Global warming is real

[L Gilbert]

Big business ,movie making ,war industries are the culprits and should show leader ship --don't just blame individuals --we can do are part -I try as it is ,and wont stop cause others arent on board --but lets get the big polluters as well in on the clean up ---

There's a myriad of culprits. Blame isn't the point. The point is what are the causes and doing something about it.

 

[L Gilbert]

Lets get one thing straight here. The Kyoto Protocol is not science. The Kyoto Protocol is the end result of 180 beurocratic delegates who couldn't agree on policy. The Protocol has three major flaws and note they are not scientific.
1) The decision to exclude 150 developing nations
2) The agreement is legally binding, with no way of enforcing
3) The agreement was premature, incomplete and adopted anyways.

So far what I'm seeing here is refutation of this new science based on old science, in some cases as someone mentioned earlier retired researchers who probably havn't touched a broad range spectrometer or sampled materials in over 10 years.

Exactly. As I said somewhere else, even ChRETIeN said the thing was junk and probably had a solid scientific reason for saying that; namely that the thing isn't scientific.

 

[MikeyDB]

There's a myriad of culprits. Blame isn't the point. The point is what are the causes and doing something about it.

To use a phrase so over-used by folk like Sanctus...

AMEN to that statement L. Gilbert

 

[L Gilbert]

........
Something is wrong with our environment!

It is hardly all the fault of the SUV class and the oil barons.

Exactly.

And until the the scientists involved in this botched sales pitch address all the contibuting factors, they are little more then aping the predetermined conclusion of the socialist engineering class> Which I might add, live pretty high off the hog, in large homes, complete with all the over blown necessaties of life, while the working class will suffer the effects of the Protocol, the elitists that force it upon us will feel but a mosquito bite, while we itch and bleed out.

Six of one and a half dozen of the other. Some windmill manufacturer gets rich at the expense of an oil company. Big deal. The electric car maker gets rich at the expense of the bonehead making cars run by infernal combustion engines. Big dea;. Someone else is trying their hand at social engineering. Again, big deal. Nothing has changed except the players and the issues.

 

[darkbeaver]

What's wrong with social engineering?:wave:

 

[L Gilbert]

The motives possibly.

 

[CDNBear]

The motives possibly.

That says volumes sir!!!

What's wrong with social engineering?:wave:

So does that!!!

 

[MikeyDB]

Darkbeve..

You end up with the bible thumpers (believers) promoting the ends and the means of globalization...for instance.

If social engineering were restricted somehow to produce positive outcomes...hey no problem.

Unfortunately the dynamic of social engineering that's created (in large part) the current difficulties in Iraq, Afghanistan, global warming, lousy government (accepted as "normal" etc. is product of the money grubbers and people who have enough time and interest...and enthusiasm for putting the making of dollars ahead of everything else...

Began sometime near the end of WWI and has been shaping social-consciousness since...

 

[L Gilbert]

........... and doing more harm than good.

 

[#juan]

Also a lesson on what scientists mean when they say things. The evidence is not overwhelming, it's merely "very likely," as the most recent document we're discussing here says. Not the same thing. The evidence, I agree, is now pretty compelling, much stronger than it was even a year ago, and the uncertainties are not an argument in favour of ignoring it. A glance at those charts I posted, especially the way CO2 concentrations and temperature changes move together with a slight time lag, may in fact mean that it's already too late to do much about it on anything less than a time period of some thousands of years. The climate is warming, no question about that, and human activities appear to be accelerating it, so it behooves us to protect ourselves and try to minimize our contribution. Kyoto's not it. That's the only conclusion I can make.

It is my experience, when talking to scientists, that "very likely" means something a lot stronger than it sounds. If something is said to be very likely, it is no doubt understated.

PARIS — The warning from a top panel of international scientists was blunt and dire: “warming of the climate system is unequivocal,” the cause is “very likely” man-made, and the menace will “continue for centuries.”

When I see words like " blunt and dire" or “warming of the climate system is unequivocal,” Or "very likely man-made" or " the menace will continue for years", My ears perk right up.

Taken as a whole, the warning is more than dire enough for me.

 

[CDNBear]

It is my experience, when talking to scientists, that "very likely" means something a lot stronger than it sounds. If something is said to be very likely, it is no doubt understated.



When I see words like " blunt and dire" or “warming of the climate system is unequivocal,” Or "very likely man-made" or " the menace will continue for years", My ears perk right up.

Taken as a whole, the warning is more than dire enough for me.

As it is for I, my only concern is that Kyoto will not really fix the problem, just be a slight obsticle for industry to hurtle.

There are so many mechanisms and technological aparati out there, the problem of polution in general should not even be an issue, but it is.

We need, as Ton and I pretty much came to an agreement on in another thread, is to act on polution in its entirety and start by using existing technology that will not only benefit the environment, but offset the costs involved.

I don't see that in the equation, it seems all to up in the air and open for abuse, exploitation and avoidance.

My greif and aprehention with the claims put forth by these scientists, is not the context, but the context. They're position seems tied to Kyoto support and justification, when in fact it should be addressing the issue face on and without the sent of Kyoto attatched.

Then it would come across as an objective piece, not the shill piece it does at present.

 

[L Gilbert]

So cloud cover may be increasing as predicted (take note, Temperance - a scientific prediction):

http://eobglossary.gsfc.nasa.gov/New...3?img_id=17542 -
Atmospheric gases scatter blue wavelengths of visible light more than other wavelengths, giving the Earth’s visible edge a blue halo. At higher and higher altitudes, the atmosphere becomes so thin that it essentially ceases to exist. Gradually, the atmospheric halo fades into the blackness of space. This astronaut photograph captured on July 20, 2006, shows a nearly translucent moon emerging from behind the halo.
Technically, there is no absolute dividing line between the Earth’s atmosphere and space, but for scientists studying the balance of incoming and outgoing energy on the Earth, it is conceptually useful to think of the altitude at about 100 kilometers above the Earth as the “top of the atmosphere.” The top of the atmosphere is the bottom line of Earth’s energy budget, the Grand Central Station of radiation. It is the place where solar energy (mostly visible light) enters the Earth system and where both reflected light and invisible, thermal radiation from the Sun-warmed Earth exit. The balance between incoming and outgoing energy at the top of the atmosphere determines the Earth’s average temperature. The ability of greenhouses gases to change the balance by reducing how much thermal energy exits is what global warming is all about.
Greenhouse gases aren’t the only part of the Earth system that influence the energy balance. The percent of incoming sunlight the Earth system reflects (the Earth’s albedo) is a key climate factor since whatever is reflected can’t go on to warm the planet. Clouds, such as those blanketed the earth int he image above, snow, and ice have the biggest influence on how reflective Earth is. When any of these factors change, Earth’albedo can change. Since the late 1990s, NASA satellites have been observing the top of the atmosphere with sensors known as CERES, short for “Clouds and the Earth’s Radiant Energy System,” and scientists have been using the data to look for signs of change in the amount of energy the Earth reflects or emits.
Because snow and ice are so reflective, scientists have long expected that melting of snow and ice in the polar regions will accelerate climate warming by reducing the Earth’ albedo. Atmospheric scientist Seiji Kato of NASA’s Langley Research Center and several teammates have used a suite of NASA and NOAA (National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration) satellite observations to investigate whether this feedback is already underway. The team compared reflected sunlight, clouds, and sea ice and snow cover at polar latitudes from 2000-2004. What they found was a bit of a surprise: while snow and ice in the Arctic declined, the albedo didn’t change. To read more about the team’s investigation, read the Earth Observatory feature story Arctic Reflection: Clouds Replace Snow and Ice as Solar Reflector.

Perhaps global warming will level off in the next decade or so.

 

[MikeyDB]

Yes undoubtedly and Elvis will release his first LP in a long long time....