Spoilers! - Politics of beginings

Its went from global warming to climate change when we realised that people would just use some of the areas where the warming in other areas would cause cooling elsewhere.


You'll allow them to immigrate because the democrats will now have proof positive that climate change is occuring, and the republicans will see extra votes and workers to aid them.

And the fact that the europeans admit that they have been a part of a problem, and are now doing their bit to try and fix it shows they have pairs the size of Texas. the first step in innovation is recognizing theres a problem that needs solving, so with europe having started going green before the US, dont be surprised when they wean themselves off oil and the costs of not having gone green fall more and more on america.

How convenient. AGW theology is disproved by climate reality, so you change the term from "Global Warming" to "Climate Change" so you can continue your jihad against industrial civilization. At least ancient cultures who used to sacrifice people to the Sun God understood that solar insolation (combined with feedback from a decrease in cosmic rays) is the primary driver of the climate.

Your suggestion that some areas will get cooler while other areas get warm hints at one legitimate area of concern. The Earth's average temperature ISA function of how efficiently heat is transferred from the equator to polar regions. A simple calculation of what equilibrium temperature should be at the equator verses the poles based on daily solar insolation reveals that the equator should be broiling while the polar regions should be a deep freeze. The primary heat transport mechanism that equalizes the temperature is ocean circulation. Interrupt ocean circulation and the poles could get a lot colder while the equator gets warmer.

Spacekiwi wrote:Its went from global warming to climate change when we realised that people would just use some of the areas where the warming in other areas would cause cooling elsewhere.


You'll allow them to immigrate because the democrats will now have proof positive that climate change is occuring, and the republicans will see extra votes and workers to aid them.

And the fact that the europeans admit that they have been a part of a problem, and are now doing their bit to try and fix it shows they have pairs the size of Texas. the first step in innovation is recognizing theres a problem that needs solving, so with europe having started going green before the US, dont be surprised when they wean themselves off oil and the costs of not having gone green fall more and more on america.

namelessfly wrote:How convenient. AGW theology is disproved by climate reality, so you change the term from "Global Warming" to "Climate Change" so you can continue your jihad against industrial civilization. At least ancient cultures who used to sacrifice people to the Sun God understood that solar insolation (combined with feedback from a decrease in cosmic rays) is the primary driver of the climate.

Your suggestion that some areas will get cooler while other areas get warm hints at one legitimate area of concern. The Earth's average temperature ISA function of how efficiently heat is transferred from the equator to polar regions. A simple calculation of what equilibrium temperature should be at the equator verses the poles based on daily solar insolation reveals that the equator should be broiling while the polar regions should be a deep freeze. The primary heat transport mechanism that equalizes the temperature is ocean circulation. Interrupt ocean circulation and the poles could get a lot colder while the equator gets warmer.

Spacekiwi wrote:Its went from global warming to climate change when we realised that people would just use some of the areas where the warming in other areas would cause cooling elsewhere.


You'll allow them to immigrate because the democrats will now have proof positive that climate change is occuring, and the republicans will see extra votes and workers to aid them.

And the fact that the europeans admit that they have been a part of a problem, and are now doing their bit to try and fix it shows they have pairs the size of Texas. the first step in innovation is recognizing theres a problem that needs solving, so with europe having started going green before the US, dont be surprised when they wean themselves off oil and the costs of not having gone green fall more and more on america.

Since you dont seem to like my ideas on whether Anthropogenic climate change is occuring, how about the opinions of 97% of climatoglogists, who lives revolve around the climate? http://www.pnas.org/content/early/2010/06/04/1003187107.abstract


that 97% is around 1330 experts, by the way, who believe that humans are part of the upcoming climate change problem.

Said it before. No doubt that climate change exists, just discussion on how significant mankind's contribution is. Lots of evidence that it does contribute. BC wars in the Med required that the cedar forests of moist north Africa be cut down to build trimeres, result desert. In Australia 60k years ago mankind arrived using fire hunting, result Simpson desert instead of previous rain forest.
Any biologist (me one time), knows that a runaway population in a closed environment will eventually ruin it.
I've got solar panels etc & farm sustainably just in case.

My experience is that most of these so called "climatologists" either have degrees in political science or they endorse the theory that is most likely to get them a research grant.

Seriously; the AGW crowd is now having to claim that the Earth is no longer warming because the extra heat is being mysteriously stored in the deep oceans and the oceans that should then be expanding are actually receding by 7 millimeters because the extra water is leaking out through an inter dimensional portal or some such crap.




Since you dont seem to like my ideas on whether Anthropogenic climate change is occuring, how about the opinions of 97% of climatoglogists, who lives revolve around the climate? http://www.pnas.org/content/early/2010/06/04/1003187107.abstract


that 97% is around 1330 experts, by the way, who believe that humans are part of the upcoming climate change problem.[/quote]

Daryl wrote:Said it before. No doubt that climate change exists, just discussion on how significant mankind's contribution is. Lots of evidence that it does contribute. BC wars in the Med required that the cedar forests of moist north Africa be cut down to build trimeres, result desert. In Australia 60k years ago mankind arrived using fire hunting, result Simpson desert instead of previous rain forest.
Any biologist (me one time), knows that a runaway population in a closed environment will eventually ruin it.
I've got solar panels etc & farm sustainably just in case.

Amen!!!

Any human activity that alters the Albado of a significant portion of Earth's surface will change the equilibrium temperature of the planet. The change can be even more profound if these land changes disturb ocean currents.

The biggest hedge against climate change is having an advanced industrialized civilization that can cope with changes. Deindustrializing human civilization to reduce CO2 will only condemn people to death.

namelessfly wrote:

Daryl wrote:Said it before. No doubt that climate change exists, just discussion on how significant mankind's contribution is. Lots of evidence that it does contribute. BC wars in the Med required that the cedar forests of moist north Africa be cut down to build trimeres, result desert. In Australia 60k years ago mankind arrived using fire hunting, result Simpson desert instead of previous rain forest.
Any biologist (me one time), knows that a runaway population in a closed environment will eventually ruin it.
I've got solar panels etc & farm sustainably just in case.

Amen!!!

Any human activity that alters the Albado of a significant portion of Earth's surface will change the equilibrium temperature of the planet. The change can be even more profound if these land changes disturb ocean currents.

The biggest hedge against climate change is having an advanced industrialized civilization that can cope with changes. Deindustrializing human civilization to reduce CO2 will only condemn people to death.

Except for the fact we arent trying to deindustrialize humanity, we are trying to improve the technology of mankind by reducing wasteage and pollution. and if we are changing the albedo, then we are causing climate change, are we not? And since concrete and manmade materials have a high heat absorption, and dont moderate co2, then should not there occur climate change around cities?

Spacekiwi.

Your comment ignores the pportive phrase, " significant portion of Earth's surfac"

Do the math. Even at nearly 7 billion people, cities don't occupy a significant fraction of the Earth's surface.

Even major conversions of forest land to farmland that increase albado have complex effects because of changes in the hydrological cycle which dominates heat transport through the atmosphere.

You demonstrate the real problem with AGW theology. Any environmental effect is viewed as an excuse to demand restrictions on CO2 emissions. One of the greatest threats to the planet is desertification which is caused by an over reliance on biofuels. Europeans appropriate prime farm land to raise biodiesel crops. This displaces the primitive cultures that rely on wood fuels until they have to burn dung while grazing goats are laying waste to big portions of the planet. Give them gas cooking stoves and shoot their goats and the dessert will shrink. All of the claimed desire to advance to new, better technologies

namelessfly wrote:Spacekiwi.

Your comment ignores the pportive phrase, " significant portion of Earth's surfac"

Do the math. Even at nearly 7 billion people, cities don't occupy a significant fraction of the Earth's surface.

Even major conversions of forest land to farmland that increase albado have complex effects because of changes in the hydrological cycle which dominates heat transport through the atmosphere.

You demonstrate the real problem with AGW theology. Any environmental effect is viewed as an excuse to demand restrictions on CO2 emissions. One of the greatest threats to the planet is desertification which is caused by an over reliance on biofuels. Europeans appropriate prime farm land to raise biodiesel crops. This displaces the primitive cultures that rely on wood fuels until they have to burn dung while grazing goats are laying waste to big portions of the planet. Give them gas cooking stoves and shoot their goats and the dessert will shrink. All of the claimed desire to advance to new, better technologies

What would you count as significant? would 3% do it? because thats what these guys found.
http://www.earth.columbia.edu/news/2005/story03-07-05.html

Now, the earth has approximately 149 million square km of land, so approx 4.5 million square kilometres is classified as urban, wit populations of at least 5,000, which ignores towns like mine, with a pop of 3,000. now the study noted that there were 24,000 urban areas out of 75,000 towns of larger then 1,000 people, so you still have to add the area of 50,000 villages with between 50 and 250 million people to the total. so it is a significant amount of terraformed land for cities.

Does that three percent figure include roads between cities and towns? How much land is taken up by transportation needs? I am one of those who has a problem with the people screaming about global warming, but my problem is that they have concentrated on one aspect to the exclusion of all others. GW is not a simple problem caused by one factor, nor will it be changed by one solution. One for instance: I have never heard anyone seriously suggest re-forestation of the Sahara as a possible solution. Or providing year-round water to places in the African or Australian interiors. Or reforestation of the Aegean peninsula or Turkey. Improved irrigation for any dry climate to sustain year-round growth of crops and trees. Any of the above measure would, I think, change weather patterns at least locally. Of course, I can't prove that, because we don't know enough about what affects the weather to be sure how conditions in one location react to changes elsewhere. And that is sort of my point. We don't know enough, in spite of what the screamers claim, to say "This is the biggest cause of GW". We simply are guessing at this point.