Evidence for Climate Change: The Water Knife

[SoulRaven]

I guess I'm going to add my 2¢ worth in here.

I believe in the ice age conclusion, because it is undeniable that the farther we get away from the ice age, the smaller the ice becomes, and the smaller it becomes, the quicker it will melt.

Even though I think this explanation is both the best one, I also believe it is the most accurate one. <b><u>BUT</u></b> there is one huge problem with this simple truth, there is no money to be made there. <b><u>THAT</u></b> is where all of this other baloney comes into play, there is money to be made.

Can and should we cut down on pollution, sure we should, will it make our lives better, yes it will, will it have any effect on climate change, probably not.

With current, past, and even ancient technologies, we have the ability to to solve droughts, and bring drinkable water to every corner of the planet, the same is true with water for our crops, and even electricity. All without using a drop of fossil fuel. Why isn't this being done to improve the lives of humanity world wide? Greed, plain and simple. Governments, big business, and the wealthiest individuals don't care about humanity, they only care about their profits.

We have the technology, what we need to work on changing is the mentality. That and only that will bring about change and make the world we live in better for everybody. Wasting all that money on studying climate change isn't doing nearly as much good as spending it on solutions would accomplish. That same amount of money would have been better spent housing the homeless and feeding the hungry. It would have been better spent bringing irrigation to drought stricken areas, so we could grow more crops or keep our animals being raised for meat hydrated and multiplying. Keeping our forests and grasslands green and healthy, will also reduce wildfire dangers. Within a very short time, the deserts could be transformed into lush oasis's. Stuff like this was done in ancient times, and those civilizations thrived. They thrived because their rulers saw the big picture, that if all of their population was happy and well taken care of, then they as a society would grow and prosper.

 

[GotSmart]

That never ceases to give me a chuckle.........    Reality says it's running about fifty-fifty.

Go to about 3:30

 

[Seraphim]

In the study I posted reference carbon revenues, one example showed California, in 2012, made $812 million dollars taxing companies for carbon emissions. 47% went to fund environmental services. Where'd the other 53% go? There's definitely money to be made...

 

[Seraphim]

"With current, past, and even ancient technologies, we have the ability to to solve droughts, and bring drinkable water to every corner of the planet, the same is true with water for our crops, and even electricity. All without using a drop of fossil fuel. Why isn't this being done to improve the lives of humanity world wide? Greed, plain and simple. Governments, big business, and the wealthiest individuals don't care about humanity, they only care about their profits."

The only thing I'd disagree with here is you're limiting greed and lack of concern about humanity merely to the wealthiest individuals. Most middle class and lower income people don't care either. They're concerned about their own livelihood. Don't put apathy off on just the wealthy.

 

[Seraphim]

In the study I posted reference carbon revenues, one example showed California, in 2012, made $812 million dollars taxing companies for carbon emissions. 47% went to fund environmental services.  Where'd the other 53% go?  There's definitely money to be made...

And who ultimately paid that $812 million? The consumers, of course; the companies passed the increased operating costs off onto the consumer to maintain profit levels. And the residents of California are probably HAPPY about this; but not if they sat down and actually thought it through.

 

[SoulRaven]

"With current, past, and even ancient technologies, we have the ability to to solve droughts, and bring drinkable water to every corner of the planet, the same is true with water for our crops, and even electricity. All without using a drop of fossil fuel. Why isn't this being done to improve the lives of humanity world wide? Greed, plain and simple. Governments, big business, and the wealthiest individuals don't care about humanity, they only care about their profits."

The only thing I'd disagree with here is you're limiting greed and lack of concern about humanity merely to the wealthiest individuals. Most middle class and lower income people don't care either. They're concerned about their own livelihood. Don't put apathy off on just the wealthy.

Okay, you got me!  

 

[akrvbob]

The 97% number comes from a study done by a group of climate scientests doing a META study of climate change. A meta study is where you study all the studies to get an overview. By definition a scientific study has to have a fairly narrow focus so it can have exact parameters. The Meta study tries to see the overview. They found over 12,000 peer reviewed climate change articles.

The study itself that reached the 97% concensus was itself published to a peer reviewed journal.
http://skepticalscience.com/97-percent-consensus-cook-et-al-2013.html


They found every climate study that had been published in a PEER REVIEWED SCIENTIFIC JOURNAL. That's a very important distinction. Anybody can write something for the popular press like Washngton Post or NY Times, but you have to have some credentials to get in a Peer Review Journal and your methodology has to withstand scientific rigor.

97% of all peer reviewed climate scientists believe mankind is the source of our current climate change.

Can you tell me where you got your 50% number and the methodology used to arrive at it. Was it published in a peer reviewed journal or to the popular press. I'd be very curious to know.

When it comes to scientific debates, does it make more sense to get your information from the popular press or from scientific journals? Does reading a headline in the popular press or a blogger actually qualify as scientific research?

Which method of reaching a conclusion makes more sense if the future of our grandchildren hangs in the balance?
Bob

 

[Seraphim]

So 97% of 'peer reviewed' climate scientists (not all scientists) who make their living due to climate change - and who probably can't get papers published if they disagree - state they BELIEVE climate change is due to to mankind. They don't claim it has been proven.

What is the percentage of peer reviewed climate scientists vs non- peer- reviewed climate scientists?

It brings to mind an article - and it's been too long to remember the author - who claimed its been impossible for some time (90s, iirc?) to get a climate paper published unless an author stated in the summary he believed mankind was responsible was for global warming/climate change, regardless of the contents of the paper. I admit, it created a bit of skepticism in my mind, wondering if a core group of scientists, publishers and editors, might not be directing peoples' "beliefs" - even if only slightly - for the sake of continuing a profitable situation. Scientists, I suspect, rarely continue successful if they report beliefs in opposition to those of their financial backers, or their employers.

So when I read papers, I read the summaries very carefully. I read the text as much as I am capable of comprehending, but the wording of the summaries often seem intriguing to me. Many times it's what they don't say, and often what they DO say is misquoted or interpeted to mean something more.

I'm still looking for that paper which summarizes that the case has been proven, not merely states what the author claims to believe. From what I've read, and it's been a few years, the scientists left themselves plenty of wiggle room stating their beliefs.

Perhaps you're aware of a more confident finding in a research paper - a more recent one?

 

[Seraphim]

And, for the record, I believe skepticism to be a healthy trait. It's kept many a person from being scammed.

 

[VanLifeCrisis]

of course, scientific journals reject anything that opposes 'known' prevailing theory, not getting grants either.

 

[highdesertranger]

I wonder how many of the man made global warming people use air conditioning? total waste of energy. so by their own standards a contributor to mmgw. in the summer ac consumes a phenomenal amount of energy. hypocrites If you ask me at the very least, criminal deceit at the worst. practice what you preach is what I say. highdesertranger

 

[Seraphim]

But HDR - they must be comfortable as they sit in their offices at their word processors explaining to the masses how other people need to be responsible and take action! Really now. Can't expect them to downsize and live in vans or something. That just wouldn't be civilized *grin*

 

[Gary68]

"Back home in Tennessee, safely ensconced in his suburban Nashville home, Vice President Al Gore is no doubt basking in the Oscar awarded to "An Inconvenient Truth," the documentary he inspired and in which he starred. But a local free-market think tank is trying to make that very home emblematic of what it deems Gore's environmental hypocrisy.

Armed with Gore's utility bills for the last two years, the Tennessee Center for Policy Research charged Monday that the gas and electric bills for the former vice president's 20-room home and pool house devoured nearly 221,000 kilowatt-hours in 2006, more than 20 times the national average of 10,656 kilowatt-hours.

"If this were any other person with $30,000-a-year in utility bills, I wouldn't care," says the Center's 27-year-old president, Drew Johnson. "But he tells other people how to live and he's not following his own rules."
http://abcnews.go.com/Politics/GlobalWarming/story?id=2906888
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

[video=youtube]

damn leaf blowers killing the earth

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

This heat wave may not only top daily record highs, but may also threaten record highs for the entire month of June, or, in a few locations, all-time record highs.

Here are some locations that may flirt with – we're defining that as within 3 degrees – either their June or all-time record highs. Click on the city link for the latest 10-day forecast.

Yakima, Washington: All-time record is 111 degrees on July 26, 1928
Spokane, Washington: All-time record is 108 degrees on July 26, 1928 and Aug. 4, 1961
Boise, Idaho: All-time record is 111 degrees on July 19, 1960 and July 12, 1898
Salt Lake City: June record is 105 degrees on June 28-29, 2013
Kennewick, Washington: June record high is 110 degrees on June 7, 1912
Portland, Oregon: June record high is 102 degrees on June 26, 2006
Pendleton, Oregon: June record high is 108 degrees on June 30, 1924, and June 17, 1961
Reno, Nevada: June record is 104 degrees on June 16, 1940
Kalispell, Montana: All-time record high is 105 degrees on Aug. 4, 1961.
Missoula, Montana: June record high is 100 degrees on Jun. 29, 1937 and Jun. 13, 1918.
http://www.weather.com/forecast/reg...t-heat-wave-northwest-great-basin-latejun2015

what the heck was going on in 1898 and 1918,to many mule fumes?

 

[highdesertranger]

the first half of last century broke more records for high temps then the second half with the 1930's leading the way. also the world record was set in death valley in the early 19 teens. I believe 1913. but don't worry facts mean nothing when you have an agenda. after all if 97% say we are all doomed then we are all doomed. highdesertranger

 

[Gary68]

its all semantics,politics and greed

if you just drop the climate change thing thats been going on for 10000+ years and change it to "lets not pollute" every one would be on board

 

[Seraphim]

But Gary - Al Gore is the most intelligent and important man in the world, and he deserves his indulgence from the sins that plague lesser men. Just ask him - he'll tell you...

 

[Canine]

Sorry boys,all your jest still won't change the facts.

 

[GotSmart]

http://earthobservatory.nasa.gov/Features/WorldOfChange/larsenb.php?all=y

Something is happening...

 

[akrvbob]

If the winner of the debate goes to whoever can insult and attack their opponent the best, then you guys are the big winners and I admit defeat.

However, in nearly all debates if that's the best you've got most people can see right through that. For some reason in this debate insults are given more credence than science. Very odd.

Must be something wrong with me, I like science and give it more weight than insults.
Bob

 

[WriterMs]

Two simple scientific statements that are as accepted as fact as any scientific statement can be--they aren't open to dispute:

A) Carbon in the atmosphere causes warm air to be held in the atmosphere and keeps it from escaping back into space.
B) Humans are pumping incredible amounts of carbon into the air every day, year after year.

A + B = C

C) The earth is warming.

Then deniers scream (with no scientific facts to back them up) "No, it's the volcanoes, not people!"

If you are even a little interested in truth go to the website of the Hawaiian Volcanic Observatory here:
http://hvo.wr.usgs.gov/volcanowatch/archive/2007/07_02_15.html

First I'll summarize what they say and then quote it

1) Volcanoes do let out carbon and they have been very steadily producing an average of 200 MILLION tons of carbon per year for a very long time.

2) In 2003 humans produced 26.8 BILLION Tons of carbon into the air. Today it's 30 Billion tons per year.

Volcanoes produce less than 1% as much carbon as do humans.

I'm always appreciative of the research you do, Bob. Seems I always learn something new.