Thread: Climate change

What individuals can do to fight climate change?

G'day from the land of ozzz

Climate change is part of a cycle affected by the Sun's cycles, Earths cycles and events and position of our solar system within the spiral arm of the Milkyway galaxy.

Man's input to climate change is very small. The pollution problem is very high.

Originally Posted by sak

What individuals can do to fight climate change?

I think you mean as a consumer.

You have to understand the products being consumed. Electricity, water, vinyl, avocados, paper airplanes, everything. These "contain" embodied energy or embodied costs - that is all that went into making the product and delivering it to you, and disposing of it.

For example a recent forum post asked "Which is better ecologically - electric hand dryer or paper towels?" The snap answer would be paper towels, because the electric dryer plainly consumes energy. However the paper contains a large amount of embodied energy. It takes far more electricity, as well as truck diesel and chemicals, to manufacture and deliver one sheet of paper, than a few seconds of hot air. Yet, we forget the hand dryer unit itself, which certainly embodies more energy from mining, smelting, stamping steel, etc. than a load of paper towels. So we'd consider the life cycle and service of that machine, plus watts, vs. all the paper used over same period, say, 30 years. It's not so simple.

Sometimes we can get a good enough answer just comparing like products. For example you can weigh all the plastic grocery bags accumulated in a year vs. a single plastic toy. Apparently the bags are just a small fraction of our plastic consumption. That's not the message we are given to believe.

Some "green energy" products contain a very high embodied cost.

Where human labour comes in (vs. machines) we need to figure the cost of fueling the body. You can drive so far on gasoline, or bicycle the same distance on fruit juice and candy bars. The embodied cost of gas is low. The embodied cost of packaged energy food, by volume, is absurdly high and it includes gasoline. Consuming the fruit juice effectively consumes oil and maybe a bit of tropical rainforest too. Not so simple.

I think the sane way out of that house of mirrors is to ignore embodied costs of "healthy living". So don't mind buying a new set of skis, it's free.

There is nothing anybody can do to affect the climate.

There is an awful lot what individuals can do to preserve the environment.

There is also a lot one can do to reduce the energy consumption and the dependence on fossil fuels, migigating the effects when it become scarse.

But these are three totally different issues with totally different approaches. Forget climate, there is nothing wrong with that, focus on the others.

Originally Posted by Pong

So we'd consider the life cycle and service of that machine, plus watts, vs. all the paper used over same period, say, 30 years. It's not so simple.

I agree, when as a consumer try to evaluate the lifecycle energy cost of the item. Sometimes it's obvious, for example most people know that it far more energy efficient to recycle alumimum cans than make new ones from oars--so we should recycle; it's pretty obviuos that weather stripping is less cost than the energy you'll potentially save over a winter (or summer); driving a bit slower improves gas mileage; checking tire inflation once a month or so can save a few percent that addes up.

Many things aren't this obvious though. Is it better to buy a hybrid which will cost enoumous about of energy to produce or keep the 4 four year old family sedan going a few more years until it becomes unreliable. Considering life cycle of energy, keeping the old car, or even a big truck if you don't pile up a lot of miles, is probably the better option.

The other way individuals can mitigate climate change is simple exercising our "We the people" civic responsilities and letting our representatives know how we feel. There are almost unlimited opportunities for this just centered on the idea of getting the public more options so we can make better choices.

Dear All,
According to Wiki: “Current studies indicate that radiative forcing by greenhouse gases is the primary cause of global warming” If the radiation from greenhouse gas is the prime mover, then we have lot of thing to do.

But it's not, the most important vector for heat distibution in the atmosphere is convection.

what causes convection.

Originally Posted by sak

Dear All,
According to Wiki: “Current studies indicate that radiative forcing by greenhouse gases is the primary cause of global warming” If the radiation from greenhouse gas is the prime mover, then we have lot of thing to do.

It's not just wiki, but the overwhelming majority of atmospheric scientist agree based on lots of information and a century of science.

Convection helps vertically distribute the temperature increases in the troposphere especially in the tropics where it's closest to the moist adiabatic lapse rates. It has negligible effect at high latitudes where the lower atmosphere is stable.

Probably worth mentioning the the warming is predicted and only being observed at the lowest levels of the atmosphere--mostly in the troposphere. It's just called green house gases because we live in that lowest layer.

Increased green house gases are predicted to cool the highest layers of the atmosphere, which is exactly what's happening at a rate of nearly 17 degrees C per decade. It's really one of the smoking guns of green house gas change which isn't getting enough coverage in the media. The cooling is consistent with increases in green house gases, is the only phenomena which can explain the effect. Interestingly, because of the cooling at the very upper levels, the atmospheric is more compact now with noticeable decrease in orbital drag by our satellites.

Getting back more on point with the thread the kinds of options that come to mind for change and things like better mass transit, more public car pool lots that are also secure, bike paths, better mileage standards for new vehicles, building efficiency standards for new buildings etc.

Can you elaborate this para.?

Originally Posted by Lynx_Fox

which is exactly what's happening at a rate of nearly 17 degrees C per decade.

What is happening at 17 degrees C per decade?

Originally Posted by Lynx_Fox

It's really one of the smoking guns of green house gas change which isn't getting enough coverage in the media.

Did you mean thermal plants?

Originally Posted by Lynx_Fox

The cooling is consistent with increases in green house gases, is the only phenomena which can explain the effect.

This mean that green ghous gases increase cooling right?

Originally Posted by Lynx_Fox

Interestingly, because of the cooling at the very upper levels, the atmospheric is more compact now with noticeable decrease in orbital drag by our satellites.

can you explain orbital drag and its relation with atmosphere?

Originally Posted by sak

Can you elaborate this para.?

Originally Posted by Lynx_Fox

which is exactly what's happening at a rate of nearly 17 degrees C per decade.

What is happening at 17 degrees C per decade?

The upper layers of the atmosphere is cooling at that rate as a result of the increase greenhouse gasses.

Originally Posted by Lynx_Fox

It's really one of the smoking guns of green house gas change which isn't getting enough coverage in the media.

Did you mean thermal plants?

It is just an expression. He means that the cooling of the upper atmosphere is evidence of global warming.

Originally Posted by Lynx_Fox

The cooling is consistent with increases in green house gases, is the only phenomena which can explain the effect.

This mean that green ghous gases increase cooling right?

Yes, but only the cooling of the upper atmosphere. If the upper atmosphere is cooler, it means that less heat is radiated into outer space, which means that more heat is trapped and that the average temperature of the entire atmosphere is increasing.

Originally Posted by Lynx_Fox

Interestingly, because of the cooling at the very upper levels, the atmospheric is more compact now with noticeable decrease in orbital drag by our satellites.

can you explain orbital drag and its relation with atmosphere?

The orbiting satellites experience drag from the very sparse atmosphere at those altitudes. Now that the atmosphere has become more compact at those altitudes as a result of it cooling, less drag is experienced by the satellites.

I hope I did a good enough job of answering you questions. Lynx Fox, please correct any mistakes I might have made.

I hope I did a good enough job of answering you questions. Lynx Fox, please correct any mistakes I might have made.

Thanks Kalster. I was on the run and writing sloppy.


Sak, hope we answered your questions at least a bit.

G'day from the land of ozzzzzz

Lynx said

sak wrote:
Dear All,
According to Wiki: “Current studies indicate that radiative forcing by greenhouse gases is the primary cause of global warming” If the radiation from greenhouse gas is the prime mover, then we have lot of thing to do.


It's not just wiki, but the overwhelming majority of atmospheric scientist agree based on lots of information and a century of science.

This is very interesting and is worth reading. Science applied to the problem.

http://bourabai.narod.ru/landscheidt/publications.htm

SOLAR ROTATION, IMPULSES OF THE TORQUE IN THE SUN'S MOTION, AND CLIMATIC VARIATION

ABSTRACT. Running variance analysis and maximum entropy spectral analysis applied to Mount Wilson rotation data yield arguments in favor of a connection between variations in the Sun's rotation rate, energetic X-ray flares, and impulses of the torque (IOT) in the Sun's irregular motion about the barycenter of the planetary system. Such IOT, that have been shown to be related to the secular cycle of solar activity and excursions of the Maunder minimum type, also seem to be linked to outstanding peaks in geomagnetic activity, maxima in ozone concentration, incidence of blocking type circulation, as well as rainfall over Central Europe, England/Wales, eastern United States, and India. Statistical tests, that confirm these links, additionally point to IOT connection with temperature in Central Europe and the number of icebergs that pass south of latitude 48° N. IOT relationship with X-ray flares and strong geomagnetic storms was tested in successful long range forecasts.

http://bourabai.narod.ru/landscheidt/cycles.htm
http://bourabai.narod.ru/landscheidt/extrema.htm
http://bourabai.narod.ru/landscheidt/swinging.htm
http://www.john-daly.com/sun-enso/sun-enso.htm
http://www.griffith.edu.au/conferenc...pdf/ICS176.pdf

Climate change is important to all of us. Pollution is critical for clean air.

What cause climatic changes is a different factor.

Originally Posted by Harry Costas

What cause climatic changes is a different factor.

The consensus that man is the primary cause of global warming doesn't exclude other mechanisms also driving climate. Astronomical forcing, variation in solar forcing many other types are still happening, just as always--they just aren't dominant compared to suddenly adding lots of green house gas that have been locked up underground for hundreds of millions of years.

Originally Posted by spuriousmonkey

what causes convection.

Hi Mark, Long time no see, still in Helsinki?

Convection is discussed in this thread: http://www.thescienceforum.com/Green...ing-13123t.php

G'day from the land of ozzzzzz

It does not matter if the total population of the world thought that Man created the climate change.

Scientific evidence rules over.

Look at the facts and not the Rumors that makes alot of people money.

Originally Posted by Harry Costas

G'day from the land of ozzzzzz

It does not matter if the total population of the world thought that Man created the climate change.

Scientific evidence rules over.

Look at the facts and not the Rumors that makes alot of people money.

I completely agree and that's exactly what scientist do their best to do. Most of them, including American atmospheric scientist work for the government and have no monitary incentives what-so-ever to bias their conclusions. If anything, there's been significant pressure on American scientist the past few years to silence them about the building scientific case that shows green-house gas driven climate changes. Only their objectivity, despite the hostile political environment, has kept them focused on keeping the science moving forward.

Originally Posted by Harry Costas

... ... and position of our solar system within the spiral arm of the Milkyway galaxy... ...

Can somebody explain this?

Better ask Harry to explain it.

He might be referring to a flawed hypothesis that cosmic rays affect cloud formation, and that the motion of the Solar System through the home galaxy affects cosmic rays, hence the motion of the Sun relative to the galactic center affects climate. Perhaps it does, but the time scale would be hundreds of millions of years, and therefore totally irrelevant to the current experience of climate change within decades.

Originally Posted by Bunbury

Better ask Harry to explain it.

He might be referring to a flawed hypothesis that cosmic rays affect cloud formation, and that the motion of the Solar System through the home galaxy affects cosmic rays, hence the motion of the Sun relative to the galactic center affects climate. Perhaps it does, but the time scale would be hundreds of millions of years, and therefore totally irrelevant to the current experience of climate change within decades.

Was thinking that as well. Considering everything we can detect near the
Sun is also rotating at about the same speed it doesn't make a whole lot of sense. The comic ray connection to clouds never had a strong theoretical basis and the studies that have looked for the effect have pretty much debunked the idea.

G'day from the land of ozzzzzz

History of the earth takes in short cycles and long cycles.


Society for Interdisciplinary Studies
http://www.sis-group.org.uk/


Long cycles are related to the position of the solar system within the spiral of the Mily Way. Everyso often our solar system will go through a Nebulae and in so doing will have chaos for sometime.

Short cycles are related to from a few years to a few hundred years are related to the Sun.

The Earth contributes its cycles and volcanic activity that may cause Ice Ages and so on.

There are plenty of info on a great variety

Just google for it.

Originally Posted by Harry Costas

G'day from the land of ozzzzzz

History of the earth takes in short cycles and long cycles.


Society for Interdisciplinary Studies
http://www.sis-group.org.uk/.

Where is the paper that "Long cycles are related to the position of the solar system within the spiral of the Mily Way. Everyso often our solar system will go through a Nebulae and in so doing will have chaos for sometime. "

Is there any evidence that the solar system has EVER been through a Nebulae. Our solar system remains relatively stationary within the arms of the Milky Way--it's doesn't rotate through it. There might be some stuff that doesn't rotate at the same rate as the arms, or has a different orbit within the Galaxy, but is there any proof for that? None that I'm aware of.

Here's something that might be related. How any of this affects short-term climate variations isn't at all clear to me.

http://www.realclimate.org/index.php...lactic-glitch/

Global average temperatures are rising much faster at night compared to the day. Wouldn't this suggest that what ever is responsible is here on earth and not our position in the galaxy.

G'day from the land of ozzzzz

Lynx-fox as requested.

Info on our solar system

This is interesting
Scientists Now Know: We're Not From Here!
http://www.viewzone.com/milkyway.html


Sun's Movement Through Milky Way Regularly Sends Comets Hurtling, Coinciding With Mass Life Extinctions
http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases...0502092145.htm

COPLANARITY SOLAR SYSTEM AND MILKY WAY
http://biocab.org/Coplanarity_Solar_...nd_Galaxy.html



Dinosaur Demise and Earth’s Movement in the Milky Way
http://www.jyi.org/news/nb.php?id=1503


New Discovery Evidencing Solar System Traveling Different Direction To Milky Way Substantiates Astounding New Theories -- Coming To Be Called The 3 Most Pivotal Discoveries Of Our Time...

http://www.iirobotics.com/bot-news/r...--20070618946/



Our Solar System in the Milky Way Galaxy and in the Universe
http://facstaff.gpc.edu/~pgore/Earth.../galaxies.html


Our solar sytem going around the spiral means that our solar system rotates around another gravity sink which also rorates around the centre of the MIlky Way.


But! there's more!!!!!!!!!!!!

From your link with the "Three discoveries":

DISCOVERY OF MAY 30th 2006: We are from another galaxy in the process of joining with the Milky Way. The Milky Way is actually not our parent galaxy. The mystery of why the Milky Way has always been sideways in the night sky has never been answered -- until now.

That is just stupid. What is the big mystery? Nothing says that we should necessarily be facing the Milky Way straight on.

DISCOVERY OF JULY 20th 2006: The overall biggest contributing cause to Global Warming, and the melting of the polar icecaps of -- both -- Earth and Mars is actually caused by our arrival down into the brighter, more energetic equator region of the Milky Way galactic disc as we are coming in from deeper space.

Again. The light energy we receive from stellar sources other than the sun is entirely negligible.

Oh, snap Harry! You have been caught out.
discovermagazine.com/badastronomy/2007/06/27/is-the-sun-from-another-galaxy/.
“ A website called Viewzone recently posted an article claiming that scientists have determined the Sun is not native to the Milky Way Galaxy, but instead was absorbed by the Milky Way while eating a smaller dwarf galaxy.
There’s just one eensy weensy problem with this: it’s totally wrong...”... Etc.

University of Virginia

“ IF YOU ARE LOOKING AT THIS WEBPAGE BECAUSE YOU HAVE HEARD FALLACIOUS NEWS REPORTS ABOUT THE SUN BEING FROM THE SAGITTARIUS DWARF GALAXY:
DO NOT BELIEVE EVERYTHING YOU READ ON THE WEB!
IF YOU ARE A JOURNALIST, PLEASE FOLLOW TRADITIONAL JOURNALISTIC STANDARDS AND DO PROPER SOURCE AND FACT CHECKING! (IF OTHER SUPPOSEDLY RELIABLE NEWS AGENCIES HAD SUBSCRIBED TO THESE BASIC PRINCIPLES, YOU PROBABLY WOULD NOT BE WASTING TIME RIGHT NOW CHASING DOWN THIS ILLEGITIMATE NEWS STORY!)
THE WEBSITE http://www.badastronomy.com/bablog/2...another-galaxy DOES A REASONABLE JOB OF ADDRESSING THE MISINFORMATION BEING CIRCULATED.
This web page contains the original press release text from 2003(!) that has been corrupted/misinterpreted to "support" the incorrect conclusion that the Sun did not originate in the Milky Way galaxy. Read carefully and you will see this press release only details the characteristics of the Sagittarius galaxy and nothing more. All astrophysical evidence points confidently and indisputably to the fact the Sun is now and has always been a part of the Milky Way.”

Did you think nobody would notice?

Originally Posted by KALSTER

You have been caught

Nice work! :-D

Read the web “COPLANARITY SOLAR SYSTEM AND MILKY WAY
http://biocab.org/Coplanarity_Solar_...d_Galaxy.html” it seams alarming if a cosmic cloud hit our solar system. Does this cloud include heavier debris enough to destroy/ damage mankind?

G'day from the land of ozzzzz

KALSTER said

Oh, snap Harry! You have been caught out.

Have I Kalster?

Think about it for a sec,,,,,,,,,,,,,,than read the other links.

Or is it important for you to win brownies.


I post links for info, it does not mean that I agree with them.

The links have conflicting views, its not our job to say what is right or wrong.

I post links for info, it does not mean that I agree with them.

The links have conflicting views, its not our job to say what is right or wrong.

Why would you post unsubstantiated garbage then? For info? You are not fooling me.

Of course it is proper to post accurate links. What use are they if you post anything you find? How much value can we attach to your contributions now? Very little. Do you have any views of your own? You are not qualifying your links as speculative, but post them as facts. That is simply not cricket. Please give your links the proper consideration before posting them as legitimate, credible pieces of information.

G'day from the land of ozzzzz


The information is not complete and proof is another issue.

It is better to gain info rather than to hold it back.

As for garbage, how would you know the difference.

There are conflicting views, I posted both. Right or wrong thats another issue.


This is my last post

Originally Posted by Lynx_Fox

Originally Posted by Harry Costas

G'day from the land of ozzzzzz

It does not matter if the total population of the world thought that Man created the climate change.

Scientific evidence rules over.

Look at the facts and not the Rumors that makes alot of people money.

I completely agree and that's exactly what scientist do their best to do. Most of them, including American atmospheric scientist work for the government and have no monitary incentives what-so-ever to bias their conclusions. If anything, there's been significant pressure on American scientist the past few years to silence them about the building scientific case that shows green-house gas driven climate changes. Only their objectivity, despite the hostile political environment, has kept them focused on keeping the science moving forward.

If that's all true, then why isn't nobody commenting something like that on these blogs?

http://sciencepolicy.colorado.edu/pr...ce-policy-4511

http://bishophill.squarespace.com/bl...sus-paper.html

We could speculate that real scientists are rather bored with Pielke, pere et fils, and can't be bothered any more to refute every bit of disingenuous silliness they publish. But who knows, the article has only been up a few days, there's still time.

Regarding the hockey stick, the IPCC was concerned about AGW before the hockey stick was first published, because of simple chemistry (burning of fossil fuels) and physics (change in the radiation balance due to increased CO2 levels). Even Pielke Jr. knows this. A couple of months ago he published an article in which he acknowledged the problem of AGW, but chose to expound the political position that we cannot afford to do anything about it. I'm sure this article was discussed on this board.

The hockey stick is real evidence for what humans have done and are continuing to do to the climate, but even if you choose to believe it's inaccurate, or insufficiently researched, or even politically motivated, you cannot deny the chemistry and the physics.

Originally Posted by Bunbury

We could speculate that real scientists are rather bored with Pielke, pere et fils, and can't be bothered any more to refute every bit of disingenuous silliness they publish. But who knows, the article has only been up a few days, there's still time.

Regarding the hockey stick, the IPCC was concerned about AGW before the hockey stick was first published, because of simple chemistry (burning of fossil fuels) and physics (change in the radiation balance due to increased CO2 levels). Even Pielke Jr. knows this. A couple of months ago he published an article in which he acknowledged the problem of AGW, but chose to expound the political position that we cannot afford to do anything about it. I'm sure this article was discussed on this board.

The hockey stick is real evidence for what humans have done and are continuing to do to the climate, but even if you choose to believe it's inaccurate, or insufficiently researched, or even politically motivated, you cannot deny the chemistry and the physics.

ad homimens, ad hominems. Do provide one, just one, very small piece of evidence that proofs Mann right and McIntyre wrong. Just talk science and not those pathetic personal attacks. Too sad for words.

This is so incredibly pathetic.

Incidentily the last time that extreme group think like this burst out from humanity roughhy three quartes of a century ago, it only cost 11 million lives. But luckily now we know what caused it.

Okay I do understand that the slowly emerging discovery that there is no AGW whastsoever is extremely painful and devastating. But this kind of belligerence is making it way, way worse. It makes me more and more determined to revert to a single target in life, to devote everuthing I have to make the scaremongers pay all the way for the devastating they have done.

Invoking hitler???

No Groupthink,

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Groupthink

Orwell 1984

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1984_(book)

Blue planets in green shackles

http://www.amazon.com/Planet-Green-S.../dp/B001A3W3BK

...Blue Planet in Green Shackles by Václav Klaus, President of the Czech Republic. President Klaus makes the case that policies being proposed to address global warming are not justified by current science and are, in fact, a dangerous threat to freedom and prosperity around the world. --- Klaus argues that the environmental movement has transformed itself into an ideology that seeks to restrict human activities at any cost, while pursuing an impossible utopian dream of a perfectly "natural" world. The supposed threat of human civilization against a fragile Earth has become an article of faith, especially in the realm of global warming activism. --- "The largest threat to freedom, democracy, the market economy, and prosperity at the end of the 20th and at the beginning of the 21st century is no longer socialism," writes Klaus. "It is, instead, the ambitious, arrogant, unscrupulous ideology of environmentalism." --- The publication of Blue Planet in Green Shackles - What is Endangered: Climate or Freedom? continues the Competitive Enterprise Institute's history of fighting alarmist climate policies. CEI has long argued that whatever challenges future climate changes might bring, the worst possible response is to restrict human freedom and slow economic growth and innovation. --- "Today, the global warming debate raging in both the United States and Europe has become extremely contentious. On both sides of the Atlantic, the debate has metastasized into cultural warfare against economic liberty," writes CEI President Fred L. Smith, Jr. in the book's foreword. "For that reason, pro-freedom voices are needed to reframe the debate to show how a free people can better address the challenges facing Western civilization...

Now that's quite another scare, of which plenty of evidence is around here in this thread or any other pertaining AGW/climate change

We can only hope that the inevitable cooling is fast enough to kill this otherwise unstoppable threat

This threat is manifesting itself in Colorado in the construction of a second wind turbine factory, soon to be followed by a third, by the Danish firm Vestas. The total jobs created by this threat will be 2450.

ConocoPhillips is building an alternative fuel research threat center just down the road. This second manifestation of the threat will employ hundreds of engineers and technicians in quite highly paid jobs.

Meanwhile Range Fuels in Broomfield is threatening to produce oil from biomass, creating yet more jobs (I was head hunted by them - they threatened to pay me lots of money, but I turned them down )

http://www.denverpost.com/energy/ci_10215313

http://www.rangefuels.com/

The Golden-based National Renewable Energy Laboratory, as well as research centers at the state's major universities, are viewed as providing "intellectual capital" that help draw companies such as Vestas to Colorado.

The world moves on.

Originally Posted by andre

Incidentily the last time that extreme group think like this burst out from humanity roughhy three quartes of a century ago, it only cost 11 million lives.

Originally Posted by free radical

Invoking hitler???

Originally Posted by andre

No Groupthink,

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Groupthink

Orwell 1984

Quite a nice piece of Newspeak and Doublethink, Andre. The party would be proud.

Originally Posted by sak

Read the web “COPLANARITY SOLAR SYSTEM AND MILKY WAY
http://biocab.org/Coplanarity_Solar_...d_Galaxy.html” it seams alarming if a cosmic cloud hit our solar system. Does this cloud include heavier debris enough to destroy/ damage mankind?

somebody pl. answer this?

The groupthink issue fo three quarter of a century ago was Eugenics, resulting in the most extreme form of anti-semitism. The big question after WW-II how on Earth it was possible that a complete country population was brainwashed into believing in it. Nowadays this question is getting answered with the AGW cult.

Everything is allowed to enforce the AGW scam, the only thing left that can maintain the herd together nowadays.

I know that it is absolutely impossible to fight against it but if you find yourself back in a decade or two in another little ice age with a economy cripled by renewables, unable to cope, then you cannot say: "I habe es nicht gewüsst".

Just show that Mann was right and McIntyre was wrong, just show what is happening to the global temperatures especially in comparison of the predictions. In reality AGW is long debunked, exit, in the mind of the people it lives on as the strongest religion ever.

But the biggest loss is the complete corruption of Earth sciences.

No cancel that, the even bigger loss is the systematic destruction of the tropical rain forests to make biofuels just because of the climate scaremongering. The biggest crime against the environment commited by the environmentalists

Originally Posted by andre

... if you find yourself back in a decade or two in another little ice age with a economy cripled by renewables, unable to cope, then you cannot say: "Ich habe es nicht gewüsst".

Fair enough.

Originally Posted by andre

...just show what is happening to the global temperatures especially in comparison of the predictions.

See for example:

http://www.encyclopedia.com/doc/1P3-1470381701.html

Information about climate and how it responds to increased greenhouse gas concentrations depends heavily on insight gained from numerical simulations by coupled climate models. The confidence placed in quantitative estimates of the rate and magnitude of future climate change is therefore strongly related to the quality of these models. In this study, we test the realism of several generations of coupled climate models, including those used for the 1995, 2001, and 2007 reports of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC). By validating against observations of present climate, we show that the coupled models have been steadily improving over time and that the best models are converging toward a level of accuracy that is similar to observation-based analyses of the atmosphere.

http://www.scitizen.com/stories/Clim...-Climate-Well/

Originally Posted by andre

... the even bigger loss is the systematic destruction of the tropical rain forests to make biofuels just because of the climate scaremongering. The biggest crime against the environment commited by the environmentalists

Are you saying that environmentalists advocate deforestation for the production of biofuels?

See for example:
http://www.nature.org/wherewework/as.../art13329.html

Originally Posted by free radical

See for example:

http://www.encyclopedia.com/doc/1P3-1470381701.html

...,.... we show that the coupled models have been steadily improving over time and that the best models are converging toward a level of accuracy that is similar to observation-based analyses of the atmosphere.

See for instance:

http://www.atypon-link.com/IAHS/doi/.../hysj.53.4.671

Abstract
Geographically distributed predictions of future climate, obtained through climate models, are widely used in hydrology and many other disciplines, typically without assessing their reliability. Here we compare the output of various models to temperature and precipitation observations from eight stations with long (over 100 years) records from around the globe. The results show that models perform poorly, even at a climatic (30-year) scale. Thus local model projections cannot be credible, whereas a common argument that models can perform better at larger spatial scales is unsupported.

Originally Posted by andre

... the even bigger loss is the systematic destruction of the tropical rain forests to make biofuels just because of the climate scaremongering. The biggest crime against the environment commited by the environmentalists

Are you saying that environmentalists advocate deforestation for the production of biofuels?

See for example:
http://www.nature.org/wherewework/as.../art13329.html

No wha't I'm saying is that good science leads to good policy and bad science leads to catastrophic policies like the call for biofuels for going carbon neutral. AGW is not even science anymore, following the definition of science being falsifiable. (and we all can clearly see why AGW is not falsifiable, not even after a prolonged cooling period).

But the main problem is that if you don't listen and choose to character murder sceptics (oil companies etc) instead of doing some thinking, then you take the full responsibility for the oncoming disasters of that poor science and poor policy.

choose to character murder sceptics (oil companies etc)

Andre, the oil companies are not among the skeptics. Their scientists (they employ a great many) know that AGW is real. Even ExxonMobil has stopped funding propaganda and is joining in the discussion of what to do about it.

From EM's website:

ExxonMobil takes the issue of climate change seriously and believes the risks of climate change due to rising greenhouse gas emissions warrant action. We are taking action on multiple levels, from reducing greenhouse gas emissions in our operations to supporting research into technology breakthroughs.

You are arrogant to suggest that posters here are not "doing some thinking".

Originally Posted by andre

But the main problem is that if you don't listen and choose to character murder sceptics (oil companies etc) instead of doing some thinking, then you take the full responsibility for the oncoming disasters of that poor science and poor policy.

Is it your experience that you are not listened to?

Here's a thought, you might consider not comparing the people who care about this issue to those who perpetrated the holocaust. You might avoid implying that environmentalists are raping the rainforests.

Originally Posted by sak

Originally Posted by sak

Read the web “COPLANARITY SOLAR SYSTEM AND MILKY WAY
http://biocab.org/Coplanarity_Solar_...d_Galaxy.html” it seams alarming if a cosmic cloud hit our solar system. Does this cloud include heavier debris enough to destroy/ damage mankind?

somebody pl. answer this?

Try posting this on the astronomy/cosmology forum. However, from a quick google that led to Astronomy.com it seems that we don't need to worry about this for 40 million years.

[quote="Bunbury"]

choose to character murder sceptics (oil companies etc)

Andre, the oil companies are not among the skeptics. Their scientists (they employ a great many) know that AGW is real. Even ExxonMobil has stopped funding propaganda and is joining in the discussion of what to do about it.

From EM's website:

ExxonMobil takes the issue of climate change seriously and believes the risks of climate change due to rising greenhouse gas emissions warrant action. We are taking action on multiple levels, from reducing greenhouse gas emissions in our operations to supporting research into technology breakthroughs.

But they never did "funding" propaganda. All what happened is that standard support funding for all kind of research in all various terrains inevitably leads to a few lines from oil companies to realistic research institutes, as well as lines to climate scaremongers, which has been blown up well out of proportion by the Lysenkoists

You are arrogant to suggest that posters here are not "doing some thinking".

Nope: groupthink is about thinking the same and

If everyone is thinking alike, then somebody isn’t thinking.’

— George S. Patton

http://creatingminds.org/quotes/thinking.htm

First it's Hitler, now it's Lysenko. Andre, you're a laugh a minute.

Originally Posted by Bunbury

First it's Hitler, now it's Lysenko. Andre, you're a laugh a minute.

Right, let's have a laugh:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yp_l5ntikaU

The whole story is here btw

http://canadafreepress.com/index.php/article/1272

Standard reply: 100% witch hunt, 0% factual evidence reply

Suppose somebody was indeed thinking independently, wouldn't it occur that oil compagnies also understand reality and should aim for a long term stability in their market instead of maximizing short term profits. They aren't fools. They are just about as aware of everybody else about the oncoming mismatch between demand and supply and it's in their interest to solve that, instead of letting the economy crash. So it's in no way in their interest to fight moderation in the use of fossil fuel. So how does it feel to be manipulated by this demagoguery.

It may be noticed that the BCC is slowly retreating from one of the global offence campaign against skeptics:

http://www.bbc.co.uk/climate/evidence/sceptics.shtml