Another look at global warming and wacky weather - page 2
by tntrn 5,310 Views | 197 Comments
... Read More
- 1Quote from tntrnWhat's Al Gore got to do with anything?The writer cites an expert under most of the categories and the others are historical in nature.My point in posting this is that not all experts agree with Al Gore, who isn't a scientist either and a lot of he's predicted hasn't come to pass or has been disproved. There are always two sides to a story.
The whole article is one long non sequitur, in my opinion. The author's argument is that catastrophic weather occurred before human societies began frantically pumping waste into the atmosphere, therefore greenhouse gasses have no effect on climate which isn't changing anyway.
A bit like saying that people died of lung disease before we started smoking tobacco and besides, my grampa lived to 98 smoking a pack a day, therefore tobacco is harmless and lung cancer doesn't exist.
Thirty years ago, we thought we had plenty of time ... a hundred years at least ... before we would start to see big changes. We were wrong. Predictions are coming true now.
Small Island, High Mountain States Plead for Climate Action..."The Maldives, as a low-lying small island state, is particularly vulnerable to the perils of global climate change, a point brought sharply into focus by the recent sea swells which submerged a large part of the country," said the Indian Ocean nation's Foreign Minister Abdulla Shahid.
..."More serious and more immediate" is the speed at which Himalayan glaciers are receding, Bhutan's Foreign Minister Yeshey Dorji told the delegates. Bhutan's agricultural sector, the mainstay of nearly 80 percent of the population, is at risk.
A deadly trio of factors - warming, acidification and lack of oxygen - is creating the conditions associated with every previous major extinction of species in Earth's history, the panel warned.
The combined effects of these stressors are causing degeneration in the ocean that is "far faster than anyone has predicted," the scientists report.
...The group reviewed recent research by world ocean experts and found firm evidence that the effects of climate change, coupled with other human-induced impacts such as over-fishing and nutrient run-off from farming, have already caused a dramatic decline in ocean health.
...Dan Laffoley, marine chair of IUCN's World Commission on Protected Areas and senior ddvisor on Marine Science and Conservation for IUCN, and co-author of the report, said, "The world's leading experts on oceans are surprised by the rate and magnitude of changes we are seeing. The challenges for the future of the ocean are vast, but unlike previous generations we know what now needs to happen. The time to protect the blue heart of our planet is now, today and urgent."
It's time to stop obsessing over Al Gore and start thinking about whether your grandchildren will be able to eat or breathe.
- 2Quote from tntrnIt's all about context, isn't it?The Earth Day people in 1970 (?) were predicting an ice age that would have already decimated the planet......and it would appear they were very very wrong. The same might be said of those predicting we will melt, also.
What were climate scientists predicting in the 1970s?
At the same time as some scientists were suggesting we might be facing another ice age, a greater number published contradicting studies. Their papers showed that the growing amount of greenhouse gasses that humans were putting into the atmosphere would cause much greater warming – warming that would a much greater influence on global temperature than any possible natural or human-caused cooling effects.
By 1980 the predictions about ice ages had ceased, due to the overwhelming evidence contained in an increasing number of reports that warned of global warming. Unfortunately, the small number of predictions of an ice age appeared to be much more interesting than those of global warming, so it was those sensational 'Ice Age' stories in the press that so many people tend to remember.
...The fact is that around 1970 there were 6 times as many scientists predicting a warming rather than a cooling planet. Today, with 30+years more data to analyse, we've reached a clear scientific consensus: 97% of working climate scientists agree with the view that human beings are causing global warming.
- 0May 1, '12 by herring_RN Guidein response to earth day 1970 president nixon helped amend the clean air act of 1970. some think it is possible that air quality is still decent today because serious regulations were undertaken to limit the pollution of heavy industries.
… in 1970, congress amended the clean air act to tackle, among other pollutants, nitrogen dioxide, sulfur dioxide, carbon monoxide, and lead (the new rules were slowly phased in over the next decade).
most notably, the law acted to phase out lead from gasoline by the mid-1980s. and lo and behold, it worked--you can see a sharp drop in lead emissions over that period (with a few further steps needed after that). it was a massive public-health success story. …
success is confusing | the new republic
- 4I have no beef with trying to do a better job. My family recycled before it was called that, out of necessity. I had to turn off the light when I left a room or risk a serious scolding. We reused aliminum foil and plastic bags.But I am not of the mind set that I can really change what Mother Nature has in mind. That is just too arrogant for me, personally. So I recycle, reuse when I can or choose to, but I also want decent lighting in which to sew, and I want to be able to use my dimmers when the mood strikes me. Legislating everything is just too much and I don't think it necessary. My thoughts, my opinions.Others' opinions don't make me angry, but I do sense that from those who don't agree with me.And I don't understand that.
- 3May 1, '12 by herring_RN GuideQuote from tntrnI'm not angry about this. I do think we need what my Mom called a "Happy Medium".I have no beef with trying to do a better job. My family recycled before it was called that, out of necessity. I had to turn off the light when I left a room or risk a serious scolding. We reused aliminum foil and plastic bags.But I am not of the mind set that I can really change what Mother Nature has in mind. That is just too arrogant for me, personally. So I recycle, reuse when I can or choose to, but I also want decent lighting in which to sew, and I want to be able to use my dimmers when the mood strikes me. Legislating everything is just too much and I don't think it necessary. My thoughts, my opinions.Others' opinions don't make me angry, but I do sense that from those who don't agree with me.And I don't understand that.
Determining what that is can be difficult.
I don't want you to try sewing in dim light.
I am glad our toys, paint and vehicle exaust no longer have lead additives.
I'm glad I no longer have to stop what I'm doing because tears are streaming from my eyes on smoggy days. We no longer burn our trash in back yard incinerators. We put it in blue recycle bins and the city mitigates the cost of collecting it by selling papers, cans, and other allowable items.
Our cars pollute much less.
Hospitals no longer burn IV bags releasing dioxin into the air.
You casn actually hang clothing to dry in Chicago without them getting dirtier than before they were washed due to soot.
I'm glad fish can again live in the Hudson River.
It is not all or nothing.
If I were angry with everyone who doesn't agree with me I'd have no human relationships at all. Banjo music annoyed my Daddy my loving husband doesn't like it either.
- 0If you sense anger from me, you might be projecting. My first response was to article cited in the OP and the "argument" presented there. My main emotional reaction to it was puzzlement: "What the frack is his point and why on earth should I take it seriously?" My first posts presented my answer to that question.
And the belief that climate scientists were all predicting an ice age back in the seventies is certainly yours to hold. Many believe the same thing. It just isn't a fact.
If you didn't want to read opinions about the article, why did you post it?Last edit by heron on May 1, '12
- 1I posted it because I enjoy discussions, learning what other people think. But even "experts" do not agree on everything. It is tiresome that those of us who are conservative are considered to be the uneducated about just about everything. So posting the opinions from experts who do support my own personal beliefs is an understandable action, or so it would seem to me.
- 2Quote from tntrnYou're projecting, again.I posted it because I enjoy discussions, learning what other people think. But even "experts" do not agree on everything. It is tiresome that those of us who are conservative are considered to be the uneducated about just about everything. So posting the opinions from experts who do support my own personal beliefs is an understandable action, or so it would seem to me.
I don't agree that those who are conservative are uneducated about just about everything, which is why I've included quotes from conservatives who are educated and thoughtful ... and who also disagree with the current conservative party line as presented by Fox, although often for very different reasons.
The common denominator between me and them is that we don't rely on "beliefs" but on critical thinking about verifiable data. Maxim Lott is not in the business of producing verifiable, reproducible and meaningful data. His "research" consists of finding snippets of this and that to put on Fox to boost Stossel's ratings.
My post re the Ice Age predictions points up the pitfalls of relying on mass media for scientific reporting: the majority of climate scientists were predicting warming even then, but the Ice Age theory got picked up by mass media and pulled out of context because it made a good story. Now those who don't bother to actually check think that it was some kind of consensus.
The "consensus" among the majority of climate scientists at the time was exactly the opposite. I cited it to answer Tweety's notion that we need to wait some more to see if predictions will come true in the future. The point being that many predictions from thirty years ago are coming true now ... a lot faster than we thought they would.
Isn't that how one checks a scientific theory ... by finding out if it can predict what will happen under a given set of circumstances?