Conflicting Science in Global Warming/Cooling

[wakeflood]

AAR: Did you know that our domestic production of oil and gas is at record highs and that we’re exporting it?

You know what would spur Big Oil to start going green? Eliminate their subsidies yesterday. And take that $5B/yr. and create an infrastructure bank that loans to green R&D and bringing to market. They want a piece of that action, they get in line.

Share This

[DBP]

Another easy thing you can do to help the planet:

Get an electric mower and mow your grass long, just like the City been telling us to do.

I used to have a gas-powered monster and mow my grass short every week, bagging up the clippings and then giving them away to Cedar Grove Compost – who would then sell them back to me as mulch!

What a foolish waste of time, money, and resources! And the lawn still looked like hell.

Now I have an electric mulching mower. I mow my grass every two weeks at the highest setting. And the lawn actually looks better. When you mow grass long, it grows back more slowly. When you mow it short, it grows faster, because cutting grass stimulates it to grow.

No, my lawn doesn’t look like a golf course, and that’s dandy, because I hate golf. And even if I loved golf, there’s a course just down the road. I can go look at their grass any time I want. (There’s a story there, somewhere.)

Another benefit: When you mow the grass long, it makes it much harder for moss and dandelions to get a foothold, so you don’t have to use poison to kill that stuff. (Weed killer also kills the worms and good bacteria in the soil, by the way. Before running off into the stream and killing everything there.)

* * * * * * *

I NEVER have to water in the summer, which is good, because that is expensive and wasteful. When the grass in my lawn “dies” (goes dormant) in July, it’s still nice and thick. That thick grass keeps the soil underneath cool and moist and all the worms and bacteria are still hanging out, close to the surface. (Along with the moles, who mistakenly think I’m their best friend.)

* * * * * * * * *

Try following SPU’s advice and just mow your grass long for one season. I guarantee you’ll notice a difference:

-Fewer weeds / less moss

-No costly watering needed in the summer

-Lawn bounces back in the late fall and looks healthy and green for 9 months out of the year

-Best of all, it saves your lazy butt a lot of trouble.

Share This

[wakeflood]

I hear that, DBP. Couldn’t agree more. I’ve had a battery powered electric since the first generation what, 7-8 yrs. ago?? On my new generation version – the other one was given to a neighbor who still uses it.

I love how quiet and clean it is. No more inhaling two stroke stank and I never have to wonder if it will fire up!

Quick word of advice to all who go this route – and it is highly recommended – is to keep the blade sharp. Sharpen it at LEAST every spring and if you hit wood or rocks, check and resharpen as needed. It makes the battery load less and you get lots better looking results too. :-)

Might be one of the 2 or 3 best buys I’ve made in the last number of years.

Share This

[AAR]

wakeflood: Nope, I had no idea about our record exports. Another reason I enjoy this forum, I learn quite a bit! And I think these suggestions are great. I will see if we can convince our landlord to let us implement some of the ideas…i.e. we are stuck with a landscaping service because of their personal ties, but if we buy the mower and store it here, perhaps we can convince them to use it.

Not sure that we would invest in that alternative heating system just yet…we were lucky enough to enjoy one in our previous residence, but now we are stuck with the old, popping furnace :)

Share This

[HMC Rich]

Jan, I am drinking Vodka with my Russian buddies. I find this latest tidbit from Russian SCIENTISTS quite interesting.

http://www.thegwpf.org/russian-scientists-we-face-cooling-period-200-250-years/

Don’t get me wrong. I believe in climate change. The climate has always changed. But if the temperature does not rise soon like it did for a bit in the last century, the models from the IPCC will be wrong.

We shall see.

Share This

[JoB]

rich.

yes, the climate has changed before…

but that doesn’t absolve us from the responsibility for creating the current change…

any more than the fact that our rivers were once so polluted you couldn’t eat the fish that lived in them

absolves us from the fact that we are once again headed in the same direction

all in the name of progress

Share This

[ZOne]

After decades in court, one thing I know is that you can ‘pay’ an “Expert” to say anything. As few of us are climatologists, and all the other ___oligists who collectively have millions of jobs depending upon the winning “science” of GW. A full debate would take hours so I plead with you to have an open mind on one issue. I would just be happy if people got the “Carbon Footprint/CO2 and primarily the CO2 relation to temperature” issue correct. With so many solvable and dire problems, I winced watching Gore who was hired as the “Front/Celebrity Face” for the 2006 movie. He was clueless, but he tried. Anyway, in 2007, a major suit was brought to decide if the Gore movie should be shown to school children. (Google it) Although asked to rule on 37+ major “errors”, the highest judge decided to deal with nine. Since then the mean of all scientists agree as the math is very simple…Yet, even today, people talk about “Carbon footprint” and/or that most believe the fallacy that there is a correlation between the level of CO2 and Temperature. The correlation is less than zero.

“The judge found that Gore had very clearly implied that it was changes in carbon dioxide concentration that had led to changes in temperature in the palaeoclimate, when the scientific literature is unanimous (save only for a single paper by James Hansen, whom Gore trusts) to the effect that the relationship was in fact the other way about, with a carbon dioxide feedback contributing only a comparatively insignificant further increase to temperature after the temperature change had itself initiated a change in carbon dioxide concentration.”

So please study and don’t believe the just left-leaning talking points or those of the other side., either. Study and you’ll find the truth as we know it so far.

You know how people are negatively judged as “uneducated” for statements such as “Her and Me went to the store.” When people speak to “carbon Footprint” or CO2 levels increasing temperature, you are considered similarly uneducated or just a groupie who has not worked to find solutions the most critical environmental issues facing our globe.

And yes, Gore’s team tried to spin the gaff, and “Carbon” is such a key word in this push to save our planet that probably most of you will think me incorrect. I tried stick to the facts. Can I insert links here? if one hacks away the uber-extremists blather on BOTH sides; there are some good, clear unbiased(?) as I guess is possible to help clear the dross of the movie and detail the actual issues. Hopefully it won’t be much longer before you cringe at your use of “Carbon___” just as you cringe you used to describe ___________ as ______________ currently deemed politically incorrect. just a “talking point/”I saw the movie” pundit

Share This

[HMC Rich]

Thanks ZOne. I don’t pretend to know the facts about Climate and “Climate Change”. I do however understand that I don’t like being told by certain other posters that the science is settled. They were adamant, almost obnoxious, and I disagreed. I also like to remind them of different views and hypothesis put forward by different groups, reported by the media and once in awhile a paper published by researchers (through the media). Years ago I popped off to a researcher at the UW about CFC’s. Boy, did I get an education that day. And it was well deserved. In fact, I am all for the experts telling me where I am wrong and once in awhile if I am correct.

What I have been learning is that proper understanding of the words and concepts of whatever subject is needed to try and communicate effectively. I am a master at trial and error. Mostly the error. I have a black belt in mistakes. But I am not alone.

Share This

[WorldCitizen]

HMC RIch:

Please see post #103. Enjoy the information and see how it firmly refutes both extremes of the debate and gets right to the heart of the matter.

(I’m pretty sure I’m the one who said the science is settled.)

Share This

[wakeflood]

Hey Zone, your profile says profession is artist. Are you a retired climatologist?

Share This

[wakeflood]

WC, I reread #103 and remembered agreeing heartily. The point being we have a relatively narrow temperature window to maintain our pleasant status quo.

Share This

[ZOne]

Wakeflood, it is probably my poor writing skill set, but I said few of us are climatologists…I am NOT and I often wonder how many even exist globally. Of course, true experts from most of the natural sciences have hired on with one side or the other.

I should add that the trial findings were in the United Kingdom as citizens did not want students minds swayed by “errors” in that “film” and sought to have students educated on points of contention so they didn’t think Gore was using undisputed truth-i-ness.

I do agree with you totally that the science is not settled…not even close. The pro-carbon climate change proponents are outnumbered by scientists, but not citizens who still think it is true even after the fake Polar bear pictures and all the other scasndals and admisssions. It seems that no matter the proof, “Carbon / CO2” which have no bearing or coorelation whatsoever on our environment does seem to be settled as buzz words yet they have been a successful diversion/propaganda to the masses. I guess we need to follow the $$ to get to the heart of why the effort at such deception? The Gore movie was just a poorly produced culmination of what many believed and remember all the same discussions from 1989 or so. It somehow caught fire with the Gore movie. A local Seattle professor wrote a turn of the Century book titled something like “The Coming Ice Age” and his science has stayed relative unchallenged. I used to think that it doesn’t hurt to take better care of our environment even though mis-informed the effort is well intended…but then all tax oayers pay more due to nonsensical “green” initiatives when better stewardship might continue the fight against malaria, or the major crisis that the MSM does not define (set New Speak Spin) yet but I’ll call it…Food Wars. People are starving globally and going to war about that…Then the biggie…We are running out of third world easily accessible W-A-T-E-R…And we thought that the “Oil Wars” were harsh. It’s going to be a bumpy ride.

Error 4 continued. CO2 level drives global temps:

The significance of this error was explained during the court proceedings, and was accepted by the judge. Gore says that the 100 ppmv difference between carbon dioxide concentrations during ice-age temperature minima and interglacial temperature maxima represents “the difference between a nice day and a mile of ice above your head.” This would imply a CO2 effect on temperature about 10 times greater than that regarded as plausible by the consensus of mainstream scientific opinion (see Error 10).

Seriously, Gore siad HE inventred the internet, too. How does one put a pdf here? Anyone could google 2007 trial gore climate united kingdom findings. There is an article which explains the 37+ “errors” but gives equal time to the Gore team rebuttal. Some are good; others were just mistakes…LIKE CARBON/CO2 being a problem we should throw trillions of $$ to even though the correlation = -0.

Share This

[wakeflood]

All of which is to say, you think climate change isn’t happening or isn’t primarily man-made?

That’s usually what people who use the “unsettled” term really mean.

False equivalency has been bought and paid for…

Share This

[ZOne]

Well, it is difficult to go against the common belief as this has turned into a religion of sorts to some….and I can understand if they are scared, it would make sense to go forwards with passion. Sigh, I miss the days when we fought deforestation, effects of over-population on the planet, industrial polution especially in Africa and third world…, corporate greed = environmental disasters…normally math and science do not evoke such personalized reject-a-thon polarization. If you aren’t with us you are against us and whatever.

Yes, I am saying that atmospheric measurements of the high or low or whatever levels of CO2 in the atmosphere have zero impact on global temperature. (But hey, someone is making trillions…follow the $$)

Thanks anyway for the opportunity to challenge what many think fixed and true which keeps all our minds more nimble and less dogmatic, hopefully. Usually I don’t bother as sides have been chosen it is amazing to me how people cointinue to believe in this issue as protrayed in that movie anyway. It eludes me and I have no ax to grind. However, I do appreciate the intelligent, non-beligerant tone and thoughtful content of the recent posters.

Share This

[wakeflood]

I appreciate the clarification, Zone. And I whole-heartedly agree about the issues with food & water supplies, pollution and the corporate greed at the heart of those issues.

I respectfully disagree regarding GW and the nature of the temperature changes, but as you say, we all get to choose our positions. And if you think that many/most of those who believe as I do, are basing said belief on “AIT”, you’d be overestimating the power of that film…by a lot.

It’s not like the science wasn’t being generated and peer reviewed prior to AIT. Many countries had – including the US – had reached the conclusion that while data was still be generated and reviewed, there were distinct and undeniable issues with climate change and to do nothing was just plain irresponsible.

In the light of the accelerated ice cap melting and record high temps year after year, leaves me with a question.

What would you have us do? Write off climate change as past our capacity to change and focus on building sea walls?

I hope we take action on ALL of the issues you mention, including GW. :-)

Share This

[HMC Rich]

Wakeflood, we cannot write it off. We keep studying it. But I respectfully request that you show me and others the record high temps you wrote about. I read that there has been a 20 year hiatus in global temperatures rising. I posted a link in which UW scientists said that other studies have overstated temperature rise.

I have known CO2 levels have been higher and lower throughout time. Our earth and the solar system are amazing. It is apparent to our eyes that Pollution damages our eco-systems. We have proved that and must take common sense steps to protect our environment. But Al Gore keeps pushing a false agenda.

Check this out. http://www.hollywoodreporter.com/news/milken-conference-al-gore-rocks-449247

He laughingly says he can’t buy tv advertising to fight ….. What a joke. This is a 1 percenter who had part of a network. He is worth more now than Mitt Romney. He has more exposure than most people. His Movie won an Oscar. Didn’t he get a Nobel Prize too? And he says he can’t afford the advertising rates of today? Well maybe if he quit using his Jet to fly to different appearances and just telecommute, maybe I would take him more seriously. I view him as I do L. Ron Hubbard. I respect both men for their hard work and successes. I just believe they ended up pushing a point of view that is not exactly fully honest.

Now, he did say one thing and I believe it is true that we need to be accountable for future generations. I can agree with that and we need to find the truth to work with each other and keep this a bountiful earth.

Share This

[wakeflood]

Dude, you’re way hooked up on the Gore thing. It’s not like he’s a god for GW concerned. If that’s all you got, you’re just being a pawn for the disinformation gang. False equivalency, bought and paid for. They know they can’t turn back the tidal wave of obvious evidence, they just look for ways to delay and obfuscate.

Here’s some data but let me guess, you’ll find it less-than-compelling?

Just a simple quote from 2012, you can go online and read the full data set:

Last year’s average global temperature was about 58.3 degrees Fahrenheit, or about 1.0 degree Fahrenheit warmer than the mid-20th century baseline, NASA said, making it the ninth-warmest year on record. NOAA’s evaluation showed that 2012 was the 10th-warmest. The agencies’ reports are based on slightly different methodologies and data.

Still, the two agencies concurred that the data point to a planet that has grown warmer swiftly and looks to get even hotter in the near future. The reports noted that except for 1988, the nine warmest years in the 132-year record all have occurred since 2000. And 2012 was the 36th year in a row that the global average temperature was above the 20th century mean of 57 degrees Fahrenheit.

“One more year of numbers isn’t in itself significant,” NASA climatologist Gavin Schmidt said. “What matters is this decade is warmer than the last decade, and that decade was warmer than the decade before. The planet is warming.”

“The NOAA report showed that the warming of the planet is accelerating. Over the last 132 years, the global annual mean temperature has increased at an average rate of 0.11 of a degree Fahrenheit per decade. But since 1970, the annual mean global temperature jumped at an average rate of 0.28 of a degree per decade.”

Share This

[wakeflood]

And it’s not just the warming. It’s the fact that fast climate change is hammering ecosystems. The same ecosystems that sustain ALL living things, including us. Most organisms won’t be able to adapt to dramatic change (hotter/colder/wetter/drier) in their ecosystems that happen over a few decades compared to thousands of years.

Things are starting to disappear in places they’ve been for all recorded history. How many of those pieces of the support structure need to go away before you think it’s worthy of addressing?

But surely, you know this in your heart, don’t you?

Share This

[wakeflood]

Just one local example: Oysters. You know that acidification of the oceans – CO2 – has increased and oyster farmers in the Sound are going to places like Hawaii to find species that can survive in higher acid water. Some are just packing up shop and finding other things to do.

This in a place where for thousands of years the native tribes could count on this simple notion, “when the tide is out, the table is set”.

Share This

[wakeflood]

All of which is to say, your “bountiful earth” is already slipping away and your desire to look for additional evidence and “truth” is nothing more than harsh notes of shame tumbling from Nero’s scorched fiddle.

Share This

[WorldCitizen]

ZOne:

You seem to be posting a few things as truth without any corroborating evidence. Citing scientific peer reviewed journals for ideas posited as facts here is something I personally require to have any faith in anything you espouse about this (or a great many) subjects.

I’m with you on Gore’s movie being hyperbole…the man is as much a climate scientist as I am President of the United States. That doesn’t mean, however, his movie wasn’t effective in awakening the masses to the very real threat of climate change in a world so dependent upon the very delicate balance nature has created. Did it do more harm than good? I can’t say. It did bring the conversation to the center stage, which is where it belongs. I also agree that people are wholly ignorant of the real facts regarding climate change, and Gore didn’t do much, if anything, to rectify that situation.

But could you please do me, wakeflood, and all those reading this blog a favor, and cite assertions with qualified documentation? Your tone comes across as authoritative yet your information is severely lacking without it. I would love to read what you have to offer.

Share This

[WorldCitizen]

Sooooo…..nothing?

Share This

[wakeflood]

Yeah, this is where the train usually stops on these threads.

But some folks are probably scrambling through the links of reports, looking for anything that’s peer reviewed. They’ll probably find something that was reviewed by some other Big Oil funded “research” group, eventually. And if all else fails, they can always post articles from the UK Daily Mail. ;-)

Wonder what these folks will say when they realize that even Big Oil admits to man-made global climate change. Have they already? Sure, but always with the caveat that they’re only providing what the market place requires and they’ll be getting greener later. They know the science is settled. They just enjoy printing money. And why not? We let them.

Share This

[ZOne]

Hi WC: I’mmmmbaack. I agree that cites to support comments should be used, but I could not insert hyperlinks so as you saw, I gave the Google search string to attain thousands of articles targeting the issue related to my comment.

Especially in this area of interest it is wise to view many sites as it is difficult to find a “neutral” site and one mustr deal with truth-i-ness. Here are a couple of sites re the trial:

http://www.newscientist.com/blog/environment/2007/10/al-gores-inconvenient-truth.html

This site is biased but has the best atempt to at least report the spin doctors on each side:

http://www.newscientist.com/blog/environment/2007/10/al-gores-inconvenient-truth.html

Share This

[ZOne]

http://www.newscientist.com/blog/environment/2007/10/al-gores-inconvenient-truth.html

Share This

[Author]

Posts