Speaking Out About Climate Change

[bush_cheney2004]

and 15 years ago, it made sense to not include developing countries within the Kyoto Annex 1 country grouping. The U.S. Senate won't have that weasel outlet to substantiate voting down a resolution for ratification of the 2015 agreement... they'll need to vote it down as a matter of principal having no principles!

That's even better.....the U.S. Senate refused to ratify Kyoto because there was no intention to ever comply, while Canada ratified the treaty and proceeded to do even less than the Americans !

but let's be clear here: presuming to an equitable 2015 agreement, one where all world nations are signatories to binding emission reduction commitments, you're quite content to have your Senate vote down a resolution that would ratify the agreement and pave the way for domestic U.S. compliance - yes?

No.....emissions reduction is incompatible with my economic religion.

You'd be quite content to have the U.S. shunned by the rest of the world body as the only country not willing, not accepting, to ratification and domestic compliance of an international agreement intended to reduce worldwide CO2 emissions - yes?

Yes....remember, I am not Canadian and don't need to be loved by the world.

by the way, you also believe the U.S. has it's own distinct atmosphere and coastal ocean makeup... distinct and isolated from the rest of the world, right?

Yes, as the territorial waters and airspace of other nations are routinely violated by the U.S. Look at the bright side...you still have the Nanticoke Nightmare for cross border pollution.

[WIP]

Asking government to fund the wide spread deployment of fuel sources like wind, solar and bio-fuels which grossly expensive given the energy produced is illogical unless the politicians advocating such subsidies have ulterior motives.

Modern coal plants are extremely clean. The harm caused by CO2 is purely hypothetical at this time (i.e. a warming planet is not automatically harmful).

Sure thing. Those warm periods like the PETM or the Permian-Triassic Extinction was a very good thing! If it had continued longer, the mammal-like reptiles who make up our ancestral line 250 million years ago would have also gone extinct, and we wouldn't be around to worry about it. Does your upside down thinking make sense while you are writing it down? Because it sure doesn't look sensible afterwards. In more recent epochs it was the ice ages that spurred the flourishing of life on Earth, not those hot times when all the ice melted, tropic zones were virtually devoid of life, and even alligators were swimming in the Arctic Ocean to stay cool.

[WIP]

I still think your narrow focus on Co2 is allowing you to ignore other aspects that do have an impact. If you are seeding the skies, you are creating a blanket in which it traps the heat at the same time reflecting it back to space.

You ignore or marginalize the impact of the sun.

Because the Earth's average temperatures have been increasing right through a solar minimum period, which would have caused a cooling trend if the Sun was the main cause forcing temperatures up or down.

You ignore or marginalize the impact of deforestation.

And how is deforestation done? By cutting down and burning large areas of forest...which raises CO2 levels!

You ignore or marginalize the impact of deliberate weather modifications that have existed for decades.

First, some proof of mass scale weather modifications that would have a significant impact would help....and I don't mean the usual screwballs who appear on late night radio to sell books, gold stocks and survival gear. I haven't seen anything of substance behind the Air Force chem trail conspiracy theories, and if you're talking about the tests of cloud-seeding that were done from the 1960's into the 80's to end droughts and stop hurricanes -- they were either awash or made things worse, because weather is a complex system that reacts in unexpected ways. Weather control is the least of our worries, because it will never happen! It doesn't matter how much they learn about cloud-seeding and modelling the atmosphere, it's not going to work. If it did work, why aren't they doing it now in a time when storms are becoming more frequent and more damaging. Latest report from NOAA reveals that Hurricane Sandy was actually a category 3 hurricane in the Caribbean...stronger than originally believed; and even though it had fallen to tropical storm level just before landfall in New York/New Jersey, the record size of the storm caused record storm surges that did 50 billion dollars worth of damage....and that's just one storm! If someone is tinkering with the weather, why wouldn't they be using it to minimize storm damage, which combined with drought damage, may be the primary reason why the U.S. economy staggered and faltered rather than improving as expected last year.

We have evidence the magnetosphere is collapsing, as has the upper part of the atmosphere called the thermoshpere.

Found this interesting http://www.space.com...scientists.html

http://science.nasa....l_thermosphere/

I just simply don't buy the Co2 as the ultimate sole culprit to explain off the warming of the earth.

Do you realize that both of your links cite CO2 rising into the upper atmosphere as the most likely cause for the collapse of the thermosphere during that solar minimum period?

[WIP]

Weather modification programs have existed for over 40 years in many parts of the USA and Canada. Countries like China openly admit to weather modification. Yes we can and do alter the weather. That much is a fact.

The only weather modification strategy that worked for China in the months before the 2008 Beijing Olympics was to shut down every factory for miles around the City and restrict auto traffic as well. China is another country that...if they're modifying the weather, it's producing disastrous results!

[WIP]

I don't like nuclear as a grid power source. It is expensive, labour intensive, still has to be continuously fed a mined resource, produces radioactive waste and a radioactive plant site that must be stored for a very long time. I think it is ridiculous to decommission viable plants like Germany has done, but I don't like the idea of building new ones. Still, nukes are a better solution than coal so, until we have updated smart grids coupled to EV storage we are stuck with it.

I didn't have time to get around to joining in here when everyone was arguing about energy policy issues, but I want to add that no solution is going to work as long as we have an economy dependent on constant energy increase. I agree that nuclear contains some high risks....just ask the Japanese, who are going to have to live with the threat of losing half their country if there is another major earthquake that causes a collapse of damaged reactors and spent fuel containment pools at Fukushima. And, aside from the risks, nuclear is unreasonably costly...the money could be better spent elsewhere. I noticed that the two reactors that are clear for construction in Alabama are being underwritten by the State. But I don't hear all of the freeenterprizers complaining about big government in such cases.......only if they're building windmills and solar panels.

I would say that if the big energy advocates are right, and wind and solar can't provide the constant baseload power to maintain the grid, then let the grid go down! Heck, most of the world these days doesn't have reliable 24/7 electricity, we're heading in that direction anyway with our constant demands for more power! After Fukushima, Japan had to shut down all of their nuclear plants temporarily. They had to rely more heavily on coal-fired power stations, but most of the power gap was met with an improved conservation program. If we consider that Japan was already way ahead of North America and even Europe when it comes to doing more with less energy demands, and has a roughly equivalent economy to the West, then that should tell us that Canada and the U.S. could cut a huge amount of the demand through conservation and shifting priorities and make the building of more power plants unnecessary. But first we would have to reform the way our media functions...which is supposed to be a public serve by the way, not a corporate propaganda mouthpiece! Nothing will happen in dealing with climate change until we take away the media megaphone of the oil, gas and coal companies first.

[waldo]

That's even better.....the U.S. Senate refused to ratify Kyoto because there was no intention to ever comply

here, let me school you on how your U.S. Senate actually works. It doesn't ratify any international agreements; rather, it votes for, or against, resolutions to ratify. Actual ratification occurs at the international level.

but really, if, as you say, there never was any intention to ever comply, why would your government have signed the Kyoto Protocol... in the first place? What? No courage of your convictions?

while Canada ratified the treaty and proceeded to do even less than the Americans !

even less? Citation request.

for all of Canada's failings toward meeting it's Kyoto commitments, Canada did ratify it - which, in itself, was a significant effort on the part of the Liberal party in terms of working with the provinces and business. The Liberal party did put forward detailed plans of action toward meeting phased compliance... did put forward correlated budgetary measures, in kind. And then, of course, we can thank the efforts of Harper Conservatives in working against Kyoto - but not before we acknowledge the significant impact your hero Dubbya had when he snubbed his nose at Kyoto, throwing a significant curve-ball in Canada's presumptions toward working to/within an integrated North American strategy. Hence my citation request - given your country refused to ratify it's initial agreement and then your hero 'put the boots' to it even further, I'm quite intrigued to have you step-up and support your claim... waiting.

No.....emissions reduction is incompatible with my economic religion.

how do you like these economic apples, hey? Up to $188 billion in damage caused by 2011-2012 severe weather events... does this speak to your kind of, as you say, 'economic religion'?

[GostHacked]

Toxic pollution is more of a concern.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-asia-china-21545868

China's environment ministry appears to have acknowledged the existence of so-called "cancer villages" after years of public speculation about the impact of pollution in certain areas.

For years campaigners have said cancer rates in some villages near factories and polluted waterways has shot up.

But the term "cancer village" has no technical definition and the ministry's report did not elaborate on it.

There have been many calls for China to be more transparent on pollution.

The latest report from the environment ministry is entitled "Guard against and control risks presented by chemicals to the environment during the 12th Five-Year period (2011-2015)".

It says that the widespread production and consumption of harmful chemicals forbidden in many developed nations are still found in China.

"The toxic chemicals have caused many environment emergencies linking to water and air pollutions," it said.

With the way we pollute the environment, it has impacted in my view the ability of the environment to adequately get rid of the so called problem that is Co2.

[waldo]

With the way we pollute the environment, it has impacted in my view the ability of the environment to adequately get rid of the so called problem that is Co2.

why are you concerned about, 'getting rid of something', that you describe as a, 'so-called problem'?

[GostHacked]

why are you concerned about, 'getting rid of something', that you describe as a, 'so-called problem'?

Just trying to stay in your narrow view of the Co2, I am finding it a little confining in scope and scale.

[WIP]

Just trying to stay in your narrow view of the Co2, I am finding it a little confining in scope and scale.

Do you doubt that carbon dioxide is a heat-trapping gas also? We learned this over 40 years ago in science class. I suppose the periods in Earth history when CO2 levels spike just happen to coincide with glacier-melting and mass extinctions.

[waldo]

James Hansen - award winning and world renowned scientist turned activist... his very name evokes the most outrageous vitriolic attacks from AGW/Climate Change deniers - of course it does, initially stemming from his scientific prowess/work. James Hansen is a red-flag for deniers, particularly given his most recent years focus on climate change activism. A recent Hansen book, 'Storms of my Grandchildren', speaks to why James Hansen has taken up a high-profile and very visible activists role - the following recent days TedTalks video extends upon that book:

coming soon... the unencumbered James Hansen... Hansen retired unplugged!

“At my age, I am not worried about having an arrest record.”

speaking out... for his grandchildren:

.

[GostHacked]

Do you doubt that carbon dioxide is a heat-trapping gas also? We learned this over 40 years ago in science class. I suppose the periods in Earth history when CO2 levels spike just happen to coincide with glacier-melting and mass extinctions.

I don't doubt that it is a green house gas. I am doubting that this warming .. sorry 'climate change' is all due to human activity. I have not denied the impact we have on our environment through various other means. Since it has been warmer in the past, I fail to see why this cycle is solely caused by us.

[waldo]

I don't doubt that it is a green house gas. I am doubting that this warming .. sorry 'climate change' is all due to human activity. I have not denied the impact we have on our environment through various other means. Since it has been warmer in the past, I fail to see why this cycle is solely caused by us.

again - scientists do not proclaim the causal tie and impacts are, as you say, "all due... solely caused" by human activity. You keep repeating this and keep ignoring the distinction between "principal" and "all... solely".

your doubt must be based on something... what is it? That's it been warmer in the past??? What does that have to do with CO₂ being the principal causal tie to today's relatively current warming?

[GostHacked]

again - scientists do not proclaim the causal tie and impacts are, as you say, "all due... solely caused" by human activity. You keep repeating this and keep ignoring the distinction between "principal" and "all... solely".

Well, you have gone on about the specific type of CO2 that can only be in the atmosphere due to burning fossil fuels. So, yes there is the claim that it is human activity causing the warming. I mean once you start putting in all the other factors that can cause climate change, your argument about it being all due to human activity starts to really lose its footing. That was the original argument that climate change is due to human activity.

your doubt must be based on something... what is it?

The money making scheme that is the carbon credit market.

>

That's it been warmer in the past???

So what DOES the warming of the past have to do with the current warming trend? You are the expert apparently on this.

What does that have to do with CO₂ being the principal causal tie to today's relatively current warming?

So in the first part you said that the CO2 was not the main cause, and then you say it is the principal casual tie. Casual? So part time? Is this an admission that CO2 is really not a concern as we are told?

WTF is a 'casual tie'?? I'd get behind that myself, since I am not a very formal person.

Edited April 4, 2013 by GostHacked

[waldo]

again - scientists do not proclaim the causal tie and impacts are, as you say, "all due... solely caused" by human activity. You keep repeating this and keep ignoring the distinction between "principal" and "all... solely".

Well, you have gone on about the specific type of CO2 that can only be in the atmosphere due to burning fossil fuels. So, yes there is the claim that it is human activity causing the warming. I mean once you start putting in all the other factors that can cause climate change, your argument about it being all due to human activity starts to really lose its footing. That was the original argument that climate change is due to human activity.

your reading comprehension fails you, once again. Today's relatively recent global warming is principally caused by anthropogenic sourced CO₂ - due to mankind's activities. As for your described, "all the other factors that can cause climate change" don't hesitate to qualify those factors, while at the same time speaking to their associated quantitative estimated radiative forcing contributions to warming.

.

your doubt must be based on something... what is it?

The money making scheme that is the carbon credit market.

interesting! You express your doubt that, as you stated, "climate change is all due to human activity" by referencing a particular policy extension. And here I thought you might have some technical physical sciences related avenue for you to hang your doubt on, hey? Apparently, it's hard for you to qualify your doubt based on scientific means/alternatives - go figure!

.

That's it been warmer in the past???

So what DOES the warming of the past have to do with the current warming trend? You are the expert apparently on this.

in the narrow confines of your isolated question... the warming of the past doesn't have anything to do with today's relatively current attribution of warming to mankind's influences, particularly the burning of fossil-fuels.

.

What does that have to do with CO₂ being the principal causal tie to today's relatively current warming?

So in the first part you said that the CO2 was not the main cause, and then you say it is the principal casual tie. Casual? So part time? Is this an admission that CO2 is really not a concern as we are told?

I've been consistent in my use of the word 'principal'.

.

WTF is a 'casual tie'?? I'd get behind that myself, since I am not a very formal person.

wow! Open your eyes... you're the only one using the word "casual"... while I used the word "causal". And yes, your's is a most 'informally casual' failed response!

.

[GostHacked]

waldo, on 04 Apr 2013 - 11:28, said:

..your reading comprehension fails you, once again. Today's relatively recent global warming is principally caused by anthropogenic sourced CO₂ - due to mankind's activities.

Alright, I'll give you that that it is claimed as the 'main' issue.

waldo, on 04 Apr 2013 - 10:02, said:

again - scientists do not proclaim the causal tie and impacts are, as you say, "all due... solely caused" by human activity. You keep repeating this and keep ignoring the distinction between "principal" and "all... solely".

Yes but when we talk about other factors that can and do contribute to this mess, like the sun, ect, none of them are even on the radar. So yes when everything else is ridiculed at the same time we are beaten over the head with anthropogenic Co2 then one can only conclude that CO2 is the sole and main cause.

We talked about the sun space weather .. non factor.

We talked about pollution .. non factor.

We talked about other planets going through similar changes, which cannot possibly be due to human activity ... non factor.

We talked about many other things .. all of them non factors.

So when everything else is shot down, then yes the stance is that CO2 is the MAIN and sole cause. Because whenever something else is thrown into the equation.. shot down.

[eyeball]

Is it just me or does it feel like the time for speaking out has just about run it's course? The people who need to listen are clearly refusing to do so...so what's the next level and when does it get taken there and by whom and with what? If there's only another 2 or 3 decades until it's too late and the establishment's minds will not be budged what other recourse is there but real hands on real activism? When do we invoke the words of a famous old buzzard "patience my ass"?

I am not worried about having an arrest record.

I suspect there will be a lot more grandparents who come to this conclusion as they approach their retirement. Maybe the term baby-boomer will come to mean something more sinister in the near future.

[waldo]

Alright, I'll give you that that it is claimed as the 'main' issue.Yes but when we talk about other factors that can and do contribute to this mess, like the sun, ect, none of them are even on the radar. So yes when everything else is ridiculed at the same time we are beaten over the head with anthropogenic Co2 then one can only conclude that CO2 is the sole and main cause.

certainly, you can... and do... talk about "other factors". Until scientists can provide a basis for attributed warming support for these "other factors"... until then, in balance, they remain as either relatively inconsequential or non-factoring influences in contributing to today's relatively recent warming.

.

We talked about the sun space weather .. non factor.

We talked about pollution .. non factor.

We talked about other planets going through similar changes, which cannot possibly be due to human activity ... non factor.

We talked about many other things .. all of them non factors.

again, see the immediately above reply statement

.

So when everything else is shot down, then yes the stance is that CO2 is the MAIN and sole cause. Because whenever something else is thrown into the equation.. shot down.

again, see the immediately above reply statement

.

[Shady]

Is it just me or does it feel like the time for speaking out has just about run it's course? The people who need to listen are clearly refusing to do so...so what's the next level and when does it get taken there and by whom and with what? If there's only another 2 or 3 decades until it's too late and the establishment's minds will not be budged what other recourse is there but real hands on real activism? When do we invoke the words of a famous old buzzard "patience my ass"?

I suspect there will be a lot more grandparents who come to this conclusion as they approach their retirement. Maybe the term baby-boomer will come to mean something more sinister in the near future.

2 or 3 decades until its too late for what?

[Mighty AC]

So when everything else is shot down, then yes the stance is that CO2 is the MAIN and sole cause. Because whenever something else is thrown into the equation.. shot down.

I'm jumping into the conversation late here so forgive me if I've missed something.

Looking specifically at nutrient cycles for greenhouse gasses like carbon dioxide and methane, humans are drastically increasing the atmospheric release and simultaneously removing the natural sinks. This obviously leads to an increase in the greenhouse effect, which leads to warming. I'm sure you're aware that warming oceans lead to greater CO2 concentrations, melting permafrost leads to greater CH4 release (25x worse than CO2), melting ice leads to less solar reflection, etc. so we have a vicious cycle.

So is your position that the meteoric rise in CO2 and CH4 levels since the industrial revolution have nothing to do with human activity and would have occurred anyway?

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

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

[GostHacked]

I'm jumping into the conversation late here so forgive me if I've missed something.

Looking specifically at nutrient cycles for greenhouse gasses like carbon dioxide and methane, humans are drastically increasing the atmospheric release and simultaneously removing the natural sinks. This obviously leads to an increase in the greenhouse effect, which leads to warming. I'm sure you're aware that warming oceans lead to greater CO2 concentrations, melting permafrost leads to greater CH4 release (25x worse than CO2), melting ice leads to less solar reflection, etc. so we have a vicious cycle.

So is your position that the meteoric rise in CO2 and CH4 levels since the industrial revolution have nothing to do with human activity and would have occurred anyway?

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

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

Yes, that is the stance I am taking essentially. We know there were warming periods in the past, obviously not due to human activity. We also see that the current trend of temps seem to be going down according to those charts and data that is out there. Does that show the climate scientists were wrong in their predictions? Are their models wrong? Do they simply not know enough?

Could this very well be a natural cycle? There is the possibility that we can cut greenhouse CO2 gas now, but will it make a difference?

I hear lots of problems, but lacking in the solutions and the lack of will (economically and politically) to resolve this. We saw the carbon credit trading market and the billions of dollars traded. That allowed companies that needed to pollute more to simply pay for it in a monetary fashion. Which does nothing to reduce the pollution, only shuffles it around.

Industrialized nations are getting a finger pointing while developing countries and even China seem to be somewhat exempt from these new CO2 reducing rules. There is no consistency in the approach on how to actually solve this, if this is really a problem in the first place.

In the last couple years we have seen two quakes to put the earth off slightly, we've had a large movement in the magnetic poles, which does have a direct impact on weather patterns. We have seen where the DeepWater Horizon and the crap that happened there breaking the gulf loop which brought unusual cold weather to the UK and parts of Europe.

So what is one to think? We hear problems, but little on the solutions. And when something practical and easy as a solution like tree planting is shot down, how does one take these people seriously? My guess is money. More specifically making money in providing a technological solution to a problem we can fix by making the effort to restore some aspect of the natural environment in order to take out some of the C02. There is no long term money making scheme on simply planting trees.

[Michael Hardner]

Yes, that is the stance I am taking essentially. We know there were warming periods in the past, obviously not due to human activity. We also see that the current trend of temps seem to be going down according to those charts and data that is out there. Does that show the climate scientists were wrong in their predictions? Are their models wrong? Do they simply not know enough?

We know that increased CO2 causes warming too, and that we have increased output of CO2.

[Mighty AC]

Yes, that is the stance I am taking essentially. We know there were warming periods in the past, obviously not due to human activity.

There is certainly a natural cycle and GHGs like CO2 and CH4 have varied in a cycle as well. But check out these graphs.

http://www.epa.gov/climatechange/science/indicators/ghg/ghg-concentrations.html

The gases are off the charts now, starting just after industrial and agricultural revolutions. This isn't natural anymore.

[Mighty AC]

GH you mentioned planting trees. Planting and preserving forest land is a positive move on a number of fronts. However, on this issue it would be a little like bailing a boat with a hole in the bottom. We have to also plug the hole, which, in this case is fossil fuel use and population control.

Edited April 4, 2013 by Mighty AC

[GostHacked]

The gases are off the charts now, starting just after industrial and agricultural revolutions. This isn't natural anymore.

I get the charts, meaning I understand them, but we have seen a trend where the temps are leveling off and in fact decreasing a little. If that trend continues it will drop out of the expectations and the predicted temp rises.