined: 03-12-2008 05:44 AM

Post by kbot » 05-15-2014 10:58 AM

With you on this one Fan - I thought I read a few years back that temps throughout the solar system were rising. Kinda hard to explain all of that on man's influence....
"The dogma lives loudly within you. And that’s of concern ......"

Cherry Kelly
Pirate
Posts: 12851
Joined: 07-29-2000 02:00 AM
Contact:

Post by Cherry Kelly » 05-15-2014 03:03 PM

Climate change is quite normal. Not just the sunshine, but the moon's pull at various times.
Just short time ago we had a "phenomenon" that happens maybe 100 yrs apart. It was the closest the sun and moon were to the Earth's rotation around the sun.
The sun's rise and fall in outbursts (flares) runs on an approximate 11 yr cycle - high to low and back again. The moon has its own cycle which runs 7 years. Very seldom do the two happen at a high or low at the same time.
Just like we have the ocean bit with El Nino and La Nina. The changes that occur with those also affect Earth.
The polar axis of north/south also fluctuates.
Combinations of any above can cause oddities in weather situations.

Part of the main problem is that we as humans did not have the high quality ability to record temperatures with the accuracy we now have, nor other new technology we have in this time period.

User avatar
Riddick
Pirate
Posts: 11163
Joined: 11-01-2002 03:00 AM
Location: SE WI
Contact:

Post by Riddick » 05-15-2014 04:30 PM

Cherry Kelly wrote: Part of the main problem is that we as humans did not have the high quality ability to record temperatures with the accuracy we now have, nor other new technology we have in this time period.
Talk about human arrogance. Like it's for us to decide there's a 'normal' temperature for Mother Earth? Is a global atmospheric average really representative of what's actually going on with the old gal anyway? So what about her deep-inside internals? We can't even say for sure just what her guts are made of or how they work do we...?

Yet we CAN say we know we're the ones to blame for her long term meteorologic condition. Uh-huh. Well, as George Carlin might say, how lucky for her she has a self-correcting system that over the eons has had her successfully cope with FAR worse than a bunch of conceited self-important know-it-all "surface nuisances" eh!!

User avatar
SquidInk
________________
Posts: 5862
Joined: 03-15-2007 03:48 PM

Post by SquidInk » 05-15-2014 05:57 PM

Wait...

I usually find Carlin to be nearly flawless. This is an exception. Of course 90% of all species that have ever lived are now extinct. Entire humanless epochs have come and gone, including life explosions ( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cambrian_explosion ), and mass extinctions (http://www.bbc.co.uk/nature/extinction_events ). It's irrelevant.

When we talk about "climate change", or broader environmental change, we can not uncouple the conversation from the specific question of "human induced environmental change". After all humans exist now, unlike before. So before humans arrived, it's safe to say that humanity was not a factor in previous explosions/contractions/climates. It's different now, and as responsible people we need to ensure that we are not contributing in negative ways, when possible.

Here's an example that I think kills Carlin's rant: The California Condor. This is a bird which was nowhere near extinction. It had thrived for a long, long time. Then along came industrial (human) agriculture, and it's baffling use of super-potent pesticides and other chemicals. The introduction of these new elements (& a few other human constructs) into the environment caused a rapid decline in condor populations until, suddenly, only 22 individuals remained on the planet. We observed this decline from beginning to end.

Then along came the hippy-dippy, tree hugger "environmentalist whackos". They captured the remaining wild individuals and, with the help of the San Diego Zoo NPO, began the complex task of learning how to breed them in captivity. Long story short, it worked. These birds are now regularly released back into the wild.

Now, I understand that I am running against the (ironically) "conservative" stylings of this thread in saying this... but the story of the California Condor is a win. Every day. It's a triumph of the Prime Directive in real life. I want those birds to exist in our environment, and they should, because they are competitive in our environment until a hyper-powerful un-harmonic species comes along and terraforms their world to suit themselves. Yeah, plants & animals naturally come and go, and yeah, human activity is part of nature. But if I, as a full fledged natural human (with an inherent ability to contemplate my world), pick up a rock a bludgeon the last breeding pair of thylacines to death while they sleep for no good reason --- then I am a heinous individual. Wanton destruction, when it can be easily avoided is always an outrage. Always. This is why we have to take a careful & constant look at the impact we are having -- because we are endowed with a mind powerful enough to do so, and we should modify our behavior toward better stewardship whenever we can.

There is a massive difference between a program like the California Condor Conservation program, and say, the carbon tax schemes of today. One has simply to look at the benefactors: on one hand, condors, things that eat condors, and people who care to observe them in nature or in responsible zoos. On the other hand, mega-corporations who are already buying and selling carbon credits, and trying to create "new markets" around the concept for their own gain, without regard to anything beyond their own shadows. Buying and selling works to solve some problems, and in other scenarios it sets up economic "perverse incentives" ( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Perverse_incentive ). Buying and selling by mega-corporations is usually a massive red flag, and many times, evidence of a false flag. Condors perched on cliffs, and bird fanatics hiking around to get a photo of them are not. Hence my skepticism, thus far, regarding human caused global warming. The wrong crowd is involved.

But let's keep this all in perspective, shall we? Down with Hannity-esque, broad brush talking points & low information sloganeering. Up with smart folks (like us) looking at these issues with common sense. I get a feeling I am missing some layers or subtleties in Carlin's piece.

One last thing. If we plan to move into the solar system, and even beyond, then we better wise up. Most of the bodies within our system which we might find attractive for habitation are significantly smaller than Earth. If anyone reading this has ever moved from a four room home into a studio apartment, then s/he will appreciate one of the more obvious benefits of being able to use things efficiently, and to keep a tidy house. Space stations will have robust recycling programs, and will tolerate zero pollution. The sooner we develop these modes of living, the sooner we can move forward.

[/rant]


***

[...]
[...]
[...]
[...]
Last edited by SquidInk on 05-15-2014 10:28 PM, edited 1 time in total.
For if it profit, none dare call it Treason.

User avatar
Fan
Lady with a
Posts: 5266
Joined: 05-09-2011 02:18 PM
Contact:

Post by Fan » 05-15-2014 10:27 PM

SquidInk wrote: Wait...

I usually find Carlin to be nearly flawless. This is an exception. Of course 90% of all species that have ever lived are now extinct. Entire humanless epochs have come and gone, including life explosions ( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cambrian_explosion ), and mass extinctions (http://www.bbc.co.uk/nature/extinction_events ). It's irrelevant.

When we talk about "climate change", or more broad environmental change, we can not uncouple the conversation from the specific question of "human induced environmental change". After all humans exist now, unlike before. So before humans arrived, it's safe to say that humanity was not a factor in previous explosions/contractions/climates. It's different now, and as responsible people we need to ensure that we are not contributing in negative ways, when possible.


I 100% agree, but let's not conflate climate change into extinctions and the such that we have a much more direct way of proving. We shot them and ate them. Or we drove them out of their territory, not through carbon, but by logging, or blasting, or DDT, etc.

I am with you, we are fscking up this world there is no question. I don't disagree there is more carbon now. I don't disagree with much except computer models based on bull**** data.

They can't predict tomorrow's weather: they can't predict climate. And yes, I know it is a matter of percentages, etc. Climate IS weather, no matter what they say.
The heartbreaking necessity of lying about reality and the heartbreaking impossibility of lying about it.

― Kurt Vonnegut, Cat's Cradle

User avatar
Riddick
Pirate
Posts: 11163
Joined: 11-01-2002 03:00 AM
Location: SE WI
Contact:

Post by Riddick » 05-16-2014 03:11 AM

SquidInk wrote: When we talk about "climate change", or broader environmental change, we can not uncouple the conversation from the specific question of "human induced environmental change". After all humans exist now, unlike before. So before humans arrived, it's safe to say that humanity was not a factor in previous explosions/contractions/climates. It's different now, and as responsible people we need to ensure that we are not contributing in negative ways, when possible.
...
But let's keep this all in perspective, shall we? Down with Hannity-esque, broad brush talking points & low information sloganeering. Up with smart folks (like us) looking at these issues with common sense. I get a feeling I am missing some layers or subtleties in Carlin's piece.
IMHO insofar there is a 'human induced' part, seems to me it needs be seen AS a significant contributor to climate change, otherwise if it's NOT our fault what recourse is there? That is to say, if our CO2 output IS what's going to turn Earth into an inhospitable/uninhabitable hell-hole, well yeah, by all means let's all definitely cut back on that -

OTOH, for the sake of argument let's say in-large what's driving climate change is something OTHER than our CO2 contribution - IOW, if not continuing to contribute negatively is no viable approach, then is humanity at all 1) wise enough to know the actual primary driving force(s) involved and 2) able to affect the situation in a positive way?

Insomuch I sincerely doubt mankind has the smarts for such large-scale affirmative action, "combating" climate change is obviously easier if indeed humanity is to blame - Unfortunately, it's NOT always all about us, which was my main takeaway from Carlin's piece. Meddling in Ma Nature's affairs in ANY way should have folks thinking twice -

Bottom line, it's her world, AND she's nobody's fool. Furthermore, lady that she is, trying to predict just how she'll react IS a fool's errand, and thus incessantly messing about in her work isn't a good idea. IMO mankind is nowhere near the influental/controlling environmental force it likes to think it is - Of course, that'll never stop it from trying.

BTW, in the interest of keeping all this in perspective, here's an article about meddilng in HUMAN affairs that outta make folks think twice (lifted from Alpha's post at IW) -

Anti-Science: Those Who Wish to Debate Climate Threatened with Death or Jail

Washington’s Blog
March 24, 2014

Preface: The scientific method requires allowing a free-for-all of hypotheses, which then rise or fall based upon the results of actual experiments.

For example, imprisoning Galileo for life because he didn’t agree with the “accepted” consensus that the Sun revolved around the Earth was not a great example of the scientific method. Instead of conducting experiments to see whether the Earth or Sun were the center of the Solar System, those with the prevailing view simply silenced the dissenter.

Anyone who has studied the history of science knows that many theories that were universally accepted and “known” to be true turned out to be false. See these examples from the Houston Chronicle and the Guardian.

Noam Chomsky said years ago that he would submit to fascism if it would help combat global warming:
  • Suppose it was discovered tomorrow that the greenhouse effects has been way underestimated, and that the catastrophic effects are actually going to set in 10 years from now, and not 100 years from now or something. Well, given the state of the popular movements we have today, we’d probably have a fascist takeover-with everybody agreeing to it, because that would be the only method for survival that anyone could think of. I’d even agree to it, because there’s just no other alternatives right now.”
In 2006, Grist called for Nuremberg-style trials for climate skeptics. (The article was later retracted.)

Environmentalist Robert F. Kennedy Jr. lashed out at global warming skeptics in 2007, declaring “This is treason. And we need to start treating them as traitors.”

In 2007, a UN official – Yvo de Boer – warned that ignoring the urgency of global warming would be “criminally irresponsible.”

The same year, another UN official – UN special climate envoy Dr. Gro Harlem Brundtland – said “it’s completely immoral, even, to question the UN’s scientific consensus on climate.

In 2008, prominent Canadian environmentalist David Suzuki called for government leaders skeptical of global warming to be “thrown into jail.”

The same year, British journalism professor Alex Lockwood said that writers questioning global warming should be banned.

In 2009, a writer at Talking Points Memo advocated that global warming “deniers” be executed or jailed. (He later retracted the threat.)

James Lovelock – environmentalist and creator of the “Gaia hypothesis” – told the Guardian in 2010:
  • We need a more authoritative world. We’ve become a sort of cheeky, egalitarian world where everyone can have their say. It’s all very well, but there are certain circumstances – a war is a typical example – where you can’t do that. You’ve got to have a few people with authority who you trust who are running it. And they should be very accountable too, of course.

    But it can’t happen in a modern democracy. This is one of the problems. What’s the alternative to democracy? There isn’t one. But even the best democracies agree that when a major war approaches, democracy must be put on hold for the time being. I have a feeling that climate change may be an issue as severe as a war. It may be necessary to put democracy on hold for a while.
Earlier this month, an assistant philosophy professor at Rochester Institute of Technology said he wants to send people who disagree with him about global warming to jail.

And there are many other examples of threats made in regard to the climate debate.

Postscript: If we can’t have free speech and an open scientific debate, then we are no longer living in a democracy or a society which follows the scientific method. Threatening scientific debate is anti-science and anti-liberty.

It is especially troubling given the background of climate discussions. Specifically, in the 1970s, many American scientists were terrified of an imminent ice age. Obama’s top science advisor – John Holdren –was one of them. Holdren and some other scientists proposed pouring soot over the arctic to melt the ice cap and so prevent the dreaded ice age. Holdren warned of dire consequences – including starvation and the largest tidal wave in history – if mankind did not rally on an emergency basis to stop the coming ice age.

Were those who questioned the likelihood of an imminent ice age also threatened with death or imprisonment?

Moreover, it is also concerning that many of the “solutions” proposed to combat a changing climate could do more harm than good (and see this). That’s sort of like invading Iraq after 9/11 because we had to “do” something…

Let’s say that – hypothetically – 100% of all climate scientists reached a consensus that manmade global warming from carbon dioxide was an imminent threat. Shouldn’t we choose approaches that actually work – and which do more good than harm (more) – instead of messing things up even further?

User avatar
kbot
Pirate
Posts: 6685
Joined: 03-12-2008 05:44 AM

Post by kbot » 05-16-2014 08:24 AM

Oh, nice. Now we are going to have college professors (of ALL people) deciding who goes to jail - especially if we disagree with their flawed scientific studies........ :rolleyes:

Our kids can't read, write or engage in critical analysis (thanks to our education system), and now these people want to branch out into law enforcement?????
"The dogma lives loudly within you. And that’s of concern ......"

Cherry Kelly
Pirate
Posts: 12851
Joined: 07-29-2000 02:00 AM
Contact:

Post by Cherry Kelly » 05-16-2014 09:09 AM

Hmm -- C02 -- huh -- plants take it in, keep the C and release 02 -- so grow more plants --

That is what the gardening people do - and now cities are encouraging roof gardens - gee maybe they will do more to get rid of excess C02 as the plants grow and put out more 02...

----
As for those college profs - gads talk about nutcases!

User avatar
Riddick
Pirate
Posts: 11163
Joined: 11-01-2002 03:00 AM
Location: SE WI
Contact:

Post by Riddick » 05-16-2014 04:13 PM

kbot wrote: Oh, nice. Now we are going to have college professors (of ALL people) deciding who goes to jail - especially if we disagree with their flawed scientific studies........ :rolleyes:

Our kids can't read, write or engage in critical analysis (thanks to our education system), and now these people want to branch out into law enforcement?????
Have you heard of Professor Irwin Corey?

Image

He's been billed in his stand-up comedy act for decades as "The World's Foremost Authority"... His brand of nonsensical logic and logical nonsense can be quite hilarious - Alas, the same cannot always be said about the supposed words of wisdom from those he spoofs, the self-styled 'wizards' of higher education -

As law enforcement officers, they'd make great Keystone Kops. That said, don't laugh off their threats or mess with the experts. They're NEVER wrong.

User avatar
BenSlain
Pirate
Posts: 3419
Joined: 09-14-2000 02:00 AM

Post by BenSlain » 05-17-2014 12:11 AM

Raggedyann wrote: The only way we can really know if climate change is being caused by humans is if the coast lines actually do flood and cities are destroyed. How else can we know which side is right? Only time will tell because the PTB will never err on the side of caution in any meaningful way.



Why would this show it's man made?
Put in a prison cell, but one time he could-a been The champion of the world.

User avatar
SquidInk
________________
Posts: 5862
Joined: 03-15-2007 03:48 PM

Post by SquidInk » 05-17-2014 01:28 AM

BenSlain wrote: Why would this show it's man made?
Because, God.
For if it profit, none dare call it Treason.

User avatar
Riddick
Pirate
Posts: 11163
Joined: 11-01-2002 03:00 AM
Location: SE WI
Contact:

Climate Change: The God Factor

Post by Riddick » 05-17-2014 03:03 AM

SquidInk wrote: Because, God.
For sure and no doubt about it, THERE'S an answer that is an answer.
Intelligent design, divine planning and all that? Yeah! His will be done!

The Untold Story Of Climate Change

Today, many World Leaders, including top scientists, engineers, and economists throughout the world, are at a loss of what is really happening in the Weather and Climate arena of Planet Earth. Scientists and researchers tried to study Climate Change in the past, particularly the pre-industrialization era.

But the central vital truth is that Man cannot really understand Climate Change without going back to what happened in the Garden of Eden! And it follows that Man cannot really find the right solution to Climate Change without understanding what happened inside the Garden!

Part 1 - CLIMATE CHANGE: The Revolving Flames of the Sharp Two-Edged Sword! (Gen 3:24)

Part 2 - TRULY, MAN CANNOT AVOID CLIMATE CHANGE!
The Creator God Controls and Manipulates Climate Change for Punishment, Blessings, and Mercy (Job 37:13)

Part 3 - The SWIRLING TWO-EDGED SWORD OF CLIMATE CHANGE IS NOW IN THE HANDS OF CHRIST!

User avatar
kbot
Pirate
Posts: 6685
Joined: 03-12-2008 05:44 AM

Post by kbot » 05-17-2014 07:35 PM

As said by a very religious man


"All Things Must Pass"

Sunrise doesn't last all morning
A cloudburst doesn't last all day
Seems my love is up and has left you with no warning
It's not always going to be this grey

All things must pass
All things must pass away

Sunset doesn't last all evening
A mind can blow those clouds away
After all this, my love is up and must be leaving
It's not always going to be this grey

All things must pass
All things must pass away
All things must pass
None of life's strings can last
So, I must be on my way
And face another day

Now the darkness only stays the night-time
In the morning it will fade away
Daylight is good at arriving at the right time
It's not always going to be this grey

All things must pass
All things must pass away
All things must pass
All things must pass away



(George Harrison)
"The dogma lives loudly within you. And that’s of concern ......"

Post Reply

Return to “The Natural World”