the sea and the waves roaring....

theseldomscene · Banned Joined: 17 Mar 2005 Posts: 7817

http://portal.tds.net/news.php?story=22555

45degreeN · Posted: Thu Feb 01, 2007 8:05 am Post subject:

The political basket ball is not whether there is some evidence of warming, but just how much of a contribution we humans are making to it.

If 95% of all global warming is a natural warming cycle and the remaining 5% is human origin. Then we should just get used to the idea that it will be warmer and work towards improving the situation under those conditions instead of kvetching about stopping this normal natural cycle from happening.

What confuses me is the scenario which claims both heating AND cooling are taking place and both are caused by the same thing. The "Day After Tomorrow Scenario" [based upon the science presented in the movie] has legs in the scientific community. Now it is "global weather change" not just warming. Well if there is anything in this world that changes more than the weather tell me about it.

P1234567890 · Posted: Thu Feb 01, 2007 9:50 am Post subject:

Pondering · Lion King Joined: 15 Sep 2005 Posts: 1273

P1234567890 · Posted: Thu Feb 01, 2007 12:38 pm Post subject:

Pondering, listen. Your arguments are usually very rational and they make sense. This isn't sounding like you at all.

Will you concede that the vast majority of climate scientists agree that a) global warming is happening AND that b) humans deserve a large chunk of the blame?

If so, then they're the experts! Why not listen to them?

Pondering · Lion King Joined: 15 Sep 2005 Posts: 1273

I could counter that you're usually very skeptical on your acceptance of this theory isn't like you at all Smile

Look...even if it is true...the Earth isn't going to change like in the Day after Tomorrow disaster movies...and if it does, there's no way we can react that fast...

I've spent a long time learning to lean on my intellect while listening to my instinct...My instinct is that something is fishy here and my intellect can't reconcile what I see are a weak cause:effect relationship based on conflicting data.

I'm saying, I find the majority opinion facts and the conclusions to be tenuous at best...I concede:

- The planet is warming.
- CO2 levels are increasing, probably due to increased human consumption of products that have CO2 as a bi-product.

I hold fast to these points:
- There is not universal concensus among the scientific community. There have been active efforts by scientists on both sides of the argument to silence the other.
- The most vocal advocates are unqualified as speakers. These include: politicians, uneducated celebrities, and journalists.
- Reputable scientists continue to refute and debate on the cause:effect relationship between observable data.
- Rash action now may cost huge amounts of resources and produce no change to either CO2 or surface temps or glacial melting.

I'm not saying it isn't happening. I'm saying: "the scientific community" isn't unified. Vocal advocates are calling for immediate action that could prove economically disastrous. I can articulate numerous adapative responses that show that global warming is a GOOD thing vice a bad thing.

For example, plants convert CO2 to oxygen as part of photosynthesis process. Warming weather extends the growing season and increases rainfall. Current permafrost regions will thaw and become accessible to farming. Some animal/plant species may die off (over centuries) but other adaptive species will flourish. Warmer winters mean less consumption of heating oil, though there may be increased summer consumption of energy if we stay in some already really hot areas (i.e. Southeast California)....

P1234567890 · Posted: Thu Feb 01, 2007 1:26 pm Post subject:

Pondering · Lion King Joined: 15 Sep 2005 Posts: 1273

I'll get back to your questions in a sec...short version...

- I'd guess about 99% of scientists would say the Earth is warming.
- I'd guess about 40% of those doing research and 70% of all scientist think there is a direct link between human released CO2 and global warming. The remaining 60% of researchers would have CO2 as some widely ranging aspect of some other cause...from Jet contrails, to astrophysical alignment in the solar system, to sunspot activity, to normal thermal cycles.

I wanted to dump this in here and not start a new thread. Mods delete if I go over the limit....

I know...bad forum etiquette to post in-toto long articles. Delete if I've overstepped myself Smile

Here's my instinct button firing off again...my comments in bold. AP report regarding the UN latest Global Warming study.

http://www.breitbart.com/news/2007/02/01/D8N10JFG0.html

The most authoritative report on climate change is using the strongest wording ever on the source of global warming, saying it is "very likely" caused by humans and already is leading to killer heat waves and stronger hurricanes, delegates who have seen the report said Thursday.

Dozens of scientists ( good ) and bureaucrats (bad ) from 113 countries are editing the new report by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change in closed-door meetings in Paris. Their report, which must be unanimously approved, is to be released Friday and is considered an authoritative document that could influence government and industrial policy worldwide. anyone else curious as to how delegates were chosen?

Three participants said the group approved the term "very likely" in Thursday's sessions. That means they agree that there is a 90 percent chance that global warming is caused by humans. ok...how bout some details regarding the remaining 10% ?
In politics, that's called "credible deniability"

"That is a big move. I hope it is a powerful statement," said Jan Pretel, head of the department of climate change at the Czech Hydrometeorological Institute.

"I hope that policymakers will be quite convinced by this message," said Riibeta Abeta, a delegate from the island nation Kiribati, which is worried about overrun by rising seas. "The purpose is to get them moving."

The last report, in 2001, said global warming was "likely" caused by human activity. There had been speculation that the participants might try to change the wording this time to "virtually certain," which means a 99 percent chance. that would get my attention because then they truly have staked their reputations on it

The U.S. government delegation was not one of the more vocal groups in the debate over the "very likely" statement for man-made warming, said other countries' officials. However, several officials credited the head of the panel session, Susan Solomon, a top U.S. government climate scientist, with pushing through the agreement in just 90 minutes. good..since it's such an urgent issue, we should deal with everything, including the analysis, urgently Rolling Eyes

The Bush administration acknowledges that global warming is man-made and a problem that must be dealt with, Bush science adviser Jack Marburger told The Associated Press late last year. political decision

The Chinese delegation was resistant to strong wording on global warming, said Barbados delegate Leonard Fields and Zimbabwe delegate Washington Zhakata. political decision

China has increasingly turned to fossil fuels, which emit the greenhouse gases blamed for boosting the Earth's temperature, to feed its huge and growing energy needs. The Chinese also asked the panel to remove the official definition of "very likely" from the text. political decision

The report will also say that global warming has made stronger hurricanes, including those on the Atlantic Ocean such as 2005's Katrina, according to Fields and other delegates. liar, liar, pants on fire

They said the panel approved language saying an increase in hurricane and tropical cyclone strength since 1970 "more likely than not" can be attributed to man-made global warming. for the record, 51% is "more likely than not"... I could give you those odds Rolling Eyes

The panel did note that the increase in stronger storms differs in various parts of the globe, but that the storms that strike the Americas are global warming-influenced. strange that the focus is on the Americas. And who has the most capital to pay for Global Warming Crisis 2012? And Which countries get hit with hurricanes in "the Americas"? Hint...it's not Chile.

In 2001, the same panel had said there was not enough evidence to make such a conclusion. look forward to seeing the data comparing 2001-2007 storm activity [b]

This week's report will also mark departure from a November 2006 statement by the World Meteorological Organization, which helped found the IPCC. The meteorological organization, after contentious debate, said it could not link past stronger storms to global warming. [b] interesting. and Kudos to the reporter for including this

Fields _ of Barbados, a country in the path of many hurricanes _ said the new wording was "very important. ... Insurance companies watch the language too." Read that last sentence again. Now, again. Hmmm....words have meaning and that meaning means $$$$....hmmmmm

The delegates, staring at a countdown clock showing how little time they have left before Friday's deadline, went into Thursday's talks well behind schedule and planned a late-night session. Indicates to me contentious debate not consensus...ergo political vice scientific decisions really being made

A draft of the report predicts a temperature increase of between 2.5 to 10.4 degrees by the year 2100, although that could be adjusted.

Another contentious issue is predictions of sea level rise. Scientists are trying to incorporate concerns that their early drafts underestimate how much the sea level will rise by 2100 because they cannot predict how much ice will melt from Greenland and Antarctica. But, they're sure sea levels WILL rise. Maybe they should consult some tea leaves Rolling Eyes

In early drafts, scientists predicted a sea level rise of no more than 23 inches by 2100, but that does not include the ice sheet melts. stated as fact, as if this is an aberation...it's not by the way

The report is being edited in English, then must be translated into five other languages. It will be a 12-15 page summary for policymakers in most of the world's countries.

As the delegates hold their evening session, the Eiffel Tower, other Paris monuments and concerned citizens in several European countries were expected to switch off their lights for five minutes to call attention to energy conservation, heeding a call by French environmental campaigners. Great job Frankistan...How about turning off all the lights except the top one? forever if your so committed to helping? Rolling Eyes

Some experts said that while well-intentioned, turning the lights out could actually consume more energy than it would conserve by requiring a power spike when the lights turn back on _ possibly causing brownouts or even blackouts. See what rash action without considering the consequences can do for you? This last sentence really holds the moral of this story

P1234567890 · Posted: Thu Feb 01, 2007 1:58 pm Post subject:

45degreeN · Posted: Fri Feb 02, 2007 10:26 am Post subject:

Those who cannot adapt will die. Oh Well

lone-traveler · Posted: Fri Feb 02, 2007 10:54 am Post subject:

That's the same way the priests of the temple felt..

Those poor lepers and sick people and misfits..
if they can't get better, than leave them to the dogs....

When they leave the beaches and they leave the cities and cry for you to open your door and let them stay with you till winter passes and spring comes forth....

Listen to what the unjust judge saith:

Luk 18:1 ¶ And he spake a parable unto them [to this end], that men ought always to pray, and not to faint;
Luk 18:2 Saying, There was in a city a judge, which feared not God, neither regarded man:
Luk 18:3 And there was a widow in that city; and she came unto him, saying, Avenge me of mine adversary.
Luk 18:4 And he would not for a while: but afterward he said within himself, Though I fear not God, nor regard man;
Luk 18:5 Yet because this widow troubleth me, I will avenge her, lest by her continual coming she weary me.
Luk 18:6 And the Lord said, Hear what the unjust judge saith.
Luk 18:7 And shall not God avenge his own elect, which cry day and night unto him, though he bear long with them?
Luk 18:8 I tell you that he will avenge them speedily. Nevertheless when the Son of man cometh, shall he find faith on the earth?

and another:

Luk 18:9 ¶ And he spake this parable unto certain which trusted in themselves that they were righteous, and despised others:
Luk 18:10 Two men went up into the temple to pray; the one a Pharisee, and the other a publican.
Luk 18:11 The Pharisee stood and prayed thus with himself, God, I thank thee, that I am not as other men [are], extortioners, unjust, adulterers, or even as this publican.
Luk 18:12 I fast twice in the week, I give tithes of all that I possess.
Luk 18:13 And the publican, standing afar off, would not lift up so much as [his] eyes unto heaven, but smote upon his breast, saying, God be merciful to me a sinner.
Luk 18:14 I tell you, this man went down to his house justified [rather] than the other: for every one that exalteth himself shall be abased; and he that humbleth himself shall be exalted.

Will you open your door to the ones seeking shelter in the storm?
Regardless of what kind of clothes they wear?

theseldomscene · Banned Joined: 17 Mar 2005 Posts: 7817

12The merchandise of gold, and silver, and precious stones, and of pearls, and fine linen, and purple, and silk, and scarlet, and all thyine wood, and all manner vessels of ivory, and all manner vessels of most precious wood, and of brass, and iron, and marble,

13And cinnamon, and odours, and ointments, and frankincense, and wine, and oil, and fine flour, and wheat, and beasts, and sheep, and horses, and chariots, and slaves, and souls of men.

14And the fruits that thy soul lusted after are departed from thee, and all things which were dainty and goodly are departed from thee, and thou shalt find them no more at all.

15The merchants of these things, which were made rich by her, shall stand afar off for the fear of her torment, weeping and wailing,

18And cried when they saw the smoke of her burning, saying, What city is like unto this great city!

21And a mighty angel took up a stone like a great millstone, and cast it into the sea, saying, Thus with violence shall that great city Babylon be thrown down, and shall be found no more at all.

rev.8:6And the seven angels which had the seven trumpets prepared themselves to sound.

7The first angel sounded, ...

8And the second angel sounded, and as it were a great mountain burning with fire was cast into the sea: and the third part of the sea became blood;

9:20And the rest of the men which were not killed by these plagues yet repented not of the works of their hands, that they should not worship devils, and idols of gold, and silver, and brass, and stone, and of wood: which neither can see, nor hear, nor walk:

21Neither repented they of their murders, nor of their sorceries, nor of their fornication, nor of their thefts.

16:1And I heard a great voice out of the temple saying to the seven angels, Go your ways, and pour out the vials of the wrath of God upon the earth.

2And the first went, and poured out his vial upon the earth;...

3And the second angel poured out his vial upon the sea; and it became as the blood of a dead man: and every living soul died in the sea.

P1234567890 · Posted: Fri Feb 02, 2007 11:57 pm Post subject:

45degreeN · Posted: Sat Feb 03, 2007 9:43 am Post subject:

Actually if you check, we all die eventually don't we. The message isn't so much how long we live but how we live.

Since we have been warned with at least some time, we are responsible for our own deaths. Cant blame the natural events, but those who don't get out of the way somehow deserve their fate. It's a matter of priorities isn't it?

It is just not true that humans are fully responsible for the totality of warming, maybe only part of it.

It is really simple, if you live close to the ocean then move. That is a simple way to adapt, isn't it? Imagine all those rich folk who insist that the sunsets are worth the price. Well the price just got higher for them.

It just blows me away that for something that changes on a minute by minute basis( the weather), we want to stabilize it. Controlling the weather is just one of those sci-fi ideas that has no basis in reality since it is that very variation that keeps life going on this planet.

P1234567890 · Posted: Sat Feb 03, 2007 9:54 am Post subject: