Climate Change: Hoax/Real? Depends on YOUR Source

[SSDD]

Well, if this is regarding politics, both sides exaggerate for benefit. No doubt there. But only was side represents specious argument--the one that denies mankind needs to reevaluate how we approach production and consumption.

We demand so many pigs that their piss and waste alone is ruining certain local areas in Virgina (Smithfield) and NC among others. US hog farm pollution threatens human health and the environment - The Scavenger

In 1995, a 120,000-square-foot hog cesspool lagoon released over 25 million gallons of crap into the headwaters of North Carolina’s New River. It took months to reach the ocean and killed millions of fish and unknown numbers of water mammals unfortunate enough to be in the contaminated river.

In 1999 Hurricane Floyd caused so much flooding in Eastern North Carolina that it is estimated that well over 120 million gallons of hog waste made its way into the rivers, and out to the sea. It carried with it tens of thousands of drowned pigs, and killed unknown millions of fish.

Nitrate-nitrogen from the hog cesspools continues to leak into ground water. This is a major problem because the chemical causes methemoglobinemia, a disease that hampers the ability of the blood to absorb oxygen. It can be particularly lethal to infants who drink contaminated water.

Again, the AGW hoax continues to suck all of the air out of the room; effectively eliminating the possibility of seriously discussing, and addressing the genuine environmental problems that we are facing.

 

[Abraham3]

AGW has a much wider footprint, in area and time, than do hog waste issues.

 

[gnarlylove]

the possibility of seriously discussing, and addressing the genuine environmental problems that we are facing.

Let's open it up: name one genuine environmental problem that you are concerned about...

ALL solutions to environmental problems include changing how we do business. Business as usual is the problem (resource extraction and production, even consumption and waste). Climate change advocates denounce business as usual to a degree and want to replace it with a more sustainable plan.

To avoid changing human conduct in general towards more sustainable actions is to simply kick the can down the road...it's still gonna be there. We are courting danger if we think we can ignore how our growth and production is regularly damaging the biosphere. Do you agree? or do you have a different solution to "genuine environmental problems?"

 

[Old Rocks]

One of the things that I love is music that reflects the culture and history of areas. This song from Newfoundland demonstrates that very thing that gnarly love is talking about, the degradation of the environment by man to the detriment of man.

[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-CsMLHliliE]Newfoundland-If Old Boats Could Talk - YouTube[/ame]

At some point there is going to be songs concerning our destruciton of a benevolent climate.

 

[Luddly Neddite]

 

[flacaltenn]

Many climate change skeptics and advocates believe each other's sources are wrong. With such an impasse, deniers point to the fact they "are winning the debate." But having the majority opinion does not make it correct. Many instances of bad science like Flat Earth and Geocentric ideas were widespread but undoubtedly false in hindsight. I'm not saying climate change skeptics are wrong per se, just that pointing to majority opinion is a non-argument riddled with fallacy and disease.

It's not that all climate change sources are wrong buddy pal -- it's because there are are all over the map with estimates that CAN'T all be right. And that's because the science lacks FOCUS on understanding the workings of the Earth's Climate. Way too much focus on Global Averaging Everydamnthing to advance human knowledge on how heat transfer affects the regions of globe and ACTUALLY CHANGES weather.

And we constantly see ludicrous sweeping assertions following research efforts like paleostudies of climate that are SHEER speculation not backed by the ability of trees, and mudbugs and icecores to measure..

The cascade of bad science based on these broad estimate ranges and silly focus on "averages" actually HINDERS better understanding of climate systems..

 

[flacaltenn]

The tropospheric hot spot is predicted by all the major climate models.

And is observed. Try to stay up to date.

Sorry, but it isn't. There was an attempt to equate wind to a hot spot, but that was laughted out of existence quite quickly.



So you are denying all that peer reviewed science published in main stream journals that said there would be less outgoing LW radiation at the ToA? Interesting. And you have never said Abraham was wrong when he wrongly claimed less LW at the ToA.



That hasn't decreased either. Sorry that you are so terribly misinformed.

That it why I posted the Spectral Analysis graph of the LR radiation a day or so ago.. I HOPED one of you yahoos would catch the importance of WHERE the absorption bands where and how they were changing. We need to see MORE of that to settle that issue..

 

[flacaltenn]

Cute.. Actually one of my local radio guys has MADE that popular documentary that folks are watching. It's called "An Inconsistent Truth".. Out on DVD now.. Has great moments of truth in there -- but too much emphasis on countering the Goron for my liking..

 

[gnarlylove]

And we constantly see ludicrous sweeping assertions following research efforts like paleostudies of climate that are SHEER speculation not backed by the ability of trees, and mudbugs and icecores to measure..

The cascade of bad science based on these broad estimate ranges and silly focus on "averages" actually HINDERS better understanding of climate systems..

You cast doubt on a variety of topics but this doesn't mean we don't have a good understanding of how mankind is majorly degrading our planet on many fronts. You need to admit our sources are not the same and you and I both hold an expressed bias for what we seek in a quality source. I want to get over the dispute about carbon and get you to recognize our very measurable impact.

You never address that business as usual is undeniably causing a strain on the environment, killing organisms regularly and even effecting the health and economic well being of Americans and indeed citizens around the globe. Especially China's 'factory distract' with some 300 factories in a region: waterways are bubbling with white foam and pungent air quality. No one sensibly denies this impacts the biosphere in a very negative way.

Indeed. Mankind has been shown populous enough to damage ecosystems and there's hardly a place on land mankind hasn't mapped, plaqued and moved on. Our impact is real and undeniable and yet you won't comment. This will obviously have an increasing effect the planet as populations demand more: it's a matter of reevaluating business as usual and recognizing the value of natural capital.

Just like NYTimes post about Coke and Nike, this is real and you need to stop casting doubt on something that is only part of the issue. The whole issue is rather clear: the excessive degradation of the planet as humanity increases demand. We need to fundamentally rethink our strategies. Your denial is unhelpful and prevents solutions, signifying a clog in the system, to be expected in bureaucratic system where propaganda in the billions are spent to convince everyone to worry about short term profits and well being. Forget the obvious degradation that is leading to greater issues with the environment and has the potential to grind whole economies to a halt.

 

[flacaltenn]

And we constantly see ludicrous sweeping assertions following research efforts like paleostudies of climate that are SHEER speculation not backed by the ability of trees, and mudbugs and icecores to measure..

The cascade of bad science based on these broad estimate ranges and silly focus on "averages" actually HINDERS better understanding of climate systems..

You cast doubt on a variety of topics but this doesn't mean we don't have a good understanding of how mankind is majorly degrading our planet on many fronts. You need to admit our sources are not the same and you and I both hold an expressed bias for what we seek in a quality source. I want to get over the dispute about carbon and get you to recognize our very measurable impact.

You never address that business as usual is undeniably causing a strain on the environment, killing organisms regularly and even effecting the health and economic well being of Americans and indeed citizens around the globe. Especially China's 'factory distract' with some 300 factories in a region: waterways are bubbling with white foam and pungent air quality. No one sensibly denies this impacts the biosphere in a very negative way.

Indeed. Mankind has been shown populous enough to damage ecosystems and there's hardly a place on land mankind hasn't mapped, plaqued and moved on. Our impact is real and undeniable and yet you won't comment. This will obviously have an increasing effect the planet as populations demand more: it's a matter of reevaluating business as usual and recognizing the value of natural capital.

Just like NYTimes post about Coke and Nike, this is real and you need to stop casting doubt on something that is only part of the issue. The whole issue is rather clear: the excessive degradation of the planet as humanity increases demand. We need to fundamentally rethink our strategies. Your denial is unhelpful and prevents solutions, signifying a clog in the system, to be expected in bureaucratic system where propaganda in the billions are spent to convince everyone to worry about short term profits and well being. Forget the obvious degradation that is leading to greater issues with the environment and has the potential to grind whole economies to a halt.

Each issue has it's own merit.. You put up a post on a REAL pollution issue and test me. I've been appalled by floating islands of garbage in the Pacific, melting barrels of nuclear weapons waste, bad land mgt practices, etc.. And that's just THIS MONTH...

You just THINK because I'm skeptical about AGW --- I couldn't possibly be YOUR KIND of environmentalist.. Obviously NOT your kind.. But nonetheless, prepare to have your assessment of me rocked as we go along here. If this tar pit of AGW wasn't so damn huge, we'd actually have other things to discuss.

One at time bud..

 

[Abraham3]

If that tar pit of AGW wasn't so huge. Got that right. Do any of your other environmental issues have AGW's global scope? Will any of them cost as much to fix? Will any of them take as long a commitment? And how do you think concern about AGW is preventing other issues from being addressed? Does reducing our carbon footprint make any other environmental issue worse? I'll tell you what it does. It will reduce oil and coal company profits and it will piss off staunch conservatives. THAT's the harm of dealing with AGW.

 

[mamooth]

Sorry, but it isn't. There was an attempt to equate wind to a hot spot, but that was laughted out of existence quite quickly.

I'm aware that the denialist liars' cult claims such a thing. It's just unfortunate for them that no one else on the planet does. You really ought to step outside of your reality-distortion-bubble occasionally.

So you are denying all that peer reviewed science published in main stream journals that said there would be less outgoing LW radiation at the ToA?

Yep. I'm saying you tried hard to bullshit us and failed. That's why you didn't link to any of those sources. Or you just made them up. I mean, "Angstrom (1900)"?. Riiiiiight. Yeah, you looked at that one. The one accurate source you gave, the Skeptical Science quote, you lied about. It said longwave decreases in the greenhouse gas absorption bands, yet you claimed it said all longwave decreases.

You didn't lie initially. You just made a stupid error. But now that you refuse to admit the error, you have definitely crossed the line into deliberate dishonesty. You'd have done better to simply admit the error, instead of digging yourself in deeper.

That hasn't decreased either. Sorry that you are so terribly misinformed.

Facts are fatal to your bullshit cult, hence you're forced to call them a conspiracy. This is basic stuff, old science. From Harries 2001

Increases in greenhouse forcing inferred from the outgoing longwave radiation spectra of the Earth in 1970 and 1997 : Abstract : Nature

What is observed is record amounts of Antarctic ice...

And again, you try pretending sea ice (increasing) and land ice (decreasing) are the same thing. That's pathetic in the lameness of the attempted dishonesty.

 

[gnarlylove]

Each issue has it's own merit.. You put up a post on a REAL pollution issue and test me. I've been appalled by floating islands of garbage in the Pacific...

That is a perfectly good one. It starts with the extraction of petroleum. As it is transported and then mixed and melted down into plastic pellets (nerddles) and sold to bottling companies. Then companies like Nestle put Public Works water in their bottle (no joke). So exactly what we drink from our city tap, but they are smart enough to market free water to us that obviously has detrimental effect even at sea and among marine life. Of course it's a lot more than plastic water bottles, but what applies to the whole, applies here: take action

We can see how inter-connected our growth is to environmental degradation. Not making plastic more readily recyclable AND changing consumer waste habits and perhaps spending habits too is risky. Stalling action in a single link of the chain casuses any significant response impossible. So from every level of business, bank, government and to each consumer we need to address the role we play.

But with constant denial of man's affect of CO2, some get confused with not having to take action at all. Indeed, deniers seem to have an arrogant aura about burning excess oil and rubber.

This calls for unity, not manufactured division of intellectual disagreements. I think you mentioned saving the Rhino. If that's all you do, that's good but it lacks the scale needed to address widening environmental concerns. As long as consumers continue to consume like we are and have the same attitude towards eternal growth and expansion, we are going to collapse the world economy. We are too inter-dependent for the US or China or someone to fall without dragging the rest down as seen when Leeman Bros went under in the world market.

So you don't have to be a tree-hugger to agree human activity is going sour. We need better strategies to cope with the pop. growth and demand for resources, land etc. This involves putting aside interminable differences and address in a very real way the various ways in which business, government, capitalism and consumption/human attitude has led to this disregard for natural capital. I think we both know the source for such widespread degradation is money. As companies grow, so does their footprint.

There are some fundamental issues that demand immediate attention. Ignoring human activity is not an option anymore, we are too large.

 

[SSDD]

the possibility of seriously discussing, and addressing the genuine environmental problems that we are facing.

Let's open it up: name one genuine environmental problem that you are concerned about...

Illegal dumping. Personally, I would like to see fines for such dumping raised to the stratosphere...to a level where a single instance of illegal dumping would bankrupt the responsible company....zero tolerance.

There are literally hundreds, if not thousands of issues that need immediate attention, but again, the AGW hoax sucks all the oxygen out of the room making serious discussion of anything impossible without AGW being injected into the conversation.

 

[SSDD]

If that tar pit of AGW wasn't so huge. Got that right. Do any of your other environmental issues have AGW's global scope? Will any of them cost as much to fix? Will any of them take as long a commitment? And how do you think concern about AGW is preventing other issues from being addressed? Does reducing our carbon footprint make any other environmental issue worse? I'll tell you what it does. It will reduce oil and coal company profits and it will piss off staunch conservatives. THAT's the harm of dealing with AGW.

AGW is a fraud and no less than mother nature herself is out to prove it much to our detriment as cold is the real killer.

Tell me smart guy, what is the optimum temperature for life on this planet? What temperature should we be shooting for?

 

[HelenaHandbag]

the possibility of seriously discussing, and addressing the genuine environmental problems that we are facing.

Let's open it up: name one genuine environmental problem that you are concerned about...

Military bases with large stores of decaying munitions.

Cleanup of numerous arsenals, such as Oak Ridge.

Cleanup of the environmental train wreck that is the TVA.

Detecting a pattern here?

The Worst Polluter on Earth Is... The U.S. Federal Government

 

[flacaltenn]

GnarlyOne... Up to you bud.. You started this thread..

If you'd rather do another topic -- and push a different cause --- have at it..
Abraham doesn't think that AGW has sucked the ever-living-daylights out of enviro causes..

But this forum is PROOF that it has.. I'd say a floating pile of garbage in the Pacific the size of Texas is something we should address BEFORE it ends up in Long Beach harbor.. THAT gets maybe a dozen posts.. Polling climate scientists gets THOUSANDS...

 

[flacaltenn]

Facts are fatal to your bullshit cult, hence you're forced to call them a conspiracy. This is basic stuff, old science. From Harries 2001

Increases in greenhouse forcing inferred from the outgoing longwave radiation spectra of the Earth in 1970 and 1997 : Abstract : Nature

There's a problem here.. The chart you posted is the right idea for resolving it..
But it comes from skepticalscience and has been CLEANED of pertinent info that I posted in the original chart..

Important to look at the trend line for these "fingerprints".. And what I see there is taken out of context and could be another SkS crayon job..

 

[SSDD]

Facts are fatal to your bullshit cult, hence you're forced to call them a conspiracy. This is basic stuff, old science. From Harries 2001

Increases in greenhouse forcing inferred from the outgoing longwave radiation spectra of the Earth in 1970 and 1997 : Abstract : Nature

There's a problem here.. The chart you posted is the right idea for resolving it..
But it comes from skepticalscience and has been CLEANED of pertinent info that I posted in the original chart..

Important to look at the trend line for these "fingerprints".. And what I see there is taken out of context and could be another SkS crayon job..

Yeah, the original, prior to the SS clean up showed actual OLR, the's model predictions, and the difference between the two if I remember correctly. As I recall, the graphs from the earlier years, looked just like the graphs from later years....no visible difference....evidence that the CO2 absorption bands were already full in the 70s. Funny thing is that mamooth thinks she debunked something with that bit of fraud.

 

[gnarlylove]

FCT, I definitely think we should take our discussion into a productive territory. That has been my goal all along.

You think human activity is inadequate to produce global climate change, hence your routine denial. Fine. We don't need to bring it up, as I tried to argue it's a matter of sources, not facts but I already tried that route and I lost yet again. I am better off agreeing with you on global warming and DO. That is, only if we agree that humanity is destroying the planet in very real ways and that the methods for growing humanity are indeed the underlying problems behind environmental degradation. This degradation cannot continue indefinitely. Either way, sounds like humanity needs a pinch to wake up out of the fog of constant denial.

I'd say a floating pile of garbage in the Pacific the size of Texas is something we should address BEFORE it ends up in Long Beach harbor..

When you go to visit this garbage ball, what you find is a soup of plastics that leach 80x times more chemicals and peteroleum than surrounding water. Take that into account when the marine life ingest it. As it enters the body it is difficult to pass and often remains in the fish till death. This is a problem all the way thru the food chain including us (http://www.algalita.org/uploads/Pla...orousfishesintheNorthPacificCentralGyre-1.pdf). The plastic bits outnumber the plankton by 6 to 1 from samples of water take different days. The reason we should address this is not because it has the potential to wash ashore and invade precious coastal regions. Rather humanity is the cause. No one else is to blame. No one else can address it but us. It's only growing and only we cause it. The Earth can and will address it but by first becoming less inhabitable before becoming hospitable for growth like we see in our species.

The AGW argument that humanity is fucking itself in the asshole rings true in every environmental breach. Our way of doing business is to fuck ourselves in the ass. It worked ok back in the 1800s and as we've grown and become highly consumerist in the 21st century, we have totally lost touch with nature. Indeed, humans of this era have the loosest ass flaps on recorded, fitting whole boots up our ass. This includes the loosest mouth flaps to date as well where it mimics the 'mud hole' by producing lotsa ass gas, hot air.

So my point is quit our bitching and take action. Demand evaluation our our approach to resource extraction and consumption, this includes our actions (e.g. using Borax instead of harmful detergents for laundry). Continuing to dismiss this potentially huge snowball will result in shortages and environmental issues unparalleled in previous centuries. Deniers need to stop denying and admit the obvious: humanity is straining the planet and this cannot continue indefinitely as we reach 9 billion peeps by 2050. Unfortunately denial is up during natural seasonal changes so we can expect stifling till mid-spring.