Not wanting to be a quitter...Is this a better source? Just curious.


Growing Glaciers

EDIT:
NOAA

---

Official Abuser of Boinc Buttons...
And no good credit hound!

Not wanting to be a quitter...Is this a better source? Just curious.


Growing Glaciers

EDIT:
NOAA

Well, you can easily throw up more random links than I have time to debunk. Fillibuster?

For dear Felix of iceagenow fame, judge for yourself and for the claims of the Earth's glaciers expanding and the farcical that the sea level is falling:

IceAgeNow author

... So, he's promoting his own book of denial and he is connected with a known paid for lobbying/Marketing company.


Climate change denial, as David Bellamy’s claims show, is based on pure hocus pocus

Felix quotes Bellamy and Bellamy is quoted from a x10 misquote!



And yes, the NOAA pdf goes on about assessing climate sensitivity and mentions positive feedback mechanisms. So?

Regards,
Martin

---

See new freedom: Mageia Linux
Take a look for yourself: Linux Format
The Future is what We all make IT (GPLv3)

OK I admit defeat you win.

---

Official Abuser of Boinc Buttons...
And no good credit hound!

What worries me about the current "Climate Change" debate is the almost exclusive focus on C02 emissions and "greenhouse gases". What's being forgotten is that we're really talking about human-caused pollution of the air and water.

I'm old enough to remember what it was like before the US enacted the Clean Air Act and the Clean Water Act and formed the Environmental Protection Agency. I remember when the waters of the Hudson River in New York and Boston Harbor were dangerous to human health. I remember when the buildings in New York and LA were routinely obstructed by thick smog.

I, too, remember that. I also remember back then people did not people did not look out their window and conclude the entire world was covered in smog. Those with a reasonable interest in math ran the numbers and found only a small fraction of 1% was so affected.

Pollution is always different from burning fossil fuels. Pollution is related to that small fraction of a 1%. It is not what you do but how much is done in one small area. Certainly rivers and harbors were polluted to the point of being health hazards. Rivers and harbors are attractive places to build cities.

To claim that the burning of fossil fuels - which release far more than simply CO2 into the atmosphere - is not having an adverse impact on this planet is (IMHO) completely nuts.

A century ago a simple experiment was conducted. Two model "greenhouses" were constructed. One had glass which trapped reflected Infra-red. The other used sheets of salt which is transparent to reflected IR. The internal temperature was effectively the same. Conclusion? Trapped IR has nothing to do with why a greenhouse is warm. They work by trapping the heated air. Given this has been known for a century one has to ask just why CO2 is called a greenhouse gas.

It will take a serious, active and ongoing effort of all countries to reduce consumption and to create alternatives to fossil fuels. If we don't, we risk seriously damaging the Earth's ecosystem, of which humans are a part.

We have had nuclear power for over half a century. France and Japan get some 80% of their electricity from nuclear power. To the best of my knowledge neither the French nor the Japanese glow in the dark. Unfortunately most of the developed world subscribes to the Jane Fonda school of nuclear physics.

Ecosystems are always changing on their own. The idea of a balance in nature is poetic not scientific.

---

Unvarnished
Haaretz
Jerusalem Post
The origin of the Yahweh Cult

I remember when the Cuyahoga River caught fire! I had to breathe those second stage smog alerts in LA.

No doubt there are too many humans on the planet.

What to do about it? War? Mandatory abortions? Forced sterilization?

As we continue to bread eventually no matter how much we reduce it won't be enough!

Malthus demonstrated there were to many people centuries ago. We are still waiting for it are we not? How wrong could he be?

Prior to the Industrial Revolution we were in a Malthusian trap. Human population increased to consume every technological advance to keep the average standard of living a constant, a very low constant. The IR changed all that.

People started moving to cities which soon increased their standard of living while polluting the local environment. Fewer and fewer farmers fed more and more people. The doom and gloom types say this cannot go on forever just as they have always said and always been wrong. Suddenly they are correct today?

The world population has more than doubled in my lifetime while things continue to get better for everyone more or less. If it hasn't we can always point to where it was their own damned fault like China before and after Marxian economic BS. India imported food back when it taxed fertilizer and put price controls on grain. After it stopped that nonsense it began exporting food. There are many such examples.

---

Unvarnished
Haaretz
Jerusalem Post
The origin of the Yahweh Cult

It will take a serious, active and ongoing effort of all countries to reduce consumption and to create alternatives to fossil fuels. If we don't, we risk seriously damaging the Earth's ecosystem, of which humans are a part.

We have had nuclear power for over half a century. France and Japan get some 80% of their electricity from nuclear power. To the best of my knowledge neither the French nor the Japanese glow in the dark. Unfortunately most of the developed world subscribes to the Jane Fonda school of nuclear physics.

Ecosystems are always changing on their own. The idea of a balance in nature is poetic not scientific.

So where do you plan on storing all the high-level radioactive waste? You don't have the Yucca Mountain Repository at all now. Since it was taken off consideration, so I don't see America having a storage site ready until the 2030's.

I'm glad I live in a nuclear free country. Yes - I know, nuclear power is safer than it used to be, but there is always the concern of waste, so until we can as a civilization build self-sustaining generation IV breeder reactors or be able to feasibly use nuclear fusion power, I'm not embracing nuclear.

Sellafield : The most dangerous place in Europe.

And don't give me this "We would polluting x times as much if we didn't use nuclear" argument BS. Ever heard of Wind? Solar? Geothermal? Biomass? Tidal? Wave?

Germany is doing away with nuclear and is now embracing wind and solar energy, they have even overtaken Japan in the manufacturing of photovoltaic cells.

And yet, America seems to want to build more. Personally, I embrace Space Based Solar Power (SBSP), but is a long way away until that is anywhere near feasible. In the future, if we aren't wiped out as a species already, and we solve global warming, we may get to the point we building dyson rings, dyson swarms, dysons bubbles, dyson shells and dyson spheres.

---

- Luke.

I like this...
"But the condition of edifices such as B30 and B38 - and all the other "legacy" structures built at Sellafield decades ago - suggest Britain might end up paying a heavy price for this new commitment to nuclear energy. After all, if it is going to cost that much to decommission early reactors, green groups and opponents of nuclear energy are asking, what might we end up paying for a second clean-up if we go ahead with new nuclear plants?

For its part, the nuclear industry is adamant. New reactors will produce little waste and pose few threats to the environment, say UK nuclear chiefs who point to the example of France where almost 80% of electricity is generated by atomic fission and waste is safely reprocessed. Atomic energy today is safe and

Sellafield's problems are merely a historic accident - the result of Britain's desperation to be a leading postwar power, they say"

Who cares about facts? If the old ones were this bad the new ones have to be....Bet most Brits were glad to have them during the Strike.

---

Official Abuser of Boinc Buttons...
And no good credit hound!

Mr. Luke says the World Will Die.

Get a grip. You are an extremist.

I read Earth by David Brin. A book from 1989. Very predictive.

If Brin has hope, then maybe you should take a breath, slow down, and eat a piece of Moa Pie with a glass of milk.

Maybe the kitty Avatar says it all. Meow.

Stack 'em. Cluck Cluck.

Mr. Luke says the World Will Die.

Get a grip. You are an extremist.

I read Earth by David Brin. A book from 1989. Very predictive.

If Brin has hope, then maybe you should take a breath, slow down, and eat a piece of Moa Pie with a glass of milk.

Maybe the kitty Avatar says it all. Meow.

Stack 'em. Cluck Cluck.

Perhaps I should restate it for those who do not understand. The world as we know it will die.

I am far from an extremist. Neither am I an elitist, or an anarchist. I believe in rule, I believe in common sense. However, I do not for those those who think GW is a conspiracy.

And, don't you dare, stereotype me for a cat avatar. If you have a personal vendetta against those who have an affection to cats, or perhaps a cat scratched you once and you have never recovered emotionally, please go somewhere else. I'd rather not have you participating in my thread.

---

- Luke.

Rachel Carson would be quite pleased with what happened in Copenhagen. How do I know what a dead woman would think? Of course, I don't, but I believe she would never go ballistic on a message board and rant like you have.

Yes, it's your thread and you can freak out as you please, but saying the World will die, or, corrected to the World will die as we know it is ridiculous and the ravings of an extremist blowing his top. Understandable, but far from rational.

You are a man with a full belly and have the luxury of ranting. Good for you.

The World(except ones without a full belly[although thank goodness with the World flattening out even they can be enlightened-tho of little caring]), is realizing the destruction and slowly doing something about it.

Yes, things are being done about it. And they will never be done fast enough for you and of your ilk.

What's funny is the rare earth elements needed for many low carbon industries and the massive carbon being spewed into the atomosphere due to our lower carbon technologies needing these rare earths negates all the speed and regulation you want imposed.

A conundrum indeed. And one, thank goodness is not worsened by going full speed into the World you want enacted NOW.

I wish I could snap my fingers and be in The World Which Is Not Dying, but even that Omnipotence is a solution with major unintended consequences.

I cluck, therefore I cluck. Stack 'em.

The World(except ones without a full belly[although thank goodness with the World flattening out even they can be enlightened-tho of little caring]), is realizing the destruction and slowly doing something about it.

Yes, things are being done about it. And they will never be done fast enough for you and of your ilk.

What's funny is the rare earth elements needed for many low carbon industries and the massive carbon being spewed into the atomosphere due to our lower carbon technologies needing these rare earths negates all the speed and regulation you want imposed.

A conundrum indeed. And one, thank goodness is not worsened by going full speed into the World you want enacted NOW. ...

If only you were a little more "omnipotent".

We can laze and gorge on resources and population expansion and drift into some very nasty changes. Or... We can wake up sooner rather than later and suffer a lesser nastiness whereby we can share our planet with a greater number of creatures, human and animal.

The sense of urgency is from the exponentially increasing trends that indicate forced climate change. There's also various climate "bombs" from a number of very powerful positive feedback "tipping points" that we're already starting to tickle into becoming active.

Unfortunately, China and the more rapidly developing countries appear to be playing a game of procrastination and political sabotage to allow their economies to quick and dirty grow further before what they see are "curbs" being imposed.


The criminal silliness is that China has a lot to lose from pushing into too much climate change. Unfortunately, they seem to view snubbing and undermining Obama more worthwhile than intelligently managing the planet and our world.

There's far too much fossil fuels and resources readily available for us to push our climate into a whole new and very different world.

When the timescales appeared to be thousands of years and centuries, then that's something that our technology can 'evolve' with.

As we learn more and see greater detail, the timescale for radical change is now in terms of decades and for some rather big changes just a few years.

Big changes means war over food and resources.


There's still a lot of denial and disbelief. The Earth is so big and Man is so puny? What often isn't realised is that our atmosphere is a very very thin shell of gas, and our industrial expansion is measurably polluting with ever increasing vast quantities.

Unfortunately, most folk can't see beyond their back garden or where they get their next beer from.


A long long time ago, noone believed we could wipe out nearly all plant life for an area covering the USA. Well, we've done it.

It's been over 20 years since the Montreal protocol was brought into force...

Fortunately, the area affected is home to various extremophiles or to creatures that can hide from the worst of the effects.

That is not the case for the latest industrial vandalism...


Regards,
Martin

---

See new freedom: Mageia Linux
Take a look for yourself: Linux Format
The Future is what We all make IT (GPLv3)

NPR had an interview with the American assistant representative for the Maldive islands yesterday. He said that every country sent high level dignitaries and leaders. to the final meetings, expect one. China. China sent a midlevel bureaucrat who's only function was to sit there. He had no decision making ability. If some decision from China was needed he'd have to leave the room call a hotel where the Chinese leadership was holding its own meetings and get word from them on what they wanted. So we see who the real obstructionists are in the meetings. CHina clearly doesnt want to pass any legally binding resolutions because they'd have to change the way they conduct business on every front. they are now the leader in emissions and won't slow down. Good luck world.

I understand that Chinas emissions are so thick that it can still be seen in North America after passing over the entire pacific ocean.

---

In a rich man's house there is no place to spit but his face.
Diogenes Of Sinope

...

Unfortunately, most folk can't see beyond their back garden or where they get their next beer from.


A long long time ago, noone believed we could wipe out nearly all plant life for an area covering the USA. Well, we've done it.

It's been over 20 years since the Montreal protocol was brought into force...

Fortunately, the area affected is home to various extremophiles or to creatures that can hide from the worst of the effects.

That is not the case for the latest industrial vandalism...


Regards,
Martin

Hi Martin,

You seem a lot more knowledgeable about this stuff than me. I've got a few questions for you.

1. What do the naysayers say about the ozone hole in the south pole and the cause of it? Do they believe it is man made?

2. Any idea why the ozone hole decreased in size significantly in 2002, but now it's the biggest its ever been (except in 2000), even though we've eliminated most sources that use chlorofluorocarbons?

Take care and all the best for 2010.

Sorry for great brevity, must dash:

1. What do the naysayers say about the ozone hole in the south pole and the cause of it? Do they believe it is man made?

Don't know their beliefs about the cause and effect for the ozone hole. The biggest thing for them is that the ozone hole will aid cooling of the antarctic and so they might be able to claim that hence the entire world is descending into an ice age!

However, that additional cooling doesn't help much being as it is over the dry arctic interior. Also, we'll see even faster warming in that region as the hole heals up over the next decades and century.

2. Any idea why the ozone hole decreased in size significantly in 2002, but now it's the biggest its ever been (except in 2000), even though we've eliminated most sources that use chlorofluorocarbons?

CFCs (and others) lifespan in the atmosphere and the concentrating effects of the weather system for that area.

Take care and all the best for 2010.

Merry Christmas

and lets see what the news and weather brings!

Cheers,
Martin

---

See new freedom: Mageia Linux
Take a look for yourself: Linux Format
The Future is what We all make IT (GPLv3)

Actually, man is very puny. If the 7 Billion people were log stacked, they could fit in the Grand Canyon, and unless you were looking from above, man would not be observable on this Earth.

Also, if man did not exist, the fictional ET taking their once a decade observations of the climate, would not be interested at all, compared to other times in geologic history.

Funny how extremely large flightless birds and extremely large birds of flight are all extinct, before the industrial age. Yet the chicken lives on. Clucking and feeding so many.

I am glad there is climate change made by humans(cow farts included). Otherwise there would not be this wonderful push towards alternatives. Alternatives which are for the betterment of all species. Even those tasty chickens will benefit.

Cluck cluck. Stack 'em.

---

May we All have a METAMORPHOSIS. REASON. GOoD JUDGEMENT and LOVE and ORDER!!!!!

I drive to the mocha shop to get my morning mocha. Up to3 weeks ago it was 1 minute each way.

That's like driving to visit the neighbor at the end of the block. Why would you drive such a short distance in the first place?

On the main point of global warming.
We have two choices, whether the science is right or wrong.

If the science is wrong and we still take action, the world will be a cleaner, healthier place to raise or children.
If we do not take action, the world continues to deteriorate under a cloud of effluents.

If the science is correct and we take action, a catastrophe may be avoided and humanity carries on along another path that is less wasteful and destructive.
If we do not take action, untold millions will suffer and die in wars over resources such as water and food. Vast areas will be flooded causing the forced migration of populations. Even the possibility of extinction exists with a catastrophic change in our climate.

To do nothing leads to a negative outcome in each case.
To do something leads to a cleaner world at the minimum and to the salvation of our species from extinction if the worst case scenerios are true.

---

I do not fight fascists because I think I can win.
I fight them because they are fascists.
Chris Hedges

A riot is the language of the unheard. -Martin Luther King, Jr.

Climate change is real, that cannot be denied. Any real hope of stopping it is pretty much a false one. Even if the "big" nations completely throttled back, global consumer demand would simply shift production to countries that are not part of whatever agreement actually manages to pass. To stop greenhouse gas production on a global scale will require every single person on the planet to change their priorities. That never has nor never will happen. While I would happily change my way of life if I had a reasonable assurance that it would make even the slightest difference, I am in the vast minority here, as are you.

If you look at things on a geologic scale, the climate has changed on a far greater scale than we are now experiencing. This has happened long before humanity arose and it will happen long after we are gone. There have been mass extinction events that make any of our worst atrocities seem positively benign. The world is not in danger, not even a little bit. We on the other hand may be screwed.

I have often been called a heretic and I risk being called one now. I think that "putting the breaks" on the world's economy may be exactly the wrong thing to do. That ship has already sailed. The damage is done. There was already enough greehouse gas up there to "doom" us before most of us were even aware it was a problem. Even if by some miracle we could manage to stop greenhouse gas production, we would also do a pretty darn good job of stopping our economy, and thus severely curtail the resources available for research and development.

Humans, as a group, are somewhat bad at moderation. What we are really really really good at is survival. I think our energies would be better served focusing on finding out how bad things are actually going to get and on how we are going to adapt to our new world.

Jumping to conclusions and blindly beating the same drum as everyone else is rarely the right path to take. The same environmentally minded folks that are screaming about climate change now are the same ones that vehemently opposed the development and proliferation of nuclear power plants only a few years ago. They did manage to generate enough of a political presence to discourage several large nations from really developing that to the extent that it could have been and thus more coal and oil based plants were built generating quite a bit of the CO2 that we are now so alarmed about. Now those same people want to, in essence, pull the plug on the economic and industrial power of the group of nations best equipped to come up with a real solution to the impending crisis. By a real solution I mean one that will actually happen because there is no way that a rational person could have any expectation of stopping the global demand for the goods and services that are the root cause of greenhouse gas production.

For being that far out, I guess you must be baiting...

Actually, man is very puny. If the 7 Billion people were log stacked, they could fit in the Grand Canyon, and unless you were looking from above, man would not be observable on this Earth.

That's quite a statistic!

Even if the dead bodies weren't noticed, there's lots of Man's physical handiwork noticeable from space. You can hardly miss the cities and suburban and industrial sprawl! The pollution in the atmosphere is a dead give-away for any alien with a spectrometer. We're looking for similar signatures in our search for ET.

Also, if man did not exist, the fictional ET taking their once a decade observations of the climate, would not be interested at all, compared to other times in geologic history.

Meaning what?

Funny how extremely large flightless birds and extremely large birds of flight are all extinct, before the industrial age. Yet the chicken lives on. Clucking and feeding so many.

Those big old birds were wiped out by sailors for their dinners and the ship's stores. The rats that jumped off the sailor's ships finished them off.

Intensive farming keep far too many chickens clucking until they get debeaked so that even more can be crammed into the same farming sheds...

I am glad there is climate change made by humans(cow farts included). Otherwise there would not be this wonderful push towards alternatives. Alternatives which are for the betterment of all species. Even those tasty chickens will benefit.
Cluck cluck. Stack 'em.

Why care about the alternatives for energy when you disparage the environment and man so much?

Or have I missed the American "irony" that might have been meant in all that lot?


Merry Christmas,
Martin

---

See new freedom: Mageia Linux
Take a look for yourself: Linux Format
The Future is what We all make IT (GPLv3)

Why care about the alternatives for energy when you disparage the environment and man so much?

Alternatives are cool. There is so much more to them than ignition, flame, heat, etc. Those things are so caveman.

There's a Worldwide concerted effort to reduce the raping and pilliging of the biosphere and everything else below and above. I like things slower and smarter. The reigns should not be given to the enviro-freaks or slash and burners.

My belly is full and fat; I don't live at sea level; and the chickens are stacked nice and neat. Good times. Cluck Cluck.

Stack 'em.

p.s. Who said the 7 Billion log stacked in the Grand Canyon were dead? Not me.

It will take a serious, active and ongoing effort of all countries to reduce consumption and to create alternatives to fossil fuels. If we don't, we risk seriously damaging the Earth's ecosystem, of which humans are a part.

We have had nuclear power for over half a century. France and Japan get some 80% of their electricity from nuclear power. To the best of my knowledge neither the French nor the Japanese glow in the dark. Unfortunately most of the developed world subscribes to the Jane Fonda school of nuclear physics.

Ecosystems are always changing on their own. The idea of a balance in nature is poetic not scientific.

So where do you plan on storing all the high-level radioactive waste? You don't have the Yucca Mountain Repository at all now. Since it was taken off consideration, so I don't see America having a storage site ready until the 2030's.

I'm glad I live in a nuclear free country. Yes - I know, nuclear power is safer than it used to be, but there is always the concern of waste, so until we can as a civilization build self-sustaining generation IV breeder reactors or be able to feasibly use nuclear fusion power, I'm not embracing nuclear.

Sellafield : The most dangerous place in Europe.

And don't give me this "We would polluting x times as much if we didn't use nuclear" argument BS. Ever heard of Wind? Solar? Geothermal? Biomass? Tidal? Wave?

Germany is doing away with nuclear and is now embracing wind and solar energy, they have even overtaken Japan in the manufacturing of photovoltaic cells.

And yet, America seems to want to build more. Personally, I embrace Space Based Solar Power (SBSP), but is a long way away until that is anywhere near feasible. In the future, if we aren't wiped out as a species already, and we solve global warming, we may get to the point we building dyson rings, dyson swarms, dysons bubbles, dyson shells and dyson spheres.

Don't store the waste, reprocess it into new fuel rods. Less than 3% of the fuel in a rod is used before it is retired. If it were reprocessed, there would be much less high level radioactive waste to deal with. (BTW, it is also high level radioactive BEFORE it is mined.

---

BOINC WIKI