Sunday, January 30, 2011
Miscellaneous 56
1) Rarely do we ever get foreign policy right. Yeah, we occasionally do; Carter's brokering of the Egyptian-Israeli peace treaty, Bush 1's decision to NOT follow the Iraqis into Baghdad - two examples. But, more often than not, we tend to either overreact (the second Iraq war, Ike's decision to back the Diem regime in South Vietnam) or under-react (our continuing to prop up these thugs such as Mubarak, etc.). When, folks, are we ever going to a) act prudently and b) do so in a way that's truly representative of our (supposed) values?............2) Rand Paul - now there's an interesting individual. On the one hand, the fellow has, on several occasions, shown that he is flat-out NOT ready for prime-time (that Rachel Maddow interview obviously the most illustrative example). On the other hand, he is kind of refreshing in that, no, he seemingly doesn't sugarcoat ANY opinions. On this recent interview, for example, he actually went as far as to laud divided government. Wow, huh? I mean, seriously, you don't think that the Obama administration isn't going to use that in the next election?...Can you'all say, Mitch McConnell is having a heart attack?............3) One of the teases on "The O'Reilly Factor" tonight had to do with Mr. O'Reilly's coming-up interview with Glenn Beck. Right there in bold print, right under Bill O'Reilly, it read, "Beck's Egypt Analysis"....Needless to say, people, I started laughing immediately. I mean, it was literally like, who in the hell would ever want to hear a guy like THAT give HIS "analysis" on a topic that is just so frigging delicate/complicated? Seriously, you might as well just ask Barney Fife to explain quantum physics.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
35 comments:
Barney would do a more realistic job with quarks and the Heisenberg uncertainty principle, then the Koch Brothers spokesperson could ever do with the civilian rejection of Mubarak or who in reality can be expected to replace him.
Even Barney Rubble, LOL
Your obsession with the Koch Brothers borders on strange.
Would'nt be a bit surprised if you are using them as some sort of masturbation fantasy,creepy very creepy.
I do have SOME liberal positions, anonymous. One of them is public funding of elections......I mean, I know that that wouldn't clean up the situation entirely....but it sure as hell at least would be a start.
Different subject.After months,and I mean months of silence Al Gore came out of his hole to say the ungodly winters the country is experirencing this year is related to global warming.What a business to be in....you cant be wrong...if its too warm...hey,its global warming...if its too cold and snowey....again its global warming.Would'nt you love to have a gig where you cant be wrong.Thats what Al is looking for and almost had.Now hes looking to too extract another 100 million from the "folks" who fell for his spiel...I think he needs the dough for the divorce settlement and the message therapist.
Lets see;
More heat in the air (the warming part) means MORE water in the air,
Warmer air can hold more water, basic physics.
More water in the air coming from the south (IE Gulf of Mexico)meets colder arctic air being pushed farther south in North America (by high pressure from Siberia) due to the warming there, IE across the poles.(more global warming there rusty)
Means more cold arctic air creating more snow from the warmer wetter air coming out of the Gulf.
Remkember they are talking about 2-5 degrees of warming PLANET WIDE, which means local conditions can be cloder for a few days due to the LOCAL weather.
Sort of like the Cyclone currently hitting Queensland Australia, their Katrina if you will
Which is why the events started in Texas and Oklahoma, where cold fronts from the north usually meet warm fronts from the Gulf first.
Your obsession with ignorance and right wing rants seems to be your masturbation fantasy. ;0
Sorta what created the two snow events of this week.
As a poster on another website stated;
It doesn’t take deep thinking or a PHD in science to understand that adding more energy to any system will excite the molecules, or that anytime moist air reaches a temperature below 32F precipitation falls out in the form of snow.
January will show up to be a rather average month globally in terms of temperature, but above average in terms of severe weather events.
and we all know rusty doesn't come close to have a PHD unless you consider his usual way of spreading his right wing crapola, Piling it Higher and Deeper with no regards to the actual facts or science involved.
Don't thinks the ENTIRE planet has warmed over the last 125 years watch this new video
of global warming since 1880's from NASA--quite dramatic, particularly in the last two decades.
Remember this is NASA the rockets guys who do science not spin, unlike rusty who does spin not science.
Notice ALL the heat collected around the arctic 2010 time frame?
Probably why the arctic is melting off MORE and MORE each year.
Also notice relatively how Siberia is warmer then the continental US (also 2010 time frame), remember warmer is usually a higher pressure and colder usually a low pressure. So a relatively warmer Siberia pushes toward a relatively colder US, pushing cold Arctic air our way which gets combined with the wetter air from the Gulf,
and we get SNOW in winter.
More then usual.
It really ain't rocket science except to people like rusty.
anonymous is exactly right on the global warming science. Rusty is typical of the wingnuts totally refusing to look at the facts, all they see is the word "warming" and then look at the blizzards and voila they come to their own stupid conclusions which are WRONG!!!
Wow...mention Al Gore and the Kool Aid drinkers arrive in mass...they must have a "Global Warming Hot Line." Idiots.
Do you two meatballs do the weather reports on your local stations.
You know mouse....maybe the Koch's are causing it.If not you gotta know they are up to their eyeballs in it.
Mouse...do you still spend time in Dallas looking for shell casings on the grassy knoll?
Nice to see rusty still using personal attacks and nonsensical comments, when the facts and science doesn't come out the way his very partisan mind wants it to.
How about the actual facts rusty, can't do the science to understand them?
Or just don't want to for partisan political reasons?
maybe the Koch's are causing it.
No rusty it is more about the way CO2 and CH4 can contain the infrared spectrum of electromagnetic spectrum within the atmosphere, which means the two gases retrain more heat as their percentage of the atmosphere goes up.
It is really about the science, no partisan political process or insane conspiracy theories need apply.
Wow, global warming, huh? Alright, I think that there are 3 main questions here. a) Is there global warming? Apparently. b) Is it at all caused by human activity? Possibly. And c) if so, what, pray tell, in the hell should we do about it? I'm not entire sure (my own personal contributions are keeping the heat down, inflating my tires, recycling, and being a vegetarian.
As for Mr. Gore, I do find it a tad strange that he built his new house.....right on the ocean.....and heats it entirely with fossil fuel.....and the fact that he never talks about the environmental damage done by the meat industry.....
Snowfalls are now just a thing of the past
By Charles Onians [sic]
Monday, 20 March 2000
… According to Dr David Viner, a senior research scientist at the climatic research unit (CRU) of the University of East Anglia,within a few years winter snowfall will become "a very rare and exciting event".
"Children just aren’t going to know what snow is," he said…
“We need to get some broad based support, to capture the public’s imagination… So we have to offer up scary scenarios, make simplified, dramatic statements and make little mention of any doubts… Each of us has to decide what the right balance is between being effective and being honest.” - Stephen Schneider, Stanford Professor of Climatology, lead author of many IPCC reports
“No matter if the science of global warming is all phony… climate change provides the greatest opportunity to bring about justice and equality in the world.” - Christine Stewart, fmr Canadian Minister of the Environment
“Isn’t the only hope for the planet that the industrialized civilizations collapse? Isn’t it our responsiblity to bring that about?” - Maurice Strong, founder of the UN Environment Programme
Quote by Ottmar Edenhoffer, high level UN-IPCC official: "[W]e redistribute de facto the world's wealth by climate policy...Basically it's a big mistake to discuss climate policy separately from the major themes of globalization...One has to free oneself from the illusion that international climate policy is environmental policy. This has almost nothing to do with environmental policy anymore."
Quote by Louis Proyect, Columbia University: “The answer to global warming is in the abolition of private property and production for human need. A socialist world would place an enormous priority on alternative energy sources. This is what ecologically-minded socialists have been exploring for quite some time now.”
Quote by Jeffery Sachs, Columbia University, Director of The Earth Institute: "Obama is already setting a new historic course by reorienting the economy from private consumption to public investments...free-market pundits bemoan the evident intention of Obama and team to 'tell us what kind of car to drive'. Yet that is exactly what they intend to do...and rightly so. Free-market ideology is an anachronism in an era of climate change."
Yeah, call me a denier...
That quote by Onians, Volt, is very interesting, and illustrative of the fact that a lot of these climate change experts indeed HAVE changed their yardsticks.......As for what gives me some pause, it probably has more to do with the fact that 95-99% of greenhouse gasses (depending on whether or not you include water vapor into the equation) are NONman-made.
However it is Not whether GHG are
"man-made" or not, it is the total effect we have on the environment.
It it the total effect we as humans have on the planets eco-system, not the individual actions we take. We have to combine the different types of pollution and the other effects we have in the activities we use to further the economic and cultural activities on the planet
For example the deforestation worldwide, which in total has the effect of increasing CO2 amounts by 20% because the trees that used to convert CO2 to O2 no longer exist.
Or the dumping of pollution into the oceans, combines with the increase of CO2 which has the effect of making the oceans more acidic, which have created dead zones, result a drop of 40% of the oceans plankton, which combined with the massive forests which used to also convert CO2 into O2. BTW the plankton is the bottom of the oceans food chain, which many on the planet rely on for food.
Add to that the 150 year history of releasing the CO2 which had been sequestered deep in the earth in fossil fuels, and the rise of CO2 from human activity is no longer a scientific question. But one that certain economic forces sees to question for their benefit, no matter the consequences to the planet or it's inhabitants both human and non human.
But if recent developments which point to a much more interesting possibility bear fruit, the campaigns to deny AGW will also be the campaigns that doomed us all;
KILLER IN OUR MIDST
combined with
Study Says Undersea Release of Methane Is Under Way
Point to a possible future that wasn't on the radar when the IPCC was formed and is not in their conservative calculations. Yes I said conservative because neither is any feed back mechanism, which would amplify the effects of increased GHG.
So the reports they created do not reflect how reality is playing out.
Their scenario for summer time arctic melting is far too conservative to what is actually happening. Neither do they include the melting of Greenland or antarctic melt in their scenarios for what would happen to coastal sea level rise.
Interesting some would be relying on cherry picked quotes, as some sort of proof the actual science is flawed instead of addressing the actual science. It is an age old tactic which the tobacco companies used. This might be why many of the former tobacco company paid scientists are now anti-global warming scientists paid by oil corps including Exxon Mobil and Koch brothers among others.
BTW most of the supposed scientific claims they make are debunked by actual peer reviewed science or by the way history of AGW unfolds. Unfortunately as AGW unfolds the clock keep ticking, making efforts to mitigate the more unpleasant effects of AGW more real if not predestined. Those effects also mean not only could the Free-market ideology is an anachronism in an era of climate change so could the human race itself.
One of the biggest causes of this deforestation and water pollution is the livestock industry. According to the UN Agricultural report, that industry contributes more to man-made greenhouse gasses than all forms of motor transport combined.......I've been a vegetarian for 19 years, anonymous. How 'bout you?......And doesn't it bother you that Gore built his new mansion right next to the ocean and heats it entirely with fossil fuels?
No because it isn't the activity of one individual but the collective activity of major international corporations which drives AGW.
BTW the cattle industry is involved with that, IE the cattle grown in South America are more then less the underlying ingredient of the fast food burger industry.
So while people single out Al Gore who has been more right then the denier camp will ever admit, which is why they attack him so much instead of commenting on the science itself (see above). It is the science and what it points to which I am interested in.
Think globally, act locally. By going meatless for a day, you help the environment more than if you walked to work.
I guess your vegan stance is not a reaction to AGW then.
Funny you don't seem to want to address the actual science any more then rusty or Voltron do.
By their actions shows they are full fledged propagandists for the far right, you know the side which wants to deny science and the truth for corporate and political reasons.
Why do you seem to want to ignore the actual science?
Is it because science is not a one side vs the other game, so there is no non partisan position to take?
You would have to actually take a side, pro or anti-science?
Because even the best anti climate change "scientists" like Richard Lindzen, have had no more luck attacking science of Global warming for the oil corps and their political allies, than he had attacking the science of smoking diseases for the tobaccos corps and their political allies, which for some funny reasons seem to be the same politicos.
His theories fail in full peer reviews, and his attacks keep changing when the science advances and previous claims are disproved. But then again deniers cherry pick like Voltron has done, his list is probably one which the right wing passes around thinking it debunks science, instead of doing the hard work. Probably because like in the tobacco case when the actual science is done they can't stand the full scrutiny of their unsubstantiated claims.
However they have muddied the waters like they did in the eighties which delayed the full truth coming out and helping their clients the tobacco corps make larger profits for a little while longer.
Too bad delay this time might be terminal, not just locally, but globally as well, like it was during the Permiam-Triassic climate change era.
I'm old enough to remember that Newsweek cover in the 70s on the coming of the second ice age.......Look, I'm not saying that there isn't global warming, or even that there isn't a human component. And I certainly DO think that we should curtail pollution as much as possible - societally AND individually. I'm just not as sure about it (man-made climate change) as you are (most greenhouse gas, for instance, is water vapor). But, yes, I am open-minded and am willing to change my mind about this and other issues if convinced.
The Newsweek cover is NOT science.
Don't confuse what you see in the popular media with what is going on in the scientific community and reported in the scientific literature. The popular media just doesn't do a very good job of reporting all the science that is being done.
In fact it was actually a minority opinion in the 70's that the earth was cooling, but a well publicized minority opinion thanks to said cover.
An enduring popular myth suggests that in the 1970s the climate science community was predicting “global cooling” and an “imminent” ice age, an observation frequently used by those who would undermine what climate scientists say today about the prospect of global warming. A review of the literature suggests that, on the contrary, greenhouse warming even then dominated scientists' thinking as being one of the most important forces shaping Earth's climate on human time scales. More importantly than showing the falsehood of the myth, this review describes how scientists of the time built the foundation on which the cohesive enterprise of modern climate science now rests.
Link
The majority of peer reviewed science was more toward the increase of global planet temps.
Between 1965 and 1979
* 7 articles predicting cooling
* 44 predicting warming
* 20 that were neutral
Looks like the scientists unlike Newsweek predicted warming much more then cooling.
As for the H2O vs CO2 question, water is not sequestered deep in the earth the same way CO2 or Ch4 is.
Nor has humans released H2O like we have CO2 by burning fossil fuels.
Also excess H2O is eliminated from the atmosphere by natural processes which we haven't been able to undermine in the ways we have the processes that eliminated excess CO2.
PS water is recycled through the biosphere in hundred thousand year cycles at most, deep aquifer water.
The carbon we are reintroducing to the biosphere is tens if not hundreds of millions year old.
More of an impact in that one from a purely scientific standpoint.
Also water is in the atmosphere from near 0% (desert air 0% humidity) up to 4% (equatorial ocean atmosphere near 100% humidity in a hot climate), and we cannot change that density much because of the natural elimination process.
CO2 had around .035% atmospheric density around 1850, and our actions have raised this to .039% presently, which has resulted in a 1-1.5 degree raise in temperature globally, with more of this ending up at the poles and far less at temperate latitudes, because of the way the earth moves heat from the equatorial latitudes to the poles naturally. In fact it is this movement that creates our global climate and seasonal weather we all have. The raise in temperature is changing the way the climate on a global scale is working, hence the changes in weather we are currently seeing.
Also another factor which points to the CO2 heat retention is the fact the nights are getting warmer faster then the days, IE heat is being retained more than more heat is being applied.
Another factor is the fact not only is the arctic melting a little more year over year(1979-2010 averaged) with 2007 2008 and 2010 being the lowest, but the winter re-freeze each year is also lowest extent year over year. The total volume of ice is dropping more then the extent (surface area), which does not bode well for the animals which depend on some ice during the summer for their survival IE polar bears.
I think the point about Algore's house was missed.
It's not about the effect ONE individual might or might not have.
It's the fact that the climate change theories most strident proponents don't live their personal lives like THEY believe in it.
AND the comments I posted above show that to them it's MUCH MUCH more about one world government and a move to a more restrictive socialist (if not outright communist) state.
Further, history shows clearly that warmer climates are the most beneficial to mankind. Cold periods have led to much strife, starvation and plagues.
Secondly, some questions that anony-cliffy has ALWAYS failed to answer is,
A.) Just what is the global mean temperature that we're striving for?
B.)WHO gets to decide just what that temperature should be?
C.)And at what point do we say OK we fixed it?
Volt, the fact that they initially said that global warming would end snow and now they're saying that global warming is producing MORE snow - that, I'm afraid to say, is at least somewhat telling.......Maybe we should all be focusing more on a) reducing our reliance on foreign oil (through drilling AND alternative energy) and b) trying to reduce air pollution in general.
I agree Will, but without all subsidies given to either one.
Both oil AND alternative energies should be pursued vigorously and allowed to stand on their own.
Major energy companies also invest in alternative energy research and development and will make the move when it becomes profitable to do so.
Of course any company that produces a profit for its shareholders is inherently evil...
Anonymous,Clif,Col.Klink,has had the same modus operandi for years.
He scours the net for vague,little read bits of mostly useless information that match his point of view and being the king of cut and paste he posts these tdbits calling them facts.Most that read his drivel know it for what it is...his opinion and nothing more.
History shows the temperature of the planet has indeed varied,thats undeniable,some periods of time its been cooler and some warmer.The global warming fanatics worshiping at the altar of Algore are pretty typical liberals,rather then see a bigger picture they concentrate their efforts on a moment in time.
Here's the way that I see it, gents. The earth is, what, 4.5 billion years old? Homo sapiens, "we", on the other hand, are only 200,000 years old. There had to have been thousands of episodes of global warming (not to mention, ice ages) before we even got here. Now, this isn't to say that human activity CAN'T have a negative effect on the earth. Not at all. But, I think that it's also probably best to approach this whole thing with a level head, looking at cost effectiveness, etc.. Bjorn Lomborg (yes, I know that he got into some trouble once) - he seems to have the best perspective (IMO); accept global warming, but do so in a prudent, nonhysterical manner.
A.) Just what is the global mean temperature that we're striving for?
1 degree Celsius planet wide global average above the 2000 global average, anything more then feedback mechanisms kick in, and climate change becomes self sustaining like it did during the PETM period.
PS: this fits with in the IPCC goals also.
B.)WHO gets to decide just what that temperature should be?
Easy physical science, see the science of too much GHG (above 350PPm long term) creates a set of feedbacks which create a situation where both poles end up ice free with the arctic being the first to go. This results in a much higher sea level rise where the vast majority of coastal cities where almost all global trade happens end up under water not to mention the land over 1 billion people live on.
BTW this doesn't take into accounts the CH4 factor.
C.)And at what point do we say OK we fixed it?
When the arctic melt off stops and CO2 consecrations are returning to the sustainable (for modern life) of 350 PPM
Here's the way that I see it, gents. The earth is, what, 4.5 billion years old? Homo sapiens, "we", on the other hand, are only 200,000 years old.
Both comments irrelevant to the discussion of GHG and AGW because the time frames we are discussing are a decade or so time frame before the feed back mechs start to kick in and no actions realsitically would work. It really is that short a time.
There had to have been thousands of episodes of global warming (not to mention, ice ages) before we even got here.
Also irrelevant because the ENTIRE modern history of the human race exists in the Holocene. All our agriculture, culture and most of the major global trading cities depend on keep global temps with in the temps of this era.
Now, this isn't to say that human activity CAN'T have a negative effect on the earth.
We can in fact until the rise of industrialization the earth was on a long term very slow cooling period moving ever slowly closer to a possible new ice age, thousands of years in the future. Since 1750, as a whole we with our activity have reversed this trend pushing global temps back to the highest levels since the beginnings of thew Holocene.
Not at all. But, I think that it's also probably best to approach this whole thing with a level head, looking at cost effectiveness, etc..
The costs of not doing the work needed to stop runaway ice melt and the other changes (ie severe agriculture disruption) leaving the temps which we have enjoyed during the Holocene are astronomical compared to any costs to making the changes to restore the climate the entire human race has lived under.
Try moving EVERY coastal city to a higher elevation as sea level rises, let alone finding ways of recreating the large scale agriculture we need to support world populations of 7 billion and above when the weather changes rain fall patterns let alone severe weather storms rising in both intensity and durations.
Bjorn Lomborg (yes, I know that he got into some trouble once) - he seems to have the best perspective (IMO); accept global warming, but do so in a prudent, nonhysterical manner.
Nothing hysterical about accepting the truth of science, which for some reason nobody wants to actually discuss.
BTW what happened to my post in response to the Newsweek cover?
I know it posted, I checked before I logged off.
Now for some reason it is missing.
The basis of the post is Newsweek isn't science, and only 1 scientific paper quoted global cooling while over 25 quoted global warming.
It would be nice to see posts not disappear when they disproved your personal talking points.
First of all, FIRST OF ALL, I DO NOT delete comments. What could have happened to you is that blogspot screwed up and lost it. I, too, have had certain comments lost- here and elsewhere. So, let's just get that out of the way right now.......I'll be right back. I gotta go warm up my tea.
The age of the earth and the fact that there have already been thousands of episodes of global warming is most assuredly NOT immaterial. There are certain things in science called time-tied variables (some historical, some maturational). And unless you're doing a controlled experiment in which you are able to control for these variables, you cannot with certainty determine cause and effect (you do know the difference between experimental data and correlational data, right?).......And I think that we HAVE TO look at cost-effectiveness. For example, if we ended up spending trillions and trillions of dollars and were only able to lower the world's temperature by 1 degree, would not THAT have a devastating effect on the future of man, too?.....Look, I'm not necessarily saying that I disagree with you here. I'm just saying that we shouldn't go off entirely half-cocked. That's all.
I'm going to do my part today.I'm gonna get in my SUV,drive to the butcher shop,buy a few honkin bone in rib eyes,fire up the charcoal grill (never cook a steak on propane),make a pitcher of Bombay Saph martinis,cook that meat,open a bottle of red Zinfandel,eat dinner and worry about the ice pack melting.On second thought scotch that last part.
The scotch part sounds really good. As for me and dinner tonight, hm, I'll probably have a veggie burger.
Post a Comment