Plentyoffish dating forums are a place to meet singles and get dating advice or share dating experiences etc. Hopefully you will all have fun meeting singles and try out this online dating thing... Remember that we are the largest free online dating service, so you will never have to pay a dime to meet your soulmate.
     
Show ALL Forums  > Science/philosophy  > Effects of flooding on human development?      Home login  
 AUTHOR
 stargazer1000
Joined: 1/16/2008
Msg: 50
Effects of flooding on human development?Page 3 of 5    (1, 2, 3, 4, 5)

Yes, plankton. When the oceans warm, plankton absorbs less co2. The warming of the oceans also push more water vapour into the atmosphere which in turn is the major cause of warming.

Don't forget that this additional water vapour will also block out the sun's UV radiation causing us to plunge into an ice age. This can be seen repeatedly in core samples over long periods of time. In times of temp rise followed by co2 level rise the planet suddenly freezes over.


Citation?
 60to70
Joined: 7/28/2008
Msg: 51
Effects of flooding on human development?
Posted: 10/10/2011 11:25:46 PM
Citation?
Whe really knows and can predict the ways of the Earth and its sensible solutions? Something is always going on and we are always one thousand feet or so many more behind the eight ball. lol.
Flooding on the other hand gives one a very sober and startling realization that we have nothing in hand or in control. Flooding is very devasting on human development. There is no worse ruin than water destroying one's home. In the case of tornadoes, etc all is obliterated and does not stand. In the case of flooding...all remains standing but ultimately ruined and waterlogged. You stand imagining what is not there . But is still stands. Ruined.
 wvwaterfall
Joined: 1/17/2007
Msg: 52
view profile
History
Effects of flooding on human development?
Posted: 10/11/2011 5:28:02 PM
Paul, you remain fixated on the historic timeline of CO2 and temperature increases. Any number of us have provided countless scientific citations to demonstrate that those historic observations do NOT shoot down the concept of anthropogenic global warming.

So let me make this simple for you. Every national science organization with any connection to the climate endorses the concept of AGW. Can you name ONE climate scientist who endorses AGW who denies that CO2 increases in the past have followed temperature increases?

Every one of these scientists remains convinced that human activity is a major culprit in our currently warming planet. Why would that be if before humans walked the planet warming preceded increases in CO2?

It would be because there are any number of factors that can increase global temperatures, and since we weren't around in the past to dig up and introduce into the atmosphere millenia worth of stored carbon, past warming events had other initial triggers, but the subsequent increased CO2 levels prolonged and increased that warming.

The greenhouse effect was first discovered before Darwin's time. CO2's role as a greenhouse gas has been understood nearly as long. This is NOT new science.

Global climate is indeed very complex, and since we humans have created conditions the planet has never seen before predicting precise future results is very challenging.

But that human activities have changed the concentration of greenhouse gasses is as certain as certain can be, including but not at all limited to CO2 increases. We've also made major changes to the landscape that also influence climate.

You quite comfortably acknowledged that we both polluted and reduced pollution in the Cuyahoga River, which I too grew up near to. Why is it so hard to accept that humans could also negatively and positively impact greenhouse gas concentrations?

Scientists are pretty sure that it's too late to completely negate our current climate impacts, at least in our lifetimes. But we DO have the capacity to minimize the harm. The difference between three and 16 degrees of temperature increase this century is significant.

We don't hesitate to divert rivers, cut down forests, grow large mono-crops, and remove entire mountains to get at the coal underneath to suit our human purposes. Why should we refuse to make positive changes to assure a more stable and livable climate?
 stargazer1000
Joined: 1/16/2008
Msg: 53
Effects of flooding on human development?
Posted: 10/12/2011 12:31:20 PM

What you and almost everybody who is whining and wringing their hands about AGW is that the solutions proposed are ALWAYS more politically driven than scientifically driven


The denial of it is certainly politically motivated. Reflective of right wing idealogue anti-intellectualism and anti-science.


Only one question as to my assertion of the solution being political..... Why is is that the USA gets absolutely reamed by the "solutions", and China, who is in a very short period of time, become the most polluting country on earth, gets a total pass??????


They don't.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2007/jun/19/china.usnews
 lyingcheat
Joined: 9/13/2009
Msg: 54
view profile
History
Effects of flooding on human development?
Posted: 10/12/2011 7:18:07 PM

What you and almost everybody who is whining and wringing their hands about AGW is that the solutions proposed are ALWAYS more politically driven than scientifically driven, and if you were at least honest enought to acknowledge that fact, there would be a place to start conversations. But, as such there is no place to even start.

hahahahaa A lecture on 'honest acknowledgment'?
Wasn't it you that claimed, based on 'evidence' from 'a friend who lives in Hawaii' that sea levels aren't even rising?
But rather, that certain low lying islands are really sinking?
(Though I note you dropped that argument when I posted links that suggest parts of the continental USA might also be [snicker]'sinking'[/snicker]).

Besides which, I'm not "whining and wringing (my) hands" about global warming. I'm just referring to the years of data that's been accumulated, mentioning the conclusions that have been reached from it, and providing the links for anyone who is (genuinely) interested in 'honestly acknowledging' the facts.


Hey star
Yep, you are 100% correct, in that China is now the worlds largest polluter, on more than one chart...............
However, when you wrote:
"They don't."
about them getting a pass on regulations....... well, they do get a pass on regulations, on the basis that they are a developing state............

What are you implying? That because China pollutes we all should as well?
I suppose we should cut down all our forests too since places like Brazil and Malaysia are using that method to compete on the international stage?
India is completely fouling its countryside in different ways, do you think we should also emulate their example?

You ignore the mechanics of international diplomacy, eventual pressure of self-interest, and, rather spectacularly, common sense.

If you and a Chinese person were standing on a road with a bus speeding toward you would you wait until the Chinese person took evasive action before you did anything? Or would you make a dash for safety as soon as you saw the danger, shouting helpful advice to them as you took steps to save yourself?
Perhaps you'd just stand there hey?
Denying the bus is moving at all perhaps, but rather arguing that the road is really speeding along underneath it instead, and that therefore, relative to you it's stationery, and perhaps meanwhile raising Zeno's paradox to argue that actually movement is impossible so therefore the bus can't really hit you anyway.

Well... up until the moment that it does.

Which is the issue raised is this question from another poster.

We don't hesitate to divert rivers, cut down forests, grow large mono-crops, and remove entire mountains to get at the coal underneath to suit our human purposes. Why should we refuse to make positive changes to assure a more stable and livable climate?
 stargazer1000
Joined: 1/16/2008
Msg: 55
Effects of flooding on human development?
Posted: 10/12/2011 8:19:21 PM

However, when you wrote:

"They don't."
about them getting a pass on regulations....... well, they do get a pass on regulations, on the basis that they are a developing state............


That wasn't what I was commenting on and you know it, Paul. Try not to be so blatantly dishonest!

You were insinuating that China as a major polluter was not being criticised for its role as a major polluter. It was "getting a pass" as you put it. I showed a specific example of criticism of China's environmental record.

Here's a reminder:



Only one question as to my assertion of the solution being political..... Why is is that the USA gets absolutely reamed by the "solutions", and China, who is in a very short period of time, become the most polluting country on earth, gets a total pass??????


They don't.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2007/jun/19/china.usnews


Typical denialist strategy, though. Congrats, Paul, you've absorbed the Tea Party manual well.
 stargazer1000
Joined: 1/16/2008
Msg: 56
Effects of flooding on human development?
Posted: 10/13/2011 12:33:14 PM

MY assertion was that China was getting a "pass"......... YOUR cite had ONLY to do with the fact that China was now the worlds biggest pollutor............


And...what did you want? You were complaining that China seemed to be getting off from any kind of attention. I showed you that China is being seen as a major polluter. What did you want?

Okay, try this from USA Today in 2008:

http://www.usatoday.com/weather/climate/globalwarming/2008-04-30-china-energy_N.htm


The ascension of China to No. 1 polluter makes it more likely that global-warming legislation in Congress will include protection for U.S. industries, says Robert Stavins of Harvard University's Kennedy School of Government. For example, Congress could impose import penalties on nations that haven't taken steps to control emissions.

Such "a provision could lead to a trade war" with China, Stavins says.

China's new status might provide fodder to opponents of U.S. attempts to address global warming, says Rep. Ed Markey, D-Mass., chairman of the House Select Committee on Energy Independence and Global Warming.

Instead, he says, it should add "to the urgency of the United States becoming a leader."


Or this:

http://www.guardian.co.uk/news/datablog/2011/jan/31/world-carbon-dioxide-emissions-country-data-co2


On pure emissions alone, the key points are:

• China emits more CO2 than the US and Canada put together - up by 171% since the year 2000


So no one is giving China "a pass" on its emissions. If you think more should be done, perhaps you should get off your a$$ and do something about it.
 lyingcheat
Joined: 9/13/2009
Msg: 57
view profile
History
Effects of flooding on human development?
Posted: 10/13/2011 12:46:55 PM

My comment on China has to do with my original assertion that AGW is a politically driven problem, and you proved it when you said:
"You ignore the mechanics of international diplomacy, eventual pressure of self-interest, and, rather spectacularly, common sense."

I proved nothing of the sort. Global warming is an environmental problem, not a political one.
The 'solutions' may well be arrived at politically via international diplomacy (and through pressure of self-interest and common sense, as I said) but how else would any international agreement be arrived at?
Shoot them if they don't agree?

IF this problem was so HUGE in nature and scope, then why is it that China does indeed get a "pass" to the greatest extent, instead of forcing them to use green energy right from the beginning?
Short answer? Politics......... as you said... " the mechanics of international diplomacy"

R i g h t . . . force them hey?
So to combat global warming you propose that "forcing them" is preferable to "international diplomacy"? Really? You're so averse to 'politics' for some reason that "forcing them" seems preferable?
Gosh, I'm sure that'd work out well. Not.


And the problem isn't political, as you yourself so eloquently put it?

umm... No. It's environmental.


Then, as another poster put it.................
"Why should we refuse to make positive changes to assure a more stable and livable climate?"

Why, indeed then don't we make China toe the line as much as you want the USA to? If they don't do it now, it will be nearly impossible to get them to change in the near future, and by then, according to how you feel, it may be too late, but YOU and others who feel as you do, give them a pass.....................

You're still just avoiding the question.
That's no way to conduct yourself, or a nation - waiting until someone else does the right thing before you'll do it. Or 'making them' do it so you feel comfortable about it.
Whatever happened to leadership and doing the right thing because... it's the right thing?


Politics..... whenever there is something that doesn't make sense, politics usually has its greasy beak in the mix.

Exactly right. Your preoccupation with 'politics' and China make no sense.
 stargazer1000
Joined: 1/16/2008
Msg: 58
Effects of flooding on human development?
Posted: 10/13/2011 5:03:18 PM
The answer is.......... POLITICS!!!


Well, since the U.S. never actually ratified the Kyoto protocols and were quite antagonistic to the entire process and every process since, that pretty much makes your argument moot. It also makes the U.S. the last ones to be critical of anyone else's efforts, or lack thereof, toward CO2 reduction.

However, what you're talking about it politicizing of an issue which the U.S. was GREAT at...especially when it came to being as obstructionist to the efforts of gaining any sort of consensus toward the need for unified effort.

Is THAT so hard for YOU to understand?

Andy:


It is always a good idea to do a little research yourself you know


Providing citation actually builds authority to your case, especially when it comes to matters of science.

From your previous posts, I can understand how you would be unfamiliar with this approach.

 lyingcheat
Joined: 9/13/2009
Msg: 59
view profile
History
Effects of flooding on human development?
Posted: 10/14/2011 2:03:53 AM

Warming comes first, then CO2 levels....................

Citation?

It is always a good idea to do a little research yourself you know

Start here and go from there…
http://www.scientificamerican.com/article.cfm?id=phytoplankton-population

None of that indicates what came first. Only that higher sea surface temperatures contribute to the decline.

Which is the basic 'Occams Razor' conclusion, unlike the one you seek to imply.

Besides which, the implication that human activity is unrelated to climate change, whether the chosen indicators are phytoplankton or something else, supposes that we are mere spectators and that we haven't been cutting down all the trees, burning all the carbon, decimating the fish stocks, and etc etc.
All of that ^^^ is covered though in links from the article you provided, which actually indicate the opposite conclusion to the one you are promoting.

http://www.scientificamerican.com/article.cfm?id=phytoplankton-population
http://www.scientificamerican.com/podcast/episode.cfm?id=co2-rising-follow-the-bouncing-carb-09-01-28
http://www.scientificamerican.com/article.cfm?id=average-global-temperature-rise-creates-new-normal
http://www.scientificamerican.com/article.cfm?id=right-number-to-combat-climate-change

All of which makes this exchange rather amusing...

Citation?

It is always a good idea to do a little research yourself you know

Providing a citation actually builds authority to your case, especially when it comes to matters of science.

Because you provided a citation that undermined your case.

________________________________________________________________________________________________


Having someone in Hawaii who has not noticed any change at all in sea levels is anecdotal, and I assumed you would caught on to that..........

The point I was making, though it seems to have gone over your head, related to your failure to 'honestly acknowledge' that sea levels had even risen while you criticised others failure to "honestly acknowledge" that AGW is, according to you, really just a political circus. That you use anecdotal evidence to ignore the facts may be revealing, but it's only incidental to the point being made.

I guess I have to spell it out for you a bit simpler.......... China is getting a pass on what the proposed legislation would be that they have to comply with....... The USA would be held to a much more stringent standard than China..... How hard is that to understand. THAT is the point I am making. The kyoto toilet paper accord doesn't hold China to near the standard that it holds the USA, yet if they were really interested in environment, THEY WOULD hold china to the SAME standard. China is largely EXEMPT from the kyoto crap..................... WHY?

(My bold)
Who are "THEY"?
International protocols are constituted by, and comprised of, the members.

Limits on CO2 emissions combined with such things as re-forestation are about sustainability and responsible use, not 'politics'. It is not, therefore, a sensible position to delay planting a tree until, or unless, China plants one too.
Other peoples lack of responsibility is not a valid reason to justify being irresponsible oneself, since such circular and illogical reasoning will only ensure that no one does anything.


Obstructionist? No..... Opposed to kyoto? Yes, by all means. So according to you, if we are against it, we are now obstructionists, not just oposed to stupidity?

No international protocol arrived at through diplomacy will be perfect, yet that alone doesn't necessarily stop nations from signing them since the idea is to take positive steps and therefore make progress.
Refusing to sign, if it delays positive progress that may otherwise occur, is indeed obstructionist. And short sighted.

Short sighted in the sense that opportunities to participate in emerging technologies will be lost. It's only a guess, but I won't be surprised if China (due to the obvious pressures I've already pointed out, such as self interest and common sense), at some point, dramatically embraces the commercial opportunities of sustainability and transforms itself into the worlds supplier of new technologies that no one else has yet thought of. Partly because, in the case of the US, there was no pressing reason to do so.
In years gone by it would have been US commercial interests leading the world, but those days appear to be over as conservatism has crept in and stifled innovation and 'big idea' forward thinking.

Going back to CO2 emissions though, there's two ways of looking at the figures.
As bulk totals -
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_carbon_dioxide_emissions
Or as 'per capita' (per head) outputs -
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_carbon_dioxide_emissions_per_capita

On the first list (bulk) China and the USA are number 1 and number 2. Followed, somewhat predictably, by the European Union, India, Russia, Japan, Germany, Canada, Iran, United Kingdom, and South Korea at number 10. Australia comes in at number 16.

However, per capita emissions tell a different story. Numbers 1 to 10 are all small countries that probably add little to global pollution.
The first (larg-ish) developed nation to make an appearance is Australia at number 11, followed by the USA at number 12.
Canada is in 15th place, Russia in 23rd, with South Korea in 28th.
China finally makes an appearance at number 78 on the list and India ranks as 145th.

China and India contribute far far less per head of population than any of the developed nations so one can understand why they might feel aggrieved if "forced" to comply with emission levels that wouldn't apply to those countries alongside them on the list.
China for instance is adjacent to Croatia (number 77), and Antigua and Barbuda Islands (number 79), while India is alongside Georgia (number 144) and Moldova (number 146).

Meanwhile the USA appears inside the top 12 on both lists. Yet the big stumbling block for you regarding a reduction in emissions is that, according to you, China won't be subjected to the same rules?
The fact is, per capita they don't emit the same volume.
 stargazer1000
Joined: 1/16/2008
Msg: 60
Effects of flooding on human development?
Posted: 10/14/2011 6:40:26 AM

One of the few times, lately at least, that the US did the right thing..........


The right thing...for the pro oil lobby and those companies that funded the election campaigns of those most vocally opposed to it, yes.


Obstructionist? No..... Opposed to kyoto? Yes, by all means. So according to you, if we are against it, we are now obstructionists, not just oposed to stupidity?


Well, LC handled this one pretty effectively so there's not much else I can say to it.

But "stupidity?" What, as opposed to dumping billions of tons of CO2 and other pollutants into the environment and just expecting it all to "go away?" Really?

So does that sand ever cause you any scalp problems?
 Earthpuppy
Joined: 2/9/2008
Msg: 61
view profile
History
Effects of flooding on human development?
Posted: 10/14/2011 3:17:50 PM
Butt, if you pull your head out of there for a breath of fresh air, the KY jelly aggravates the scalp sand retention problem when the head is then stuck there.

Studies have been done.
 MikeWM
Joined: 2/7/2011
Msg: 62
view profile
History
Effects of flooding on human development?
Posted: 10/14/2011 3:43:12 PM
Actually

If the seas "rose" 350 feet couldnt we just build cities on the then dry and fertile sea bottom as long as nothing built was higher than 350 feet and risked piercing the bottom of the sea now hovering 350 feet above our heads?

Adds a whole new meaning to living "under" the sea really lol
 MikeWM
Joined: 2/7/2011
Msg: 63
view profile
History
Effects of flooding on human development?
Posted: 10/14/2011 3:51:28 PM
Being serious for a moment, I really dont lose much sleep about the seas rising

Whilst I dont believe in the man made global warming myth in the slightest I do believe the planet has cycles of varying legnths that sometimes occur together sometimes alone that that the planet entering a deep freeze, very warm periods and even cycles where hemospheres are doing their own seperate things at different times like the fact the north pole was a vast warm forest during the past

So in natural terms I dont think anything bad is likely to happen soon, but that even if it was a species that isnt really much more significant than ticks on a dog would be able to stop it happening

What IS far more of a threat however is the activities off the east coast of the US around where the BP oil rig leak occurred which has already been found to be reducing the flow of the gulf stream which if stopped could cause an extremely rapid freeze rather than melting which could make much of the northern hemisphere unlivable

This, IMO is, or should be FAR more of a concern than something that doesnt even have any real data to back up the possible change that its theories piled onto of theories with no real date to support them could actually by pure coincidence either have any validity, or turn out to be something other than a naturally occuring cycle we cant alter anyway

So theorised flooding that "might" happen doesnt seem half as worrying as anthropological tampering with the gulf stream that could far more realistically cause an artificial semi ice age
 MikeWM
Joined: 2/7/2011
Msg: 64
view profile
History
Effects of flooding on human development?
Posted: 10/14/2011 5:57:28 PM
The global warming arguement due to man made CO2 REALLY needs to be set in stone pretty quickly

Not because I believe in the slightest that its even relevant to global warming, because even the same datasets the IPCC uses itself dont show any significant global climactic rises in temperature over the last 200 years, but in many areas decreases in temperature which would be totally impossible if an entire "climate" was warming significantly

But because once the suns output which we're supposed to be retarded enough to think has nothing whatsoever with any observed warming of the earth has reached its zenith over the next 5-10 years it will be starting the negative phase of its output cycle for the next 500 years or so. And the scaremongers will struggle even harder to push the concept of global warming when the temperature starts falling year on year thereafter

To actually claim that the suns output level increasing steadily has absolutely nothing whatsoever to do with global temperatures is at best completely laughable, but the fact the IPCC modellers despite knowing about the suns output cycle approaching its zenith leaving it out of their models really says it all

If governments REALLY wanted to try and tackle global warming and greenhouse gases then they could have started projects to collect the leaves from deciduous trees and stop them from rotting each year kicking out IMMENSE amounts of greenhouse gases, even cutting them down and replacing them with everygreens would make a huge difference and would cost very little

Termites which produce epic amounts of methane and have a combined mass of around 4 times that of all humans on the planet would be another good one for the hit list, and methane is a far worse greenhouse gas and theyre one of the worst contributors

But no, the absolute ONLY thing that is really being focused on is the one produced by something that has to pay taxes

And that IMO is the absolute ONLY political climate driver. How much money can we squeeze out of people before the myth cant be sustained any longer
 lyingcheat
Joined: 9/13/2009
Msg: 65
view profile
History
Effects of flooding on human development?
Posted: 10/15/2011 9:04:18 AM

Not because I believe in the slightest that its even relevant to global warming, because even the same datasets the IPCC uses itself dont show any significant global climactic rises in temperature over the last 200 years, but in many areas decreases in temperature which would be totally impossible if an entire "climate" was warming significantly.

Would you post a link to these 'datasets' you allege the IPCC is using please. Thanks.
It seems odd that their 'datasets' contradict so many others. These ones for instance -

Hot summers (and balmier winters) may simply be the new normal, thanks to carbon dioxide lingering in the atmosphere for centuries.

This trend reaches back further than a couple of years. There have been exactly zero months, since February 1985, with average temperatures below those for the entire 20th century. (And those numbers are not as dramatic as they could be, because the last 15 years of the 20th century included in this period raised its average temperature, thereby lessening the century-long heat differential.) That streak—304 months and counting—was certainly not broken in June 2010, according to the U.S. National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA). Last month saw average global surface temperatures 0.68 degree Celsius warmer than the 20th-century average of 15.5 degrees C for June—making it the warmest June at ground level since record-keeping began in 1880.

Not only that, June continued another streak—this year, it was the fourth warmest month on record in a row globally, with average combined land and sea surface temperatures for the period at 16.2 degrees C. The high heat in much of Asia and Europe as well as North and South America more than counterbalanced some local cooling in southern China, Scandinavia and the northwestern U.S.—putting 2010 on track to surpass 2005 as the warmest year on record. Even in the higher reaches of the atmosphere—where cooling of the upper levels generally continues thanks to climate change below—June was the second warmest month since satellite record-keeping began in 1978, trailing only 1998.

"Warmer than average global temperatures have become the new normal," says Jay Lawrimore, chief of climate analysis at NOAA's National Climatic Data Center, which tracks these numbers. "The global temperature has increased more than 1 degree Fahrenheit [0.7 degree C] since 1900 and the rate of warming since the late 1970s has been about three times greater than the century-scale trend."
http://www.scientificamerican.com/article.cfm?id=average-global-temperature-rise-creates-new-normal

Unless I'm misinterpreting, they seem to be saying that temperatures have increased?


But because once the suns output which we're supposed to be retarded enough to think has nothing whatsoever with any observed warming of the earth has reached its zenith over the next 5-10 years it will be starting the negative phase of its output cycle for the next 500 years or so. And the scaremongers will struggle even harder to push the concept of global warming when the temperature starts falling year on year thereafter.

To actually claim that the suns output level increasing steadily has absolutely nothing whatsoever to do with global temperatures is at best completely laughable, but the fact the IPCC modellers despite knowing about the suns output cycle approaching its zenith leaving it out of their models really says it all.

What? Who is suggesting the sun has no impact on the climate or global warming? Where are you getting your information?
You might be interested in this -

So what does the near future hold in terms of heat waves and record-breaking highs? Depending on how quickly La Niña conditions strengthen in the Pacific Ocean (and a host of other factors), this year could surpass previous records or at least take its place as one of the warmer years on record.

The short-term is fairly clear to climatologist James Hansen of the NASA Goddard Institute for Space Studies. "A new record global temperature, for the period with instrumental measurements, should be set within the next few months," he wrote in an unpublished paper in March.

But record global temperature for the calendar year might not occur if El Niño conditions deteriorate rapidly by mid-2010 into La Niña conditions, Hansen added.

That is exactly what is happening right now, according to NOAA. Sea surface temperatures in the Pacific Ocean—which play a key role in determining global temperatures—continued to decline in June, transforming from the heated condition known as El Niño to the cooler condition known as La Niña. A similar change in 2007 ended that year's chance to surpass 2005 as the warmest year on record. "La Niña typically contributes to a lower global average temperature than do neutral or El Niño conditions," Lawrimore explains. "The forecasted development of La Niña has the potential to bring the annual 2010 global average temperature below a record for the year as a whole."

Nevertheless, record highs are already being recorded across the globe: Pakistan set Asia's record for highest temperature on record, notching up 53.5 degrees C on May 26—one of nine countries to set high heat records so far this year. There are now roughly twice as many days with record highs than days with record lows, according to research from the National Center for Atmospheric Research. And warmer than usual temperatures in the ocean have prompted coral bleaching in the Indian Ocean and offshore of Southeast Asia; NOAA also warns there is "high potential" for such bleaching to develop in the Caribbean this summer.

All this heat comes at a time when the sun—despite a recent uptick in solar storm activity, much of it associated with sunspots, since late 2008—continues to pump out slightly less energy. This diminished solar radiation should be promoting a slight cooling but is apparently outweighed by the ongoing accumulation of atmospheric greenhouse gases, particularly carbon dioxide, as scientists have predicted for more than a century. Of course year to year variations in weather cannot be conclusively tied to climate change, which is best measured by a multiyear trend, such as the long-term trend of warming into which this year fits—2000 to 2010 is already the warmest decade since records have been kept and the 10 warmest average annual surface temperatures have all occurred in the past 15 years.
http://www.scientificamerican.com/article.cfm?id=average-global-temperature-rise-creates-new-normal


But none of that 'retarded' logic is worth a damn hey? What we really should be doing is gathering up all the fallen leaves and killing termites?

If governments REALLY wanted to try and tackle global warming and greenhouse gases then they could have started projects to collect the leaves from deciduous trees and stop them from rotting each year kicking out IMMENSE amounts of greenhouse gases, even cutting them down and replacing them with everygreens would make a huge difference and would cost very little

Termites which produce epic amounts of methane and have a combined mass of around 4 times that of all humans on the planet would be another good one for the hit list, and methane is a far worse greenhouse gas and theyre one of the worst contributors.

R i g h t . . .


But no, the absolute ONLY thing that is really being focused on is the one produced by something that has to pay taxes.

OK, I get it now. The decades of research about greenhouse gases and stuff is just a smokescreen by fallen leaf and termite loving scientists trying to deflect attention from the real culprits so they can put the boot into taxpayers? Like, for some unknown but probably despicable reason. Ah yes... it all makes sense.
 MikeWM
Joined: 2/7/2011
Msg: 66
view profile
History
Effects of flooding on human development?
Posted: 10/15/2011 9:38:20 AM
I'm not suggesting that global warming is postulated by termite hugging ecologists at all

But is business/government initiated

Scientists simply have the choice of either making a LOT of money through funding to research into pro AGW research or to not get funded or published as they see fit

The real drivers are money, as AGW generates billions directly in taxation, convinces people to support levels of taxation that otherwise would be seen as wholly ridiculous as well as having a variety of other spin off advantages like a widely supported reason to stunt growth and living conditions in africa along with its industrialisation in a global economy that needs another low wage economy becoming an industrialised cheap import producer like it needs a hole in the head

One of the other main omissions of CO2 modelling is the amount released from the sea as it warms, as thats one of the largest sources of CO2 on the planet, and the CO2 it holds will have been collected over periods far wider than mans industrialisation

So I dont think we arent "warming" at all, just that its something that should pretty much be expected and that has been used as a revenue collecting vehicle as was also the case in the 1980s when the exact same climate organistions and universities using the exact same data sources were scaremongering about a rapid and lethal ICE AGE being caused by CO2, now its a lethal warming lol

It should also be noted that in the middle ages the UK was so warm we could grow two crops of champagne quality grapes per year, and yet surprisingly there was no massive industrialisation and everybody on the planet didnt infact die. It was however a very prosperous and wealthy time in the UK's history and had temperatures that even with the worst climate model projections would still be around 100 years away. Yet not long after that a mini iceage came along rather than apocalyptic heat increases

So yeah it really does make it almost impossible to take any of the IPCC claims seriously especially when it seems to ignore even recent history of temperature cycles completely when they dont fit in with their models and the fact that despite their claims of predicting a system that isnt even understood yet they have time after time been wrong

As for the data sets

Some "proof"?

Hmm, lets have a look at USCHN figures then which are the same ones used by the IPCC

West point NY between 1930-2000 had a .5 degree decline

BUT, the good news is that if you take the figures back to 1900 they actually go UP half a degree overall

Brill eh? Global warming proven

Except wind it back to 1826 when records began and its a half degree drop overall

Same for West point NY too

Newyork itself however has a 5 degree rise in the same period despite not being that far away, it did however grow to a population of about 8 million people in that time though

Other places where the average temperature has dropped in the US would include but not be limited to

Mgill NV -1
Guthries OK -.5
Boulder CO -.5
Trueman MO -2.1
Greenville SC -1.5
Ann arbour MI -1
Syracuse NY -1.5
Albany NY -1
Oswego NY -1
Westpoint NY -.5

So they dont just share the climate with NY, but the same area of the climate too, yet are a few towns that throughout the entire growth period of manmade CO2 have dropped in temperature and are mirrored around the world in all countries where minimally urban areas show either drops in temperature, no change or very minimal increases nothing even approaching the "average". But where highly and densly urbanised areas do infact show very high increases

But the average is exactly that, most IPCC funded new weather stations have been in or very near to towns, whereas practically all decomissioned ones have been in rural areas where the figures have been flat or have decreased but I have the actual numbers floating around somewhere

So at the very least if the "climate" was warming we would expect varying increases EVERYWHERE but no drops, and yet in areas where the population hasnt exploded we have exactly that

And even just in the new york area itself its clear to see how the IPCC manages to get figures that "look" scary, because newyork and other highly urbanised areas do have HUGE increases, but their surrounding towns dont.

But thats the beauty of averages after all innit

And as I said, those are from the same source that the IPCC uses itself, so its not really open for interpretive critique, the figures are just what they are

Theres also the anomaly that CO2 increases actually follow rather than lead transient increases or decreases in overall temperature. Which would also seem to fit in pretty well with the sea being the majorative cause of changes in CO2 based on its ability to store more CO2 when cold, but less when warmer

And the seas core temperature leads both the surface temperature and CO2 changes by a larger margin of around 200 years if I recall, which is in turn believed to be driven by changes in the output of the suns levels

So then we have a system where the suns output increases or decreases over a period, that in time causes a trailing lag of a mirrored change in the seas core temperature (which I think is measured at about 50 metres below the surface) which them causes both a change in surface temperature that translates over a much shorter lag into causing more CO2 to be either released or stored

It doesnt help in the collection of taxes obviously, but other than that would seem to explain why CO2 trails changes in surface temperature rather than the other way round as its a bit hard to claim that the cause happens after the effect unless youre talking about temperal anomalies
 lyingcheat
Joined: 9/13/2009
Msg: 67
view profile
History
Effects of flooding on human development?
Posted: 10/15/2011 10:26:53 AM
^^^ Despite the requests in the previous post for both a link to the 'IPCC datasets' that support the allegations you make, and a general request to reveal where you are getting your information regarding the interaction of the sun with the earths climate... you provide no citations but instead talk vaguely about the weather in NY, over a vaguely unspecified period, measured by undisclosed people. pfft.

You then make a series of vague and completely unsupported claims about 'towns all around the world' that 'mirror' whatever it is you think you've shown.

Followed by a broad (and entirely unsupported) series of assumptions about CO2, the oceans, and temperature lag.

Why don't you just produce the links you're referencing?
 MikeWM
Joined: 2/7/2011
Msg: 68
view profile
History
Effects of flooding on human development?
Posted: 10/15/2011 11:19:55 AM
Wow, I didnt realise that actually finding the USCHN (which I did infact CLEARLY mention as the source) all by yourself would present such an insurmountable problem

No google where you live?

That said however, if just fnding the sole source for temperature date for the continenta united states is so difficult wont actually understanding the data be even more difficult?

Anyhoo, as it was SUCH an impossible task for you heres the "impossible to locate" link

http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/oa/climate/research/ushcn/ushcn.html

If you scroll down to the graphs you will see that the hottest summers in the US in the last hundred years actually occured in the 1930s

And that although CO2 has been steadily increasing in its rather pitiful quantities the temperature (allegedly driven by CO2) has managed to succeed in some rather dramatic rises AND epic dives over that period

However, overlay a graph of sunspot activity and you get a far more acurate match between temperature and the suns output than by any link between CO2

As seen here (from NASA data no less)

http://www.john-daly.com/



It should also be noted that the raw temperature data not just from the US, but from the world over is "tweaked" by GISS and the IPCC before they class it as useable, which without exception causes the HUGE increases that are the bread and butter of the doom and gloom dependants to ensure their continued income from AGW

However, the only real effect caused by mans proximity to weather stations is that we actually generate heat either through the urban heat island effect, vehicles and even by breathing

Yet all GISS/IPCC "adjustments" manage to increase the raw data rather than decrease it as should be the case

The second link also leads to the inherrant problems with the IPCC;s pracitse of conveniently doing hockey stick adjustments which has also been heavily criticised as much of the basis for doing so isnt much better than being the fact the figures dont say what they WANT them to say, so they adjust them accordingly so they DO

Nasas satelite temperature graphs which I am sure you will now be able to google all by yourself actually reflect the raw temperature data too and are about the most acurate method of measuring global temperature in existence.

And even these dont show what the IPCC is claiming the climate is doing

_______________________________________________________


Taking a pause for some objectivity here for a moment, and what I feel is a very important side issue to any "scientific" topic that also overlaps into deciding whether or not certain companies and groups can make billions of dollars/pounds the process of scientific research and review does need to be considered here too

We have in several areas of science not just climatology a governmental view at the core which due to who fund governments huge campaign contribution needs is funded by large corporations

So in many areas its clear to see why both would have similar interests

Secondly, most scientific funding is VERY expensive, and that money tends to come directly from large corporations or via government channels and is decided based on what results and outcomes are being sought or favoured rather than being shared out equally to all sides of a dispute

These already clearly bias driven studies are then taken to be the "facts" upon which the origional hypothesis is based. And is then peer reviewed by scientists also being funded in their research by the same governments and companies anyway once again removing any form or objectivity that would previously have been present in scientific review

Once peer reviewed the "approved" studies then go on to be published wide and far in scientific journals who also get most of their revenue from the same companies funding the govenrment campaigns, the research that created the studies and the research carried out by the peer review crowd too

So what you have then is a vaccuum of objectivity, and practically any data or research that doesnt fall in line with the initial political stance will tend to be dismissed or ridiculed due to things like not being published, positively peer reviewed or accepted by organisations like the IPCC who obviously also make HUGE salaries and expense accounts on the basis of people actually believing in the AGW models being at least something near approaching the truth

So what we have pretty much cycled back round to in scientific terms is a system closer to the format we had when scientists were claiming the earth actually revolved around the sun rather than the other way round

And even back then the charted paths of planets were adjusted by the scientific orthodoxy to show the universe infacr revolved around the earth knowing the opposite was true and openly denying it for several hundred years

The only real difference is that back then it was driven by a need to protect certain widely held religious beliefs and to defend the claims of revered scientists who genuinely believed it was the case

Nowadays though, its got far more to do with money and political control
 lyingcheat
Joined: 9/13/2009
Msg: 69
view profile
History
Effects of flooding on human development?
Posted: 10/15/2011 11:53:32 AM

Wow, I didnt realise that actually finding the USCHN (which I did infact CLEARLY mention as the source) all by yourself would present such an insurmountable problem
No google where you live?
That said however, if just fnding the sole source for temperature date for the continenta united states is so difficult wont actually understanding the data be even more difficult?
Anyhoo, as it was SUCH an impossible task for you heres the "impossible to locate" link
http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/oa/climate/research/ushcn/ushcn.html

You must be unfamiliar with the concept of supporting your statements with factual references, so I'll forgive your petulance.

I see no corroboration of your claim that these are the figures used by IPCC though. And I note also that the preamble states -

The U.S. Historical Climatology Network (USHCN, Karl et al. 1990) is a high-quality moderate sized data set of monthly averaged maximum, minimum, and mean temperature and total monthly precipitation developed to assist in the detection of regional climate change.

Regional variations? All land based?
This data might be useful fed into global data sets obtained in various ways, including by satellite, but by itself it can't be extrapolated into a globally significant map of any significance - which is what you were doing.


However, overlay a graph of sunspot activity and you get a far more acurate match between temperature and the suns output than by any link between CO2
As seen here (from NASA data no less)
http://www.john-daly.com/

The tables of sunspot activity conveniently cut off at 1990. That's called cherry picking.

Try these ones, they extend further -
http://www.skepticalscience.com/solar-activity-sunspots-global-warming.htm


It should also be noted that the raw temperature data not just from the US, but from the world over is "tweaked" by GISS and the IPCC before they class it as useable, which without exception causes the HUGE increases that are the bread and butter of the doom and gloom dependants to ensure their continued income from AGW

However, the only real effect caused by mans proximity to weather stations is that we actually generate heat either through the urban heat island effect, vehicles and even by breathing

Yet all GISS/IPCC "adjustments" manage to increase the raw data rather than decrease it as should be the case

The second link also leads to the inherrant problems with the IPCC;s pracitse of conveniently doing hockey stick adjustments which has also been heavily criticised as much of the basis for doing so isnt much better than being the fact the figures dont say what they WANT them to say, so they adjust them accordingly so they DO.

Bullshit.
 MikeWM
Joined: 2/7/2011
Msg: 70
view profile
History
Effects of flooding on human development?
Posted: 10/15/2011 12:13:40 PM
The USCHN data is taken by GISS, altered (increased) then goes to the IPCC where its again "tweaked" so yeah, it is the data used by the IPCC as theres no other network of weather stations in the US to use

The USCHN also monitors the NOAA weatherstations in the US too, so its the one stop shop for US climate data

As for "regional variations" unless the "region" is actually located on another planet or is encased in glass its kind of resident in the exact same "climate" as the rest of the globe

And being one of the worst CO2 producers in that "climate" should therefore be a "region" where the largest and most irrefuteable temperature rises should be occuring too which is a bit of a no brainer really

Either way the figures I initially posted also from the USCHN covering the entire range of data collected RATHER than the cropped versions used by the IPCC for the same weather stations should all be showing clear and non excepted rises, rather than decreases

And for some reason your final comment doesnt seem to actually link to anything to support your retort, I think you had a constant hard on for links?
 lyingcheat
Joined: 9/13/2009
Msg: 71
view profile
History
Effects of flooding on human development?
Posted: 10/16/2011 6:42:06 PM

The USCHN data is taken by GISS, altered (increased) then goes to the IPCC where its again "tweaked" so yeah, it is the data used by the IPCC as theres no other network of weather stations in the US to use

The USCHN also monitors the NOAA weatherstations in the US too, so its the one stop shop for US climate data

As for "regional variations" unless the "region" is actually located on another planet or is encased in glass its kind of resident in the exact same "climate" as the rest of the globe

And being one of the worst CO2 producers in that "climate" should therefore be a "region" where the largest and most irrefuteable temperature rises should be occuring too which is a bit of a no brainer really.

Clearly.


Either way the figures I initially posted also from the USCHN covering the entire range of data collected RATHER than the cropped versions used by the IPCC for the same weather stations should all be showing clear and non excepted rises, rather than decreases

And for some reason your final comment doesnt seem to actually link to anything to support your retort, I think you had a constant hard on for links?

You are the one making the claims, it's for you to substantiate them.

It's revealing that so far the links you have supplied, somewhat grudgingly, to support your allegations, were easily demolished - one set because they were only a tiny sub-set of the total picture which you were claiming, illegitimately (and still seem be), are sufficient to reveal the whole.
And the other set, regarding the relationship between sun activity and global temperature, because they were cherry picked and incomplete.

Nonetheless you still bizarrely insist the conclusions you reached, based on these either inadequate or incomplete figures are valid. While continuing to claim, still without any validation, that the IPCC variously alters, increases, crops, tweaks, adjusts, etc etc the 'figures' to conform to some preconception they've already reached, that you suggest is based solely on corrupt motivations, ie; to continue their funding.

I can see why you're reluctant to reveal your sources.

But say, if wanting to see your sources for these allegations and faulty conclusions means, in your world, that I 'have a constant hard on for links', then what does your incredible reluctance to reveal your links mean?
Presumably that you have an enormous great throbbing boner at the thought of presenting your opinions and trying to fool everyone into thinking they're facts.
 MikeWM
Joined: 2/7/2011
Msg: 72
view profile
History
Effects of flooding on human development?
Posted: 10/17/2011 7:33:01 AM
I wasnt "reluctant" to reveal any sources, the source was infact stated in the very first post but as it wasnt a link, just the name of the organisation you choose to dismiss it which isnt quite the same thing at all

And rather than "cropped" data, the overall temperatures I listed are the ENTIRE dataset going back to when records began

The IPCC uses hockeystick adjustments to data, which they make no secret of, and to claim they dont "adjust" data is not only laughable, but shows no knowledge of what the IPCC actually does, infact they havent long ago changed the method of "correction" they use which has been explained and cited in several IPCC documents explaining why and how the adjustments have been changed

NASA also has stated that they use the USHCN modified data sets for their research rather than the GISS or IPCC modified data sets too on several occassions, which one would logically question "why" if the GISS and IPCC modifications were so "acurate" in the first place
 MikeWM
Joined: 2/7/2011
Msg: 73
view profile
History
Effects of flooding on human development?
Posted: 11/2/2011 7:13:50 PM
On the bright side though it could be the saviour that the flailing housing market needs

The massive increase in available properties with a sea view could help to spark higher sales of more inland houses

In a few years you might be able to by a beach house in birmingham for a fraction of the cost one in devon would cost you now
 lyingcheat
Joined: 9/13/2009
Msg: 74
view profile
History
Effects of flooding on human development?
Posted: 11/2/2011 10:31:17 PM

On the bright side though it could be the saviour that the flailing housing market needs

The massive increase in available properties with a sea view could help to spark higher sales of more inland houses.

Speaking of the sinking housing market, awash with bargains...
http://www.worldviewofglobalwarming.org/pages/rising-seas.html

Some potentially could end up with 360 degree sea views?
http://www.conservation.org/sites/gcf/fmg/articles/Pages/kiribati_evacprep.aspx
http://www.moyak.com/papers/tuvalu-climate-change.html

Location, location, location...
Show ALL Forums  > Science/philosophy  > Effects of flooding on human development?