World's climate warming faster than feared, scientists say

reply to post by Wrabbit2000

Chuckleheads? Lame jabs? I'm sorry we can't have a conversation on this.

Of course we can't.. humor can only go one way - or it's lost - right? :-)

Well - I suppose it's just as well - but it's not as if I didn't try

Laters Wrabbitt

An article I found the other day

Antarctic ice shelf melt 'lowest EVER recorded, global warming is NOT eroding it'
Human CO2 just not a big deal at Pine Island Glacier
By Lewis Page, 3rd January 2014

Scientists at the British Antarctic Survey say that the melting of the Pine Island Glacier ice shelf in Antarctica has suddenly slowed right down in the last few years, confirming earlier research which suggested that the shelf's melt does not result from human-driven global warming.

The Pine Island Glacier in West Antarctica and its associated sea ice shelf is closely watched: this is because unlike most of the sea ice around the austral continent, its melt rate has seemed to be accelerating quickly since scientists first began seriously studying it in the 1990s.

Many researchers had suggested that this was due to human-driven global warming, which appeared to be taking place rapidly at that time (though it has since gone on hold for 15 years or so, a circumstance which science is still assimilating).

"We found ocean melting of the glacier was the lowest ever recorded, and less than half of that observed in 2010. This enormous, and unexpected, variability contradicts the widespread view that a simple and steady ocean warming in the region is eroding the West Antarctic Ice Sheet."

www.antarctica.ac.uk...
www.theregister.co.uk...

It appears from the Autosub's under-ice surveys that the PIG's ice flow formerly ground its way out to sea across the top of a previously unknown rocky underwater ridge, which tended to hold it back. Many years ago, however, before the area was surveyed in much detail, the glacier's floating outflow sheet separated from the ridge top which it had been grinding away at for millennia and so picked up speed. This also allowed relatively warm sea water to get up under the sheet and so increase melting and ease of movement.

reply to post by AndyMayhew


The Rise of the IPCC (1990s)
www.aip.org...

you might find something noteworthy in here.

Among the officials, the most eloquent and passionate in arguing for strong statements were representatives of small island nations. For they had learned that rising sea levels could erase their territories from the map. Far more powerful were the oil, coal, and automobile industries, represented not only by their own lobbyists but also by governments of nations living off fossil fuels, like Saudi Arabia. The negotiations were intense. Only the fear of an embarrassing collapse pushed people through the grueling sessions to grudging agreement. Under pressure from the industrial forces, and obeying the mandate to make only statements that virtually every knowledgeable scientist could endorse, the IPCC's consensus statements were highly qualified and cautious. Even so, complete deadlock was avoided only by accepting the Working Groups' summaries as they stood. The prestige of the scientists, as scientists, was strong enough to give the authors an effective veto power over attempts to water down statements until they were meaningless.(48a)

FlyersFan

InverseLookingGlass
Corporations are funding the science denial movement and smearing scientists.

The only people denying science are those pushing the man-made-global-warming hoax.

Aye, it's those who deny science who argue that the more extremist predictions made by non-scientists are what scientists say and if they don't come true then science is wrong.

ie. You say that United have a very small chance of winning the cup only if City and Albion lose. I then say that you say United will win the cup. Everyone listens to me. City and Albion win. United do not win the cup. Everyone then says you were wrong.

So were you wrong? Think about it.


Edit:

A better analogy:

Science says A might happen if B,C & D occur, E and F don't happen, but there are questions over how G and H may affect things.

The Media says A will happen

A doesn't happen

Was science wrong?

Think about it .....


That's the problem science faces and why so many people get confused. Upshot: the media are not a reliable source of science.

reply to post by ChesterJohn

So basically fresh water and salt water don't mix to become all Salt water?

They do, but over a period of time. Salt water has higher density, so is heavier than fresh water, and has a tendency to sink. Fresh water has a density of 1.0, salt water has a density of 1.025.

InverseLookingGlass
reply to post by ChesterJohn

 

Corporations are funding the science denial movement and smearing scientists. How do you know if you are a corporate automaton?

Oh, really? PROOF PLEASE!

...and whilst you're at it, could you show us who are FUNDING THE SCIENTISTS? Thanks.

Oh. You didn't know the scientists get FUNDING for this research? Yessir! To the tune of MILLIONS OF DOLLARS PER YEAR. If they don't find "climate change" (the MMGW kind) then they LOSE FUNDING, because that is how modern science works (it's no longer about research in the classical sense). They get paid for "proving" pre-conceived conclusions.

openminded2011
reply to post by ChesterJohn

 

So basically fresh water and salt water don't mix to become all Salt water?

They do, but over a period of time. Salt water has higher density, so is heavier than fresh water, and has a tendency to sink. Fresh water has a density of 1.0, salt water has a density of 1.025.

edit on 4-1-2014 by openminded2011 because: (no reason given)

Did you know that King Salmon sense the fresh water increase although Alaskan waters stay deadly all year round as far as temperatures. The the difference between 1.000 and 1.024 is so minute it probably wont make much of a difference.

I have charted currents of water from the Philippines to Baja California. they go north past Japan along north Korea down the Allusion chain along the Oregon and down to So California. Now sometime the Temps are different the the currents shift sometimes deep cold currents come to the surface and the warmer ones drop or move out to over deeper water. But one thing is constant there is enough stirring of water to mix fresh and salt water pretty well.

reply to post by ChesterJohn


The climate-change debate appears to me to be set up to obfuscate the real issue.

When it comes to climate change, the debate seems skewed, I don’t know if this is a deliberate ploy on the part of governments or different lobby groups or a general lack of understanding of the issues at the heart of it.

Scientifically speaking, if we are to accept evolution as the mechanism by which the streams of mutation we call species come and go in the blind genetic drift, then the only way for humanity to evolve is to become extinct - and I’ll stake my house on the fact that one day we will become extinct, one way or another.

So, it’s a forgone conclusion, we will at some perhaps not so distant point in the future become extinct, and we have no more control over that than say, the dinosaurs. The alternative is god will rescue the human race, if that is your particular philosophical preference.

Either way, it makes no difference what we do today unless it is to serve our immediate needs, and there has, (as far as I am aware) never been a debate on the issue of what humanity’s immediate needs are, because there is no consensus on where we are going as a species, nor should there be.

To adopt a central position in the upkeep of the planet is nothing short of an expression of our collective species ego, it will not solve anything.

So, we dig in, hold our collective breath and draw out our extinction. Technology is not keeping up with population expansion, so this means taking on board all the pain and suffering that is going to come along with global resource shortages as different countries corner the global market for individual resources.

There are alternative solutions to this, they are without question difficult and an anathema the general population and they are certainly not going to appear in any meaningful debate any time soon, because politically, commercially and morally they are inconvenient, no matter how true.

reply to post by HanoiLullaby

There are alternative solutions to this, they are without question difficult and an anathema the general population and they are certainly not going to appear in any meaningful debate any time soon, because politically, commercially and morally they are inconvenient, no matter how true.

Can you explain this a little more thoroughly?

What Alternative are you speaking of?

And explain An anahtema the general population?

reply to post by ChesterJohn


The human population of the planet is expanding, rough estimates are we are currently at 7 billion heading toward 10 billion by 2050 (within the lifetime of us or our children), there are simply not enough resources on the planet to sustain such a massive population and we do not yet have the technology to make that work.

All organisms on the planet affect their environment and have done since they have existed. Most organisms will eventually reach the point at which their environment - which has been changed by their activities - can no longer sustain them, this is an evolutionary process that has been going on for millions of years. As a result of our species ubiquitousness we face that same 'end-game' and it will be in a few short decades regardless of what is happening to the climate.

The debate on climate change, if it is genuine or not seems to me to be utterly beside the point. If it is not true then there is no problem with the climate but the population problem remains, if it is true then perpetuating conditions optimal for human survival will only make the population problem worse. Environmentalists are so wrapped up in anthropocentrism that they are ignoring the evolutionary imperative, every organism will eventually extinct itself, and any notion that humans can minimise their impact on the global environment (as I've mentioned, perpetuating conditions optimal for human survival) is not a workable solution. This is not a moral perspective it is a disinterested view of our evolution as a species.

As uncomfortable as it feels, the only workable solution is to debate options for global population reduction.

But, as I have stated in my previous post, many people do not like this, it is an anathema to them. Politically and commercially it is party/organisational suicide to bring this debate to the table. Morally it is difficult enough to raise the topic let alone offer solutions, but it is the only meaningful debate that can and needs to be had.

The debate on climate change and other environmental issues is a white elephant, none of it will matter in a few decades unless we get a grip on the real issue and have those difficult debates.

I'm not suggesting eugenics (or worse) but a meaningful debate on what mechanisms are workable and how to get them into the popular consciousness, because if we do not start now it may be too late, and the consequences of that are potentially devastating.

reply to post by HanoiLullaby

there are simply not enough resources on the planet to sustain such a massive population and we do not yet have the technology to make that work.

I guess I'm hung up back there on this part..for how we came out making that determination. Is there a Maximum Capacity sign somewhere??

Our leaders and corporations have so warped and bastardized our society over the last decade, especially, that we don't even seem to recall that humans had EXCESS food and enormous amounts of it, not long ago. It was the norm, not the exception. In fact, Wheat alone has been SO excessive in it's harvests for so many decades, it was a key strategic weapon of the Cold War for manipulation of exports.

Now manipulation of growing areas, water supplying it all and the ability to even run a farm without being broken by it has a very man made condition of food shortage or borderline shortage, world-wide. Even Africa has seen years of plentiful harvest in some of the worst areas today. Mismanagement, not physical limitation, seems to be the key that kills people.

After all... We have homeless in this nation, existing in the shadow of a Grocery Super-Center. They have starving along the edges of warehouses full of food in other regions.

Ability, isn't the issue I think. Finding humans with humanity is, IMO.

reply to post by AndyMayhew


United got knocked out of the cup yesterday

Wrabbit2000
reply to post by HanoiLullaby

 

there are simply not enough resources on the planet to sustain such a massive population and we do not yet have the technology to make that work.

I guess I'm hung up back there on this part..for how we came out making that determination. Is there a Maximum Capacity sign somewhere??

Our leaders and corporations have so warped and bastardized our society over the last decade, especially, that we don't even seem to recall that humans had EXCESS food and enormous amounts of it, not long ago. It was the norm, not the exception. In fact, Wheat alone has been SO excessive in it's harvests for so many decades, it was a key strategic weapon of the Cold War for manipulation of exports.

Now manipulation of growing areas, water supplying it all and the ability to even run a farm without being broken by it has a very man made condition of food shortage or borderline shortage, world-wide. Even Africa has seen years of plentiful harvest in some of the worst areas today. Mismanagement, not physical limitation, seems to be the key that kills people.

After all... We have homeless in this nation, existing in the shadow of a Grocery Super-Center. They have starving along the edges of warehouses full of food in other regions.

Ability, isn't the issue I think. Finding humans with humanity is, IMO.

We could put all 7 billion in Texas and give them all an acre of land and there still would be enough room in Texas for more. so land resources is not a problem.

so I am not sure How he came up with saying there were not enough resources. Trees can be replanted and are. We still haven't tapped enough crude oil to have it all gone.

Food like Wheat, Corn etc . . well that supply is manipulated by the govt paying farmers to not grow it, burn it or just about do anything with it but put it on the market because supply would exceed demand.

I always tell people to reuse their plastic bags so we can save another plastic Christmas Tree. Deffinately more than enough plastic bag resources.

reply to post by HanoiLullaby


You have raised some good points!

From how I understand things, the population as far as the actual number of babies born, is falling. Surely the problem lies in how much longer we are living, keeping the population count high, causing yet further issues for humanity to face. I guess whatever extremes are weather systems are going to will help to address this.

Also, someone made a good point about scientific research no longer being carried out for it's own sake and continued funding depends on results that the funders want, generally about lining pockets. Guess that means we are screwed.

reply to post by ChesterJohn

We could put all 7 billion in Texas and give them all an acre of land and there still would be enough room in Texas for more. so land resources is not a problem.

Seriously!

And what about water?

What about all the space that would be needed for roads, markets, waste disposal?

Honestly, this is a really naive claim.

Wrabbit2000
reply to post by HanoiLullaby

 

there are simply not enough resources on the planet to sustain such a massive population and we do not yet have the technology to make that work.

I guess I'm hung up back there on this part..for how we came out making that determination. Is there a Maximum Capacity sign somewhere??

I've actually allowed us some leeway on this point. The information comes from Reg Morrison's book, 'The Spirit in The Gene: Humanity's Proud Illusion and the Laws of Nature'. In the Book, Morrison tells us the breaking point could be as low as 8 billion, which is even worse.

Wrabbit2000
Our leaders and corporations have so warped and bastardized our society over the last decade, especially, that we don't even seem to recall that humans had EXCESS food and enormous amounts of it, not long ago. It was the norm, not the exception. In fact, Wheat alone has been SO excessive in it's harvests for so many decades, it was a key strategic weapon of the Cold War for manipulation of exports.

Now manipulation of growing areas, water supplying it all and the ability to even run a farm without being broken by it has a very man made condition of food shortage or borderline shortage, world-wide. Even Africa has seen years of plentiful harvest in some of the worst areas today. Mismanagement, not physical limitation, seems to be the key that kills people.

After all... We have homeless in this nation, existing in the shadow of a Grocery Super-Center. They have starving along the edges of warehouses full of food in other regions.

Ability, isn't the issue I think. Finding humans with humanity is, IMO.

I think while we disagree on our interpretation of the data for resources (not just food and water by the way), we do agree that anthropocentrism is the fundamental problem here.

ChesterJohn

We could put all 7 billion in Texas and give them all an acre of land and there still would be enough room in Texas for more. so land resources is not a problem.

so I am not sure How he came up with saying there were not enough resources. Trees can be replanted and are. We still haven't tapped enough crude oil to have it all gone.

I think on the face of things I can understand why it might seem that way, but a billion people is a heck of a lot of people, and it's not just land we will need.

ChesterJohn
Food like Wheat, Corn etc . . well that supply is manipulated by the govt paying farmers to not grow it, burn it or just about do anything with it but put it on the market because supply would exceed demand.

I always tell people to reuse their plastic bags so we can save another plastic Christmas Tree. Deffinately more than enough plastic bag resources.

There is always an element of interpretation when it comes to data, but can we afford to be so cavalier in our assumptions that everything will be ok? It's a heck of a risk, and I remain utterly unconvinced by the 'we'll be ok' argument.

reply to post by HanoiLullaby


Well, I'll tell ya... I look at the Earth itself. Literally, as it happens and from a Geographic perspective as much as pure math and science here. The idea that 7 billion exceeds physical capability it utterly absurd, in my opinion and as egocentric for authors to suggest as the Georgia guidestones are a monument to some person or groups sense of absolute superiority over everyone else. Surely, they include themselves in the MUCH lower population figure they estimate is required for balance. Much much lower. Murderously so.

NASA Black Marble

I've spent many a long period gazing at that map over the years. That and ones like it. It seems to me the Intellectuals of Europe and America essentially spent a few hundred years raping, pillaging and thoroughly rampaging the planet. Within about 50 years of running completely out of new places to pillage that have anything left worth taking? They declare game over and time for everyone to sacrifice together.

Hmm... Some thinking there and I respectfully, totally, disagree. I can see by the Black Marble, how people on the American Coasts and Europe feel like sardines in a can and frankly, I can find no sympathy for people who choose to live packed in like that. It's not natural ...and the VAST MAJORITY of Earth is not lit with sardines climbing over each other for space ...but is black and empty with the vast regions of little to no population.

It's never been a population problem. It's been a population BALANCE problem. Some cultures cannot fathom balance. Numbers won't help...up or down..when that is the core failure, in my humble view.

Psychoparrot
reply to post by HanoiLullaby

 

You have raised some good points!

From how I understand things, the population as far as the actual number of babies born, is falling. Surely the problem lies in how much longer we are living, keeping the population count high, causing yet further issues for humanity to face. I guess whatever extremes are weather systems are going to will help to address this.

Also, someone made a good point about scientific research no longer being carried out for it's own sake and continued funding depends on results that the funders want, generally about lining pockets. Guess that means we are screwed.

The data suggests that the number of babies is falling, but the margin or error in fertility statistics is large. Reg Morrison (the source for my data) suggests that even taking into account, a falling birth rate, wars, disease and starvation, we are still on target for a population increase. Falling birth rates is relative, if it does not fall by more than the population is increasing (which seems to be the case) then we are still due to increase our numbers.

James Lovelock in his work, The Practical Science of Planetary Medicine, tells us there are only four possible outcomes.

1. Destruction of the invading organism (humanity)
2. Chronic infection
3. Destruction of the host (the Earth)
4. Symbiosis

The only outcome that doesn't spell disaster for us is the last one, and on humanity's recent and historical form it is the least likely.

Scientific research has never been disinterested, we like to hope that it is but it exists only to serve humanity, and so it never can be anything other than a mechanism for feeding our anthropocentric conceits.

As long as people challenge these preconceptions as long as there are people willing to make a stand and potentially be wrong then there is hope, because it will stimulate thought and further the debate instead of it being mired by those with a vested interest in obfuscating the really 'inconvenient truth'.

Wrabbit2000
reply to post by HanoiLullaby

 

Well, I'll tell ya... I look at the Earth itself. Literally, as it happens and from a Geographic perspective as much as pure math and science here. The idea that 7 billion exceeds physical capability it utterly absurd, in my opinion and as egocentric for authors to suggest as the Georgia guidestones are a monument to some person or groups sense of absolute superiority over everyone else. Surely, they include themselves in the MUCH lower population figure they estimate is required for balance. Much much lower. Murderously so.

NASA Black Marble

I've spent many a long period gazing at that map over the years. That and ones like it. It seems to me the Intellectuals of Europe and America essentially spent a few hundred years raping, pillaging and thoroughly rampaging the planet. Within about 50 years of running completely out of new places to pillage that have anything left worth taking? They declare game over and time for everyone to sacrifice together.

Hmm... Some thinking there and I respectfully, totally, disagree. I can see by the Black Marble, how people on the American Coasts and Europe feel like sardines in a can and frankly, I can find no sympathy for people who choose to live packed in like that. It's not natural ...and the VAST MAJORITY of Earth is not lit with sardines climbing over each other for space ...but is black and empty with the vast regions of little to no population.

It's never been a population problem. It's been a population BALANCE problem. Some cultures cannot fathom balance. Numbers won't help...up or down..when that is the core failure, in my humble view.

It's a nice picture, I use NASA maps in my 3D models. Unfortunately this is only a map that shows populated areas with power enough to be seen from space. It's not exactly a reliable source for population studies at all.

I respect your opinion and I hope you are right, but the debate needs to be had, if it turns out I'm wrong then no harm-no foul, if it turns out I'm right then we need to get a move on and sort it out.

Can we afford to risk so much on such weak data?