Any doubts about Climate Change?

**AntRobertson** · 09-03-2013, 05:27 PM

Originally Posted by pseudolus

Couldn't find it on that website.

Did find these sponsors though

The Lee and Juliet Folger Fund ($20,000)
William K. Bowes, Jr. Foundation ($100,000)
Fund for Innovative Climate and Energy Research (created by Bill Gates) ($100,000)
Charles G. Koch Charitable Foundation ($150,000)
The Ann & Gordon Getty Foundation ($50,000)

William K. Bowes, Jr. Foundation ($100,000)
The Ann & Gordon Getty Foundation ($50,000)
Anonymous Foundation ($250,000)

Quite a few proven eugenicists there, as well as advocates of depopulation.

So now all of a sudden you've become discerning about sources??

**Jesus Jones** · 09-03-2013, 05:31 PM

Originally Posted by Boon Mee

^
Silly Wabbit!

Don't you understand that the 'correct' temperature for Earth is whatever the Libs want it to be!

You terrorist!

**S Landreth** · 09-03-2013, 05:42 PM

Recent Warming Is 'Amazing And Atypical' And Poised To Destroy Stable Climate That Enabled Civilization

A stable climate enabled the development of modern civilization, global agriculture, and a world that could sustain a vast population. Now, the most comprehensive “Reconstruction of Regional and Global Temperature for the Past 11,300 Years” ever done reveals just how stable the climate has been — and just how destabilizing manmade carbon pollution has been and will continue to be unless we dramatically reverse emissions trends.

Researchers at Oregon State University (OSU) and Harvard University published their findings today in the journal Science. Their funder, the National Science Foundation, explains in a news release:

With data from 73 ice and sediment core monitoring sites around the world, scientists have reconstructed Earth’s temperature history back to the end of the last Ice Age.
The analysis reveals that the planet today is warmer than it’s been during 70 to 80 percent of the last 11,300 years.

… during the last 5,000 years, the Earth on average cooled about 1.3 degrees Fahrenheit–until the last 100 years, when it warmed about 1.3 degrees F.

In short, thanks primarily to carbon pollution, the temperature is changing 50 times faster than it did during the time modern civilization and agriculture developed, a time when humans figured out where the climate conditions — and rivers and sea levels — were most suited for living and farming. We are headed for 7 to 11°F warming this century on our current emissions path — increasing the rate of change 5-fold yet again.

By the second half of this century we will have some 9 billion people, a large fraction of whom will be living in places that simply can’t sustain them — either because it is too hot and/or dry, the land is no longer arable, their glacially fed rivers have dried up, or the seas have risen too much.

We could keep that warming close to 4°F — and avoid the worst consequences — but only with immediate action.

This research vindicates the work of Michael Mann and others showing that recent warming is unprecedented in magnitude, speed, and cause during the past 2000 years — the so-called Hockey Stick — and in fact extends that back to at least 4000 years ago. I should say “vindicates for the umpteenth time” (see “Yet More Studies Back Hockey Stick“).

Lead author Shaun Marcott of OSU told NPR that the paleoclimate data reveal just how unprecedented our current warming is: “It’s really the rates of change here that’s amazing and atypical.” He noted to the AP, “Even in the ice age the global temperature never changed this quickly.”

And the rate of warming is what matters most, as Mann noted in an email to me:

This is an important paper. The key take home conclusion is that the rate and magnitude of recent global warmth appears unprecedented for *at least* the past 4K and the rate *at least* the past 11K. We know that there were periods in the past that were warmer than today, for example the early Cretaceous period 100 million yr ago. The real issue, from a climate change impacts point of view, is the rate of change—because that’s what challenges our adaptive capacity. And this paper suggests that the current rate has no precedent as far back as we can go w/ any confidence—11 kyr arguably, based on this study.

An Illustrated Guide to the Science of Global Warming Impacts: How We Know Inaction Is the Gravest Threat Humanity Faces

In this post, I will summarize what the recent scientific literature says are the key impacts we face in the coming decades if we stay anywhere near our current emissions path. These include:

Staggeringly high temperature rise, especially over land — some 10°F over much of the United States

Permanent Dust Bowl conditions over the U.S. Southwest and many other regions around the globe that are heavily populated and/or heavily farmed.

Sea level rise of some 1 foot by 2050, then 4 to 6 feet (or more) by 2100, rising some 6 to 12 inches (or more) each decade thereafter

Massive species loss on land and sea — perhaps 50% or more of all biodiversity.

Unexpected impacts — the fearsome “unknown unknowns”

Much more extreme weather

Food insecurity — the increasing difficulty of feeding 7 billion, then 8 billion, and then 9 billion people in a world with an ever-worsening climate.

Myriad direct health impacts

Remember, these will all be happening simultaneously and getting worse decade after decade. Equally tragic, a 2009 NOAA-led study found the worst impacts would be “largely irreversible for 1000 years.”

The single biggest failure of messaging by climate scientists (until very recently) has been the failure to explain to the public, opinion makers, and the media that business-as-usual warming results in simultaneous, ever-worsening impacts that, individually, are each beyond catastrophic, but combined are unimaginablly horrific. For these impacts, terms like “global warming” and “climate change” are essentially euphemisms. That is why I have preferred the term “Hell and High Water.”

By virtue of their success in promoting doubt and inaction, the climate science deniers and disinformers have, tragically and ironically, turned the worst-case scenario into business as usual.

**Norton** · 09-03-2013, 05:43 PM

Originally Posted by pseudolus

"I have no doubt that global -- that a trend of global warming exists. I am not sure that it is fair to say that it is a problem we must wrestle with. To assume that it is a problem is to assume that the state of earth's climate today is the optimal climate, the best climate that we could have or ever have had and that we need to take steps to make sure that it doesn't change. First of all, I don't think it's within the power of human beings to assure that the climate does not change, as millions of years of history have shown, and second of all, I guess I would ask which human beings - where and when - are to be accorded the privilege of deciding that this particular climate that we have right here today, right now is the best climate for all other human beings. I think that's a rather arrogant position for people to take."

Essentially what anyone with the slightest curiosity about the subject would deduce.

There is no "ideal" global temperature average. It's going to be what it's going to be. Human technology may raise or lower it a bit but not significantly. Determining the average global temperature is nearly impossible. Depends on how far back one goes. Include all major ice ages since earth's geological beginnings, interglacial periods or short term based on actual from recorded data.

Last ice age ended about 18,000 years ago. Glaciers began receding as the earth warmed. Still warming and will be for thousands or millions of years if cycles of ice ages are accurate. Polar zones warming, sea levels rising, C02 levels rising, flora and fauna adaptation to warmer local climate, etc.

Humans may be able to slow down or decrease the hottest temperature period but before the next major ice age it's going to get much hotter than now no matter what we do.

In the end, to survive we will have to adapt or die. Rather than throwing all our energy into stopping global climate change vis a vis suspending use of fossil fuels perhaps we should start now applying our efforts to adapting to the inevitable hotter climates we will face in the future. We may even find warmer climate is a net benefit to us. No reason it can't be.

Politicizing, fear mongering and denial will get us no where. Wonder what our long lost ancestor did to survive the last ice age and the changes since? They adapted. Surely we can.

Doubt they had a big debate over the below:

**FlyFree** · 09-03-2013, 05:55 PM

This is by far the most depressing thread on TD. Which is why I tend to stay away from it. The reduction of what is a scientific/climatic matter to bog-standard, toilet right wing/left wing political shit slinging is sickening, and shows up the level of TD's membership, and may I say American superficiality, in too much detail.

This is not an exceptional statement in this thread, in any way, but coming from someone like Norton it is extremely disheartening.

Originally Posted by Norton

Wonder what our long lost ancestor did to survive the last ice age and the changes since? They adapted. Surely we can.

That shows so much ignorance on the issue you are commenting on, it is stunning.

The only positive is it probably doesn't matter.

**Mid** · 09-03-2013, 06:38 PM

Originally Posted by Norton

it's going to get much hotter than now no matter what we do.

how much will depend on what we do .

**Norton** · 09-03-2013, 06:45 PM

Originally Posted by FlyFree

That shows so much ignorance on the issue you are commenting on, it is stunning.

Tell me more. Something you disagree with in particular?

**Norton** · 09-03-2013, 06:48 PM

Originally Posted by Mid

how much will depend on what we do .

As I said to a degree but do you believe if we burned no fossil fuel at all we will have a significant effect on climate change?

**Mid** · 09-03-2013, 06:49 PM

Originally Posted by Norton

do you believe if we burned no fossil fuel at all we will have a significant effect on climate change?

YES .

**Mid** · 09-03-2013, 06:56 PM

Originally Posted by pseudolus

Quite a few proven eugenicists there, as well as advocates of depopulation.

At its peak of popularity eugenics was supported by a wide variety of prominent people, including Winston Churchill,[40] Margaret Sanger,[41][42] Marie Stopes, H. G. Wells, Theodore Roosevelt, George Bernard Shaw, John Maynard Keynes, John Harvey Kellogg, Linus Pauling [43] and Sidney Webb.[44][45][46]

Many members of the American Progressive Movement supported eugenics, enticed by its scientific trappings and its promise to cure social ills.[citation needed]

Its most infamous proponent and practitioner was, however, Adolf Hitler who praised and incorporated eugenic ideas in Mein Kampf and emulated Eugenic legislation for the sterilization of "defectives" that had been pioneered in the United States.[47]

The American sociologist Lester Frank Ward [48] and the English writer G. K. Chesterton were early critics of the philosophy of eugenics.

Ward's 1913 article "Eugenics, Euthenics, and Eudemics" and Chesterton's 1917 book Eugenics and Other Evils were harshly critical of the rapidly growing eugenics movement.

Eugenics - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

**Norton** · 09-03-2013, 06:57 PM

Ok. Fair nuff. My post was based on long term climate change cycles. My opinion and majority of science is extreme climate changes occur over time. Land masses are covered in ice, deserts become tropics, tropics become deserts and so forth. I agree our addition of C02 does increase warming but I contend the earth will get warmer in any case. Why not put far more effort into adapting to the change.

**Mid** · 09-03-2013, 07:01 PM

Originally Posted by Norton

Why not put far more effort into adapting to the change.

because the amount of change we can survive / adapt to is finite and we DO have the means to minimise the amount but not the political will as this thread demonstrates AND it is the next generation who will suffer NOT us ....

**Norton** · 09-03-2013, 07:09 PM

Originally Posted by Mid

we DO have the means to minimise the amount

We sure do. I'm in get on with it. As I've previously posted all can debate the effect or lack of related to climate change but hard to argue weaning ourselves off fossil fuels is a priority.

**Mid** · 09-03-2013, 07:13 PM

Originally Posted by Norton

hard to argue weaning ourselves off fossil fuels is a priority.

of course it is , even without climate change they are finite and there are plenty in China ( for example ) who have personal first hand knowledge of their destructive effects

**Norton** · 09-03-2013, 07:17 PM

Yep. I lived in Beijing. Between the fossil fueled electrical generation and the dust from the Gobi it was a nightmare. Lived there before a few million cars were on the road. Can only imagine the hell it must be now.

**hazz** · 09-03-2013, 07:19 PM

Originally Posted by pseudolus

Originally Posted by Mid

Originally Posted by pseudolus

Just out of interest, and this is a genuine question to get some knowledge here that I can not find out. What temperature is the earth meant the be, on average? What temperature is "best" for the earth?

Home|Berkeley Earth

Great find (well, startlingly similar to all the other information delivered on here).

So, ground temperature has allegedly raised by 1.5 degrees. Is this good or bad? Does the earth need to warm up? Is it currently too cold? Should it be colder? Does massive ice caps have a function vital to the health of the earth is perhaps could the earth benefit from more water in circulation?

Couldn't find it on that website.

Did find these sponsors though

The Lee and Juliet Folger Fund ($20,000)
William K. Bowes, Jr. Foundation ($100,000)
Fund for Innovative Climate and Energy Research (created by Bill Gates) ($100,000)
Charles G. Koch Charitable Foundation ($150,000)
The Ann & Gordon Getty Foundation ($50,000)

William K. Bowes, Jr. Foundation ($100,000)
The Ann & Gordon Getty Foundation ($50,000)
Anonymous Foundation ($250,000)

Quite a few proven eugenicists there, as well as advocates of depopulation.

the koch brothers?

**pseudolus** · 09-03-2013, 10:32 PM

^ Just taken off of their website - so I assume that the Koch Brothers, who have an trading arm of course, are interested really in climate fear.

@Mid

because the amount of change we can survive / adapt to is finite and we DO have the means to minimise the amount but not the political will as this thread demonstrates AND it is the next generation who will suffer NOT us ....

JUst how exactly do we know then that a warmer climate is bad for us? How do we know that our development to date has not actually been set back by the cold weather we have?

Is it bad? And if you say so, why and where is the proof?

I am all for a greener cleaner planet, but this does not start and end at Co2. It should start with clean water. Too much attention to Gores fear campaign is detracting from the real problems we face - no fecking water.

**MrG** · 09-03-2013, 10:54 PM

Originally Posted by Norton

Doubt they had a big debate over the below:

Consider the source; they're cave men!.
I guess that's why Republicans don't believe in evolution--they don't evolve.

**Takeovers** · 10-03-2013, 12:14 AM

Originally Posted by pseudolus

JUst how exactly do we know then that a warmer climate is bad for us? How do we know that our development to date has not actually been set back by the cold weather we have?

Is it bad? And if you say so, why and where is the proof?

If you need to be told. If nothing else, warmer oceans mean more and more severe Hurricanes. A lot more and a lot more severe.

Rising sea water may not be so bad. We can rebuild our big coastal cities every 100 years, because the old ones have been flooded, no problem. But having them destroyed by hurricanes every 5 to 10 years becomes uncomfortable with time.

Shifting climate zones as well. Not so bad. People just move and change to different crops. A few billion die from starvation, OK. There are too many anyway.

Mankind will survive, no doubt, we are quite adaptable to change. Technical civilization may not, it may be going back to caves.

**Boon Mee** · 10-03-2013, 04:13 AM

Originally Posted by Norton

Humans may be able to slow down or decrease the hottest temperature period but before the next major ice age it's going to get much hotter than now no matter what we do.

Politicizing, fear mongering and denial will get us no where. Wonder what our long lost ancestor did to survive the last ice age and the changes since? They adapted. Surely we can.

What's your opinion on this Carbon Credit stuff? Reckon it's a scam?

At any rate, global warming is ALL THAT STANDS IN THE PATH OF AN ICE AGE:

"Though the paper is the most complete reconstruction of global temperature, it is roughly consistent with previous work on a regional scale. It suggests that changes in the amount and distribution of incoming sunlight, caused by wobbles in the earth’s orbit, contributed to a sharp temperature rise in the early Holocene.

The climate then stabilized at relatively warm temperatures about 10,000 years ago, hitting a plateau that lasted for roughly 5,000 years, the paper shows. After that, shifts of incoming sunshine prompted a long, slow cooling trend.

The cooling was interrupted, at least in the Northern Hemisphere, by a fairly brief spike during the Middle Ages, known as the Medieval Warm Period. (It was then that the Vikings settled Greenland, dying out there when the climate cooled again.)
Scientists say that if natural factors were still governing the climate, the Northern Hemisphere would probably be destined to freeze over again in several thousand years. “We were on this downward slope, presumably going back toward another ice age,” Dr. Marcott said.

Instead, scientists believe the enormous increase in greenhouse gases caused by industrialization will almost certainly prevent that."

Don't know about y'all but I'd rather be warm than cold. Anybody want a Fallen Angels, scenario? This is where environmentalists managed to stop the greenhouse emissions and an ice age ensued.

btw, was in Bejing last November and the air quality then wasn't all that bad. Nobody walking around wearing face masks. Reminded this poster of LA back in the 60's where you never saw a blue sky.

**S Landreth** · 10-03-2013, 04:24 AM

^strange, you left this part of the article out. Why's that?

The modern rise that has recreated the temperatures of 5,000 years ago is occurring at an exceedingly rapid clip on a geological time scale, appearing in graphs in the new paper as a sharp vertical spike. If the rise continues apace, early Holocene temperatures are likely to be surpassed within this century, Dr. Marcott said.

Dr. Mann pointed out that the early Holocene temperature increase was almost certainly slow, giving plants and creatures time to adjust. But he said the modern spike would probably threaten the survival of many species, in addition to putting severe stresses on human civilization.

“We and other living things can adapt to slower changes,” Dr. Mann said. “It’s the unprecedented speed with which we’re changing the climate that is so worrisome.”

**blue** · 10-03-2013, 06:42 AM

its freezing here in Britain
the faster the world warms the better
bring it on !!
if anyone can have a bonfire in thier garden and burn up some carbon i would appreciate it .

**pseudolus** · 10-03-2013, 07:14 AM

Originally Posted by Takeovers

If you need to be told. If nothing else, warmer oceans mean more and more severe Hurricanes. A lot more and a lot more severe.

Rising sea water may not be so bad. We can rebuild our big coastal cities every 100 years, because the old ones have been flooded, no problem. But having them destroyed by hurricanes every 5 to 10 years becomes uncomfortable with time.

Shifting climate zones as well. Not so bad. People just move and change to different crops. A few billion die from starvation, OK. There are too many anyway.

Mankind will survive, no doubt, we are quite adaptable to change. Technical civilization may not, it may be going back to caves.

Justy as I thought - the world is not in danger, just us stupid arrogant humans. Well that's no problem - let us die out. I wonder if the Whales and Pandas will try and save us?

**Boon Mee** · 10-03-2013, 07:25 AM

Originally Posted by pseudolus

Originally Posted by Takeovers

If you need to be told. If nothing else, warmer oceans mean more and more severe Hurricanes. A lot more and a lot more severe.

Rising sea water may not be so bad. We can rebuild our big coastal cities every 100 years, because the old ones have been flooded, no problem. But having them destroyed by hurricanes every 5 to 10 years becomes uncomfortable with time.

Shifting climate zones as well. Not so bad. People just move and change to different crops. A few billion die from starvation, OK. There are too many anyway.

Mankind will survive, no doubt, we are quite adaptable to change. Technical civilization may not, it may be going back to caves.

Justy as I thought - the world is not in danger, just us stupid arrogant humans. Well that's no problem - let us die out. I wonder if the Whales and Pandas will try and save us?

Mebe if you hang out in a giant redwood with the spotted owls you'll be OK...

**pseudolus** · 10-03-2013, 08:00 AM

Originally Posted by Boon Mee

Originally Posted by pseudolus

Originally Posted by Takeovers

If you need to be told. If nothing else, warmer oceans mean more and more severe Hurricanes. A lot more and a lot more severe.

Rising sea water may not be so bad. We can rebuild our big coastal cities every 100 years, because the old ones have been flooded, no problem. But having them destroyed by hurricanes every 5 to 10 years becomes uncomfortable with time.

Shifting climate zones as well. Not so bad. People just move and change to different crops. A few billion die from starvation, OK. There are too many anyway.

Mankind will survive, no doubt, we are quite adaptable to change. Technical civilization may not, it may be going back to caves.

Justy as I thought - the world is not in danger, just us stupid arrogant humans. Well that's no problem - let us die out. I wonder if the Whales and Pandas will try and save us?

Mebe if you hang out in a giant redwood with the spotted owls you'll be OK...

I'll leave the hanging out with Owls to the US political elite thanks - HEnry Kissinger 3rd on the right....

Still no answer as to what is the right temperature for the world yet. A few scare stories, but everyone assumes there are no positives. What a load of bull about starvation by the way - warmer climate and more Co2 equals more food grown. Get the grapes and corn growing in Greenland again - happy days.

Thread: Any doubts about Climate Change?

Thread Tools

Display

Thread Information

Users Browsing this Thread

Posting Permissions