Destructive Power of the Media- the end of reason.

Keshav said:

#4 Don't take yourself too seriously.

Click to expand...

I have to, no one else does.

Keshav said:

#4 Don't take yourself too seriously.

Click to expand...

I have to, no one else does.

stiefel said:

I have to, no one else does.

Click to expand...

I agree.

Bunyip said:

Yamaka, you are an ...... You have failed to do as I requested and as you said you would do. You do as every less qualified ..... does, is quote articles that reinforrce your own pre-conceived opinions. Not the scientific process.



I can,t help you if you are so keen to be a lemming. Over the cliff you go......................................................



No wonder humanity is doomed................

Click to expand...

Hmm, preconceived opinions. That'll be you then.



I have no need to "do as you requested" - I have spent the last 4 years reading up on this subject, papers from both sides, and am still doing so and learning interesting things along the way.



I quoted no articles, I gave no links, neither for or against my case. It appears you can not even manage to parse my words without confirmation bias creeping in (he doesn't believe therefore he must be an .....) let alone read and digest any scientific papers on the subject.



You claim to understand the scientific process - as I queried above, what precise part of that do you think you understand better than I? Just because you feel that you are less qualified than others to study the science (as opposed to the activism) why should I stop studying it and leave that to the "experts"?



If your doctor tells you that you must take some tablet (for whatever illness/reason), do you blindly believe or do you study the science (as it currently stands) behind his reasoning and decide whether it is the correct answer for you? In the dim & distant past I was prescribed beta-blockers for migranes (I was only 19 and the internet didn't exist then!) I tried them for 24 hours and then flushed the rest down the loo as the effects on me were abominable, and I'd rather have the migranes (which turned out to be an allergy to yoghurt as I found by trial and error). With the advent of the internet, I read up on what beta-blockers actually do and decided that it was a bloody good job that I'd stopped taking them. This type of thing tends to colour your view of the world and its "experts".



That is the difference between you & I - self education is not a bad thing, but most are too used to "experts" telling them what to do to practice it.

stiefel said:

I have to, no one else does.

Click to expand...

Watch out Bro - I hear a chorus of "Lean on me" coming your way.

michaelm said:

It is entirely obvious that the climate has changed in the past without human agency, sometimes quite markedly, and even in almost historic times in terms of the involvement of land bridges in the spread of humanity.



There doesn't seem to be much doubt that CO2 levels are going up though, and the fossil fuel burning component may be only 5% a year but that adds up after a few years when not part of the previous balance, or not for 70 million years anyway, and conditions then whilst good for dinosaurs and cycads might not be so good for modern species. Whether the CO2 will change the climate and if it does how important an influence it would have in comparison to other factors is the question as far as global warming goes, I guess, and maybe it will just ward off the next ice age. The pH of the sea going down by -0.1 which I have seen reported is a worry from a biological perspective though.

Click to expand...

I don't know if you realise, but the equation for the pH of an aqueous solution is logarithmic and defined as pH = -log[ H+ ] (H+ being the hydrogen ion concentration). There are 14 orders of magnitude that define the pH scale from zero to fourteen units as per this equation. So a movement of 0.1 units towards acidity over the last century is actually 0.1/14 or only 7/10ths of 1%.



Since the natural variation of ocean pH can be up to 5% in either direction, I'd say this was not something to get too worried about, but it is the way that this type of thing gets reported that scares people.



The change in pH is from 8.2 nominal to 8.1 nominal and, regardless of the fact that it is such a small change and the current nominal is nowhere near neutral pH, let alone acidity, this is commonly referred to in the MSM as "ocean acidification".

Keshav said:

Watch out Bro - I hear a chorus of "Lean on me" coming your way.

Click to expand...

Hey, that is a beatiful song with lots of hidden meaning:



Sometimes in our lives

We all have pain

We all have sorrow

But if we are wise

We know that there's always tomorrow



Lean on me, when you're not strong

And I'll be your friend

I'll help you carry on

For it won't be long

'Til I'm gonna need

Somebody to lean on



Please swallow your pride

If I have things you need to borrow

For no one can fill those of your needs

That you won't let show

You just call on me brother, when you need a hand (Chorus)

We all need somebody to lean on

I just might have a problem that you'd understand

We all need somebody to lean on





If there is a load you have to bear

That you can't carry

I'm right up the road

I'll share your load

If you just call me

stiefel said:

Hey, that is a beatiful song with lots of hidden meaning:



Sometimes in our lives

We all have pain

We all have sorrow

But if we are wise

We know that there's always tomorrow



Lean on me, when you're not strong

And I'll be your friend

I'll help you carry on

For it won't be long

'Til I'm gonna need

Somebody to lean on



Please swallow your pride

If I have things you need to borrow

For no one can fill those of your needs

That you won't let show

You just call on me brother, when you need a hand (Chorus)

We all need somebody to lean on

I just might have a problem that you'd understand

We all need somebody to lean on





If there is a load you have to bear

That you can't carry

I'm right up the road

I'll share your load

If you just call me

Click to expand...

Might have known this would have special appeal for Mr. Death From Behind.

chopperman said:

I agree.

Click to expand...

+1

yamaka46 said:

I don't know if you realise, but the equation for the pH of an aqueous solution is logarithmic and defined as pH = -log[ H+ ] (H+ being the hydrogen ion concentration). There are 14 orders of magnitude that define the pH scale from zero to fourteen units as per this equation. So a movement of 0.1 units towards acidity over the last century is actually 0.1/14 or only 7/10ths of 1%.



Since the natural variation of ocean pH can be up to 5% in either direction, I'd say this was not something to get too worried about, but it is the way that this type of thing gets reported that scares people.



The change in pH is from 8.2 nominal to 8.1 nominal and, regardless of the fact that it is such a small change and the current nominal is nowhere near neutral pH, let alone acidity, this is commonly referred to in the MSM as "ocean acidification".

Click to expand...

Yes I am familiar with basic physical chemistry and with biochemistry. My niece who has a first class honours degree in chemistry, a PhD in organic chemistry and papers published in very major scientific journals gets asked about this all the time and recognising the political implications won't be drawn on the question of whether and how much or how quickly atmospheric carbon dioxide at such low concentrations with such a volume of dilution might change pH.



Arterial blood pH which is around 7.40 is maintained in a narrow range though, and a change of -0.1 would be quite significant; a pH of 7.30 is considered acidotic, and a pH of 6.9 is life threatening and likely to interfere with cardiac function, and is seen other than in cardiac arrest situations only in such things as severe diabetic ketoacidosis. The concentrations of CO2 involved are orders of magnitude different of course, and tolerating acidity or alkalinity in the external environment is different.



I always respect what you say and you have obviously looked at the question in some detail from a scientific perspective; I have gone from being a complete sceptic to being agnostic on the global warming aspect, but I do wonder whether being an atheist on the issue is necessarily less extreme than being an evangelist.



As j4rno says a return to a neolithic level of technology will kill far more people more quickly than even the worst predictions of global warming, but burning all the fossil fuel (and it does seem to be "fossil" fuel) will also achieve that end eventually anyway if we don't develop alternatives while we have the resources to do so (always assuming alternatives can be developed; it may be the case that it is similar to developing ducati motogp bikes).

The amount of CO2 we've dumped into the air is a reasonable match for the current excess. It's pretty basic: Burning X gigatons of coal, oil, gas, and wood will produce N gigatons of CO2. The processes, biological and geological, that remove the gas from the atmosphere and ocean operate rather slowly, and they cannot keep up with the spike of CO2 we've generated. Compared to natural processes, humans contribute a relatively small amount each year but, after so many decades the gas builds up - it has nowhere else to go. Atmospheric CO2 levels are climbing rapidly and will soon reach double their pre-industrial levels.



Exactly what effect this extra gas will have on the weather/climate is, of course, open to all manner of merry dispute. Will this cause the Earth to fry? Will it affect the average temperature of Earth at all? There are so many models and theories flying about that it's tempting to throw the whole mess in the "BS Bin." I think that would be a mistake.



This is not to say that I agree with all the hype and hoopla and political crap that has resulted from GW. Carbon taxes, etc. are folly, if only because developing 2nd/3rd-world countries will tell the West to .... off if we try to dictate their emissions. Fossil fuels are cheap and easy to exploit, and I think most reserves will get used eventually by one country or another. IF increased CO2 does indeed drive significant GW (and FAR worse, changes in precipitation patterns) we will soon know all about it.



At any rate, it seems to me that that something is already afoot.... Anyone who denies that out climate has warmed over the last half century needs to look at some data. Here's a good site, with vast stores of temperature records to peruse.



http://www.wrcc.dri.edu/coopmap/



I picked some sites at random, aiming to avoid any cities of significance in order to minimize 'heat island' effects, such as those seen at the Phoenix Airport.

Open the two images in new tabs and blink back and forth. It's kinda hard to ignore the jumping lines.

http://www.wrcc.dri....liF30.pl?az6481

http://www.wrcc.dri....02010.pl?az6481





Moving away from the urban sprawl, the warming effect is reduced, but it is still quite apparent.



Roosevelt Lake (Rural, mountains in Az.)

http://www.wrcc.dri....liF30.pl?az7281

http://www.wrcc.dri....02010.pl?az7281



Santa Rita Ranch. Grassy rangeland, 40 miles S. of Tucson. (100% Rural)

http://www.wrcc.dri....liF30.pl?az7593

http://www.wrcc.dri....02010.pl?az7593





Tennessee does GW too! Must be that ....... wood stove of yours, Pov!



Lewisburg, TN

http://www.wrcc.dri....liF30.pl?tn5187

http://www.wrcc.dri....02010.pl?tn5187



Dresden, Tn

http://www.wrcc.dri....liF30.pl?tn2600

http://www.wrcc.dri....02010.pl?tn2600



And Wyoming



Yellowstone Lake

http://www.wrcc.dri....liF30.pl?wy5345

http://www.wrcc.dri....iMAIN.pl?wy5345



Yellostone, Mammoth.

http://www.wrcc.dri....liF30.pl?wy9905

http://www.wrcc.dri....02010.pl?wy9905



And the Left Coast.



Cachuma Lake, Ca

http://www.wrcc.dri....liF30.pl?ca1253

http://www.wrcc.dri....02010.pl?ca1253



Pac NW.



Halfway up Mt. Rainier

http://www.wrcc.dri....liF30.pl?wa6898

http://www.wrcc.dri....02010.pl?wa6898



Etc.



I did not cherry pick these in any way. The only criteria were that the weather station be reasonably remote and that they have temperature data. Feel free to find more stations and compare. I think you'll find that 90+% of them show a clear warming trend over the last few decades.



Or you can order another case of Renyolds Wrap, extra thick.

[media][url="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SCs-_4c6Kd0[/url][/media]

[media]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SCs-_4c6Kd0[/media]

Geo : No-one apart from some complete fruit loops (and apparently 2 of the 77 Climate Scientists in the "97%" thing) believes that temps have not risen since the 1850's when records began, but at the end of the day we have been coming out of an Ice Age and global temps (if that can be said to mean anything, really) have not risen in 15 years.



MichaelM : sorry, wasn't trying to be patronising and agree that 0.1 in blood is a serious worry, but the natural variation in the oceans throughout a day, let alone a year swamps the increase in pH at the moment.

yamaka46 said:

yeaGeo : No-one apart from some complete fruit loops (and apparently 2 of the 77 Climate Scientists in the "97%" thing) believes that temps have not risen since the 1850's when records began, but at the end of the day we have been coming out of an Ice Age and global temps (if that can be said to mean anything, really) have not risen in 15rs.



MichaelM : sorry, wasn't trying to be patronising

and agree that 0.1 in blood is a serious worry, but the natural variation in the oceans throughout a day, let alone a year swamps the increase in pH at the moment.

Click to expand...

Some say we are going back into another ice age. When you look at these records that started in 1850 the thing that strikes me as strange is there is no spike during or after the industrial revolution and the world wars when so called green house gasses were being pumped out to the max.

We pollute our own habitats but i don't believe we are heating up or cooling down the planet. What ever its doing is natural. The planet and its environment has been changing since the planet was formed and will continue to do so. The day that stops is the day where living on a dead planet.

Chop, a few Civil War era steam trains puffing coal are NOTHING compared to today's global energy usage. Max emissions have almost certainly occurred within the last decade.



Also, I just cannot begin to fathom the indestructible mental block that so many people have. How can they admit that the climate may indeed be changing, yet also stubbornly insist that humans could not possibly have anything whatsoever to do with it?

Geonerd said:

Chop, a few Civil War era steam trains puffing coal are NOTHING compared to today's global energy usage. Max emissions have almost certainly occurred within the last decade.



Also, I just cannot begin to fathom the indestructible mental block that so many people have. How can they admit that the climate may indeed be changing, yet also stubbornly insist that humans could not possibly have anything whatsoever to do with it?

Click to expand...

You compare the Industrial revolution and WW2 when half the world was on fire to a few American civil war steam trains?