Climate Change Already Impacting ‘All Continents’ According To New International Report

beezzer

WhiteAlice

beezzer

WhiteAlice
reply to post by beezzer

 

No, actually, a new balance was not achieved in many of these instances. Some we could go ahead and (or begin to) correct, which is why controlled burn practices are in place, some areas have banned the building of hard structures jutting out into coast lines, and a few other changes. However, the destruction that each one of these things created is not "balance". They basically laid waste to the ecosystem surrounding them and there was no "balance". Just waste.

I don't blame lawn mowers though I'm not impressed with grass. Absorbs a huge water amount and does very little for the ecosystem that still exists. Then again, you're the one arguing that the status quo is just fine without really educating yourself as to what it all is. Your opinion is better than scientific opinion in your book. That is so fallacious that I don't even know what to say.

You're being dishonest. Which is something I'm getting used to with the pro-human-ruining-the-planet crowd.

I've always agreed with the assertion that there is climate change.

Just not blaming man like so many others do.

Dishonest? Dude, I've gone out to many sites as a part of field training and seen the effects that we have had on various ecosystems firsthand. You haven't lived til you're in boots in 2 feet of smelly water with a bunch of scientific equipment and you haven't felt despair til you watched a forest slowly die, year after year.

Okay. You've experienced pollution.

But unless you've been around for a few billion years, you haven't experienced global climate change.

Again, kudos for a degree in biology. Mine is in biology with a masters in developmental neurobiology.

Now that we've traded CV's, can we get back on topic?

Not convinced that pollution is causing global climate change.

Label me a skeptic.

You don't want to believe it because the implications would make you realize that American conservatism is simply there to protect the rich and powerful above else. Your position protects the current global elite who are in power due to the petrol dollar and worldwide industrialization which are two things that greatly impact the environment on Earth, pollution, carcinogens and the rest.

If it is proven or observed that industrialization is a threat to society because we pollute so much, industries will be forced to reform which directly threatens the global elite and all their businesseses. That is why people like you who have very little actually interest in science are sent out to muddy the waters and obscure the truth. Again you do this for free, even though you or your descendents will have to deal with impact of how wrong you are today; you press on defending some cabal that cares nothing for you. While the rest of us stand for humanity as a whole, you stand for the fat cats and their bacon machine.

reply to post by WhiteAlice


Yes, that's pretty much what the NASA article I quoted said. It gave some natural causes and then listed the man made causes.

Thanks.

beezzer
Okay. You've experienced pollution.

But unless you've been around for a few billion years, you haven't experienced global climate change.

..

Not convinced that pollution is causing global climate change.

Label me a skeptic.

Who has been around a few billion years? You ask an impossible question which only fools would answer, and so far you have been answering the few with ridicule. Point taken! But nowhere a solution to the problem we all agree on...

Its ok to make a point thru humor, but seriously Beez! I love your humor and style, but i think you are making a fool of yourself in this thread.

"Not convinced that pollution is causing global climate change."

I don't believe for a second that you believe that for a milisecond? Come on!

If i'm wrong, ok, there is probably something i haven't understood. Can you explain it to me?

Peace

reply to post by the2ofusr1


You see though, it's not "all of a sudden". Issues with air pollution and its effects on the planet have been a known issue for decades. Initially at the onset of the industrial revolution, it was coal soot that became a problem but, iirc, better scrubbers (kind of like filters) were used to reduce down the particulates being released into the sky. Another problem that seems to have moved to the backburner of discourse would be chlorofluorocarbons (CFCs) that used to be a common ingredient in many aersolized products like hairspray. I don't recall a whole lot of people screaming about how ridiculous it was that hairspray was actually destroying our ozone layer. In fact, I seem to very much recall that the ban on CFCs passed fairly readily. Funny that but the difference between the pollutants that we're dealing with today and the CFCs of bygone days are two different things entirely. One is due to inordinately powerful oil corporations who have a vested interest in the status quo coupled with a history of shelving alternative energy sources and the other? Well, Aquanet didn't have as much clout and just two years after the issue of manmade ozone depletion was noted, CFCs were banned.

So the ozone layer being destroyed by hairspray barely raised an eyebrow. There were no declarations of it being preposterous that mankind was doing something that actually destroyed the ozone layer. The reason why it's not talked about so much? Because we already banned it. Unfortunately though, the damage was already done. CFCs are really noxious in that just one CFC can bind and break thousands and thousands of O3 molecules. Our hairspray use from decades back is still depleting the ozone.

But hey, the things we use and do have zero effect on the planet, right? Isn't that what you guys have been saying? Explain CFCs and the ozone layer then.

stason.org...

Like I said, key difference between the two is one was Aquanet and the other is oil companies. If you don't know how powerful the latter are, then you haven't been paying attention.

reply to post by kloejen


I'm a simple guy. Not too fancy or wordy.

Do I believe that pollution exists?
Yes.

Do I believe that the climate is changing?
Yes. It always is changing.

Ice ages come and go. Man didn't start them, man didn't end them. That should be obvious to even the most stubborn individual.

I tend to look at things from the age of the earth, not the age of the mayfly.

Will a polluted stream cause the next ice age or desert condition?
No.

People tend to look at "man" as somehow more significant that it is. We occupy such a tiny fraction of the biosphere.

If you place man's existence in terms of the age of the planet, then we are here for just a blink of an eye. We tend to over-rate our impact because we see things from a human perspective, not a global perspective.

Our impact is insignificant in the long run. Our buildings, dams, pollutants, and effects would vanish in an instant if we were gone. The earth will keep spinning. The climate will keep changing.

I like a sine wave. It is simple.



We can take a look at the sine wave and label it the temperature in a 24 hour period.
Or the mean temperature in a 12 month period.
Or the global mean temperature in a 1,000,000 year period.
It remains the same. A constant dynamic motion.

Most science I've seen tends to look at select fragments of the sine wave and extrapolate from it. They do so to promote their hypothesis, they do so to promote a political agenda, they do so to promote an emotional agenda.

I remain skeptical.
I attach no emotional investment in what I read.
I attach no political investment in what I read.

Many here can't say that.

Hope that answered your question.

reply to post by WhiteAlice


You see now that is a start in the proper direction .There is no doubt that oil companies do cause damage and have .Not in all cases but some do .The Canadian tar sands is a good example of big oil not being responsible to the environment and that is what needs to be addressed .To vilify co2 is both wrong and stupid .Its easy to see the pollution that is caused by consumerism but should advertising be banned or the packaging of the products ? To tax co2 is to invite a host of evils on humanity and our world that is just wrong .People need to live and want things . It creates co2 every time we breath out . I don't believe that co2 is either the cause for warming or for the climate varying on the earth .That big red ball in the sky is the main driver and we have a real good record of watching it and collecting data from it . Despite us having the many instruments and our observing it for a long time , the scientist did not predict this present solar cycle . Shall we blame cycle 24 on co2 ?

reply to post by the2ofusr1


In a past life, I actually worked within the oil and gas industry. What they do in regards to alternative energy sources and development is really quite underhanded and dirty. I once asked a marketing rep for one of the largest oil companies what the plan was for if peak oil should hit. He just laughed and said that they had been acquiring alternative research for years so that, should that day come, they will still be in total control of the market. Not kidding. Did you know Conoco Phillips has developed a photovoltaic cell based off of plants?

The way that I see it is that scientists are pretty darn confident that CO2 emissions from vehicles in particular are part of the warming trend. Outside of that, we also know that those same emissions from vehicles are creating some incredibly polluted cities both in foreign lands (Beijing) and within the US (many cities in California and Salt Lake City, Utah both have dangerous levels of smog). City dwellers know that smog is bad and it's associated with vehicle use. That's something very discernible. However, doesn't it chafe you that you have very powerful corporations and lobbies that are steadfastly working against any kind of legislation that actually could reduce emissions in a meaningful manner for either the purpose of reducing smog within cities or global warming?

That's what it really comes down to though. We're still using technologies that we know, at least on a local level, are bad for us and the environment and we don't even have to be. In all honesty, based on the tech shelved 20 years ago, if it had been let loose, we wouldn't even be having this conversation right now. Instead, we're here fighting it out because the oil companies want to keep their power and supremacy without change until the bloody end.

That's the truth and remember what I said about statistical phrasing? While this post is nailing it on the head. I can back up every inch of this post if you doubt it.

Here are 20 of 100 predictions made over the past 25 years by what I like to call AGW chicken little's go to the ;ink for the full list and ask yourself if this is prophecy you can count on wattsupwiththat.com...-106837


1. “Due to global warming, the coming winters in the local regions will become milder.”
Stefan Rahmstorf, Potsdam Institute of Climate Impact Research, University of Potsdam, February 8, 2006

****

2. “Milder winters, drier summers: Climate study shows a need to adapt in Saxony Anhalt.”
Potsdam Institute for Climate Impact Research, Press Release, January 10, 2010.

****

3. “More heat waves, no snow in the winter… Climate models… over 20 times more precise than the UN IPCC global models. In no other country do we have more precise calculations of climate consequences. They should form the basis for political planning… Temperatures in the wintertime will rise the most… there will be less cold air coming to Central Europe from the east…In the Alps winters will be 2°C warmer already between 2021 and 2050.”

Max Planck Institute for Meteorology, Hamburg, September 2, 2008.

****

4. “The new Germany will be characterized by dry-hot summers and warm-wet winters.”
Wilhelm Gerstengarbe and Peter Werner, Potsdam Institute for Climate Impact Research (PIK), March 2, 2007

****

5. “Clear climate trends are seen from the computer simulations. Foremost the winter months will be warmer all over Germany. Depending of CO2 emissions, temperatures will rise by up to 4°C, in the Alps by up to 5°C.”
Max Planck Institute for Meteorology, Hamburg, 7 Dec 2009.

****

6. “In summer under certain conditions the scientists reckon with a complete melting of the Arctic sea ice. For Europe we expect an increase in drier and warmer summers. Winters on the other hand will be warmer and wetter.”
Erich Roeckner, Max Planck Institute, Hamburg, 29 Sept 2005.

****

7. “The more than ‘unusually ‘warm January weather is yet ‘another extreme event’, ‘a harbinger of the winters that are ahead of us’. … The global temperature will ‘increase every year by 0.2°C’”
Michael Müller, Socialist, State Secretary in the Federal Ministry of Environment,
Die Zeit, 15 Jan 2007

****

8. “Harsh winters likely will be more seldom and precipitation in the wintertime will be heavier everywhere. However, due to the milder temperatures, it’ll fall more often as rain than as snow.”
Online-Atlas of the Helmholtz-Gemeinschaft, 2010

9. “We’ve mostly had mild winters in which only a few cold months were scattered about, like January 2009. This winter is a cold outlier, but that doesn’t change the picture as a whole. Generally it’s going to get warmer, also in the wintertime.”
Gerhard Müller-Westermeier, German Weather Service (DWD), 26 Jan 2010

****

10. “Winters with strong frost and lots of snow like we had 20 years ago will cease to exist at our latitudes.”
Mojib Latif, Max Planck Institute for Meteorology, Hamburg, 1 April 2000

****

11. “Good bye winter. Never again snow?”
Spiegel, 1 April 2000

****

12. “In the northern part of the continent there likely will be some benefits in the form of reduced cold periods and higher agricultural yields. But the continued increase in temperatures will cancel off these benefits. In some regions up to 60% of the species could die off by 2080.”

3Sat, 26 June 2003

****

13. “Although the magnitude of the trends shows large variation among different models, Miller et al. (2006) find that none of the 14 models exhibits a trend towards a lower NAM index and higher arctic SLP.”
IPCC 2007 4AR, (quoted by Georg Hoffmann)

****

14. “Based on the rising temperature, less snow will be expected regionally. While currently 1/3 of the precipitation in the Alps falls as snow, the snow-share of precipitation by the end of the century could end up being just one sixth.”
Germanwatch, Page 7, Feb 2007

****

15. “Assuming there will be a doubling of CO2 in the atmosphere, as is projected by the year 2030. The consequences could be hotter and drier summers, and winters warmer and wetter. Such a warming will be proportionately higher at higher elevations – and especially will have a powerful impact on the glaciers of the Firn regions.”

and

“ The ski areas that reliably have snow will shift from 1200 meters to 1500 meters elevation by the year 2050; because of the climate prognoses warmer winters have to be anticipated.”
Scinexx Wissenschaft Magazin, 26 Mar 2002

****

16. “Yesterday’s snow… Because temperatures in the Alps are rising quickly, there will be more precipitation in many places. But because it will rain more often than it snows, this will be bad news for tourists. For many ski lifts this means the end of business.”
Daniela Jacob, Max Planck Institute for Meteorology, Hamburg, 8 Aug 2006

****

17. “Spring will begin in January starting in 2030.”
Die Welt, 30 Sept 2010

****

18. “Ice, snow, and frost will disappear, i.e. milder winters” … “Unusually warm winters without snow and ice are now being viewed by many as signs of climate change.”
Schleswig Holstein NABU, 10 Feb 2007

****

19. “Good bye winter… In the northern hemisphere the deviations are much greater according to NOAA calculations, in some areas up to 5°C. That has consequences says DWD meteorologist Müller-Westermeier: When the snowline rises over large areas, the bare ground is warmed up even more by sunlight. This amplifies global warming. A process that is uncontrollable – and for this reason understandably arouses old childhood fears: First the snow disappears, and then winter.”
Die Zeit, 16 Mar 2007

****

20. “Warm in the winter, dry in the summer … Long, hard winters in Germany remain rare: By 2085 large areas of the Alps and Central German Mountains will be almost free of snow. Because air temperatures in winter will rise more quickly than in summer, there will be more precipitation. ‘However, much of it will fall as rain,’ says Daniela Jacob of the Max Planck Institute for Meteorology.”
FOCUS, 24 May 2006

beezzer
reply to post by kloejen

 

I'm a simple guy. Not too fancy or wordy.

Do I believe that pollution exists?
Yes.

Do I believe that the climate is changing?
Yes. It always is changing.

Ice ages come and go. Man didn't start them, man didn't end them. That should be obvious to even the most stubborn individual.

Exactly! But how did you come to that conclusion? It's only possible if people observe, and write down these somewhat random data.
You can only deduce that AFTER observation.

so you are saying in hindsight that it doesn't matter what we do, ultimately we will follow the ("divine") natural(?) cycle, and thats it ? Nothing we can do with all our knowledge and know-how? I tend to agree with you, but hey, its not until some 5 billion years our sun will explode... lets try, and see how far we can go? Or should we just drop it, and let it go? Hey i'm all for a party, but can't we have both ?

beezzer


I tend to look at things from the age of the earth, not the age of the mayfly.

Will a polluted stream cause the next ice age or desert condition?
No.

People tend to look at "man" as somehow more significant that it is. We occupy such a tiny fraction of the biosphere.

If you place man's existence in terms of the age of the planet, then we are here for just a blink of an eye. We tend to over-rate our impact because we see things from a human perspective, not a global perspective.

I fully agree. But don't throw away all the knowledge we have accumulated. If we share it freely, all will benefit. Animals and plants got instincts from birth which humans don't. We are totally independent on our parents. And this is one of the things that differentiate us from animals. Not saying we are better than animals but we have that ace, and its knowledge. With that ace, we as humans, can have a vital role in the future survival of all species. Because without them, we are all lesser off, don't you think? Just imagine if we figure out to deflect something as an asteroid, or worldwide-animal decease. We can if we want.

We can do that, and this is the reason mother nature developed humans after the dinosaur-disaster... lol ... just kidding... but hey.. maybe ? Maybe Mother earth has a conscience? ...just taking it out there...

beezzer

Our impact is insignificant in the long run. Our buildings, dams, pollutants, and effects would vanish in an instant if we were gone. The earth will keep spinning. The climate will keep changing.

I like a sine wave. It is simple.

We can take a look at the sine wave and label it the temperature in a 24 hour period.
Or the mean temperature in a 12 month period.
Or the global mean temperature in a 1,000,000 year period.
It remains the same. A constant dynamic motion.

You just answered that yourself. If you can predict the sine wave, what is the problem, other than prepare for what we know will come? Adaptation is a human specialty i've heard.

We will never figure everything out, and we dont have to, and personally i wont hope we do... because its the mysteries that drives many of us.


Thank you for your answer. Peace!

reply to post by WhiteAlice


Yes I am aware that most laws on the books are not there to actually protect us and have a source of $ for the machine to keep on keeping on ...Shame on you for working for them at one time and for probably supporting them now .There is no way to avoid it and if we let that group over in Europe with links to Agenda 21 come up with a co2 scheme it will not protect us and will only empower the big corporations further ....peace

reply to post by WhiteAlice


Yes one chlorine atom destroys 100,000 O3 atoms.

That is why the Montreal Protocol was introduced.

It is funny though how you keep citing Aqua Net as a driving force for CFC's. It was just a small contributor in the CfC ozone depletion ring. Refrigerants being the main driving force, mainly R-12 and R-22.

Do you want to know who the major polluter of CFC ozone depletion compounds into the atmosphere is?

Yep you guessed it, the GD government.

Not you, not me, not industry, it was the government that spewed more chlorine atoms into the atmosphere.

While since the Montreal Protocol was inacted the ozone is repairing itself. That is a good thing.

The point being is that the governments are more of a driving factor into pollution than you or I. But we get the blame, hence Aqua Net.

The act itself drove refrigerant prices soaring. But we are "safer" now.

Thankfully Dupont and the other refrigeration manufactures are always trying to find better refrigerants to produce. If they were'nt I would hate to see how much an AC unit would cost.

Ps. I just got universally certified in the refrigeration industry. Just a week ago.

We get the blame, the government gets away scott free.

the2ofusr1
reply to post by WhiteAlice

 

Yes I am aware that most laws on the books are not there to actually protect us and have a source of $ for the machine to keep on keeping on ...Shame on you for working for them at one time and for probably supporting them now .There is no way to avoid it and if we let that group over in Europe with links to Agenda 21 come up with a co2 scheme it will not protect us and will only empower the big corporations further ....peace

I find it patently hilarious that the best that you could muster in contradiction to my post was an ad hominem attack. That's really telling.

reply to post by WhiteAlice


Sorry for the lack of a sarc tag .It wasn't meant to attack you .I don't know anyone that hasn't contributed to big oil and corporations .Some things can go without saying and could be figured out with a little bit of thought .Think telescopes and the like ....peace

the2ofusr1
reply to post by WhiteAlice

 

Sorry for the lack of a sarc tag .It wasn't meant to attack you .I don't know anyone that hasn't contributed to big oil and corporations .Some things can go without saying and could be figured out with a little bit of thought .Think telescopes and the like ....peace

Behold the face of autism. Emoticon use would've been nice, lol. The reason for why I worked around big oil was actually fairly out of my control and is totally unrelated to this thread. I would've never chosen to work in the industry if I had actually been given a choice; however, I do not begrudge the experience as it did provide me with an inside look into the various things that they do.

reply to post by WhiteAlice


Hey people need to make money to pay the bills and for stuff they want .In my post above I left a link to the 100 plus predictions .There are more then that and one comment er added more .I would be interesting for someone to cherry pick ,say 20 and that have actually come to be .Most but not all come from the scientific community and it's understanding that some celebrities have a tendency to embellish on what they may have read . One thing they all have in common though is that they are peddling doom porn .The AGW meme gets lots of air time and has a stream of $ from which to work with . But do any of the predictions actually have any credit ? Its much easier to predict on a shorter time scale and proving one that goes out to 2170 I wont see .Care to cherry some of the predictions that have actually come to pass ?

reply to post by the2ofusr1


As strange as it sounds, I avoid most sources that are basically regurgitating scientific findings because I so rarely can find a media venue that doesn't have some sort of slant to it either one way or the other. The media tends to sensationalize and hype just about any scientific finding that appears to them to be "sexy" enough to get people to read it. An example of that would be Vitamin C and colds. I prefer scientific sources and even if I'm stuck using an article, I always try to hunt down the original source paper behind it.

That said, as far as doom porn goes and with my deference in avoiding media sensationalism, I'm actually very deeply worried about a variety of conditions that are taking place across the globe regardless of causation. I don't see it ending well and I'm not a doom type of person at all. Hell, I spent 10 years of my life debunking the Mayan apocalypse but I can very honestly say that what I'm seeing across the board is deeply disturbing and frightening. Regardless of causation, we are in trouble.

P.S. Although it's entirely unrelated to the thread, you're obviously not going to drop that line about where I once worked. For me, I was given the choice of continuing my degrees in science (dual major) and homeless or I could stop living out of my car and work within the family business. I tried to stick it out by living in my car for 9 days while I tried to get financial aid but was blocked due to parental income. That's how I ended up in that spot and it was my father who did that.

reply to post by WhiteAlice


I am just curious as to what part of the globe do you hang your hat ? Maybe I am fortunate to live where I do because it seems that the rest of the earth is going to hell in a hand basket from what some people say .While others are saying it's not as extreme as it's made out to be .It seems that one scientific study will show that Polar Bears are going to be extinct in a few years and AGW is the blame and we must act now and then we find out later that the study had a flaw in it and the polar bears are on the increase . What is a mind to think ?

reply to post by network dude


Yes plate tectonics can effect climate, but it isn't the other way around. When we find things like whale fossils on land and that land has been pushed out of the sea by tectonics thousands or millions of years ago the fact that the land is dry there now wasn't a result of climate change. The land is dry because it was pushed out of the sea. Unfortunately, there are those that do not understand such a basic concept and claim it was an example of climate change. Those people 9 times out of 10 are the same ones who ignore scientific evidence of climate change I imagine it is because they do not have a grasp on the sciences at all.

As for being on topic I think it is as it demonstrates how many do not know how to interpret the data and can come to a conclusion that AGW isn't real. I have actually seen people find a sea fossil up in the mountains then proclaim it was proof the entire world was once flooded. I have a shark tooth fossil from the mountains, but I know those mountains were not always mountains.

reply to post by WhiteAlice

Well I am assuming you got your education and are using it at your vocation now .Life can throw some twists turns and obstacles on our way but I don't think they actually hut us but can make us stronger .Family has a way of dividing at times and it's probably more about selfish reasons . I had my differences and still made my choices ....Some I would make differently but I can only try my best to do my part ...peace