How Bad Is Global Warming?

Moderators: Elvis, DrVolin, Jeff

Re: How Bad Is Global Warming?

Postby Sounder » Sun Aug 24, 2014 8:37 am

Thanks Ben

A key propaganda objective is to establish the legitimacy of, and need for a large scale institutional response to a given problem. All of our ‘wars on this or that and now carbon’ serve to narrow and direct the general social consciousness into more easily manipulated reactive mind expressions while empowering multi-national corporations to feed off every nations tax base.

This is not rocket science. Be honest, who benefits from initiatives such as ‘the green revolution, the war on drugs, cancer, or terrorism. That’s right, big, big money people.

So to address Iam’s question about what is the harm in spending a good bit of money in this manner; In adopting incorrect imperatives, social ‘capital’ is wasted as the money used to fight these wars is claimed by a (well positioned) transnational corporate elite, with interests directly opposed to the common persons desire to not be required to live their lives under the boot of some very shady and abusive authority structures.

But yeah boy,- hoo we, this is quite a budget that is supporting all my climate hoaxing efforts. I’m rolling in it baby.
All these things will continue as long as coercion remains a central element of our mentality.
Sounder
 
Posts: 4054
Joined: Thu Nov 09, 2006 8:49 am
Blog: View Blog (0)

Re: How Bad Is Global Warming?

Postby DrEvil » Sun Aug 24, 2014 12:49 pm

Ben D » Sun Aug 24, 2014 1:58 am wrote:^ If you admit that skeptics are not intentional Malthusian, then it follows logically they are not pushing a Malthusian agenda...so stop saying it!


You brought it up. You stop saying it! And anyway - if it looks like a duck and quacks like a duck, maybe it is a duck.

If by the 'rich bastards', you mean the planetary ruling elite who are behind the mic, wars, enslavers and polluters of the planetary resources, etc., then yes....there are some really badass types among this crowd who use their influence in powerful organizations like the UN and other international panels to press their Malthusian agenda.

Now the Earth's population is 7 billion and growing, the material resources and energy requirements are growing to meet the ever increasing demand, the costs to the environment is likewise growing...all things being equal, given the limits of our present technology and knowledge, this can't go on forever.....clearly and naturally the ruling elite who own or have great influence over the planet's wealth and resources, the UN, and world governments, are aware of this and some are on the case.

So think about this....if present humanity's insatiable need for ever more carbon based energy could be blamed for destroying the climate of the planet and we are therefore all doomed if nothing is done...then it follows logically that the population should be reduced to a level which is sustainable and consistent with a stable climate....or at least I can see a reasonable case to be made for this.


Or we could change over to non-carbon energy. Solar, wind, geo-thermal, etc.

Now in the context of climate, what sort of purpose is there for the pro-Malthusian ruling elite types to fund skeptics whose climate science studies undermine the 'blame humans' cause of the climate change science of the UN IPCC and UN Framework on Convention on Climate Change affiliated AGW global science community? None that I can see....can you?


I answered this in my previous post. Let climate change eradicate the poor. Problem solved (from the Malthusian pov).
But I can see the purpose for them supporting a global campaign to blame climate change on humans as it serves as pretext to 'save the planet' with a global carbon tax which would raise energy costs to a level whereby the cost of living would be sufficiently high so as to make having large families financially prohibitive to the poor who form the majority of humanity...thus bringing about a step forward wrt attempts to regulate the world's human population.
"I only read American. I want my fantasy pure." - Dave
User avatar
DrEvil
 
Posts: 4144
Joined: Mon Mar 22, 2010 1:37 pm
Blog: View Blog (0)

Re: How Bad Is Global Warming?

Postby coffin_dodger » Sun Aug 24, 2014 7:08 pm

'Widespread methane leakage' from ocean floor off US coast BBC News 24 Aug 2014

Researchers say they have found more than 500 bubbling methane vents on the seafloor off the US east coast.

cont: http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-28898223


America is obliged to keep pace with Russia in every sense, it seems.
User avatar
coffin_dodger
 
Posts: 2216
Joined: Thu Jun 09, 2011 6:05 am
Location: UK
Blog: View Blog (14)

Re: How Bad Is Global Warming?

Postby Monk » Mon Aug 25, 2014 9:38 am

There is no pause in the increasing heat as it is being absorbed by the oceans.
User avatar
Monk
 
Posts: 59
Joined: Wed Mar 24, 2010 8:56 am
Blog: View Blog (0)

Re: How Bad Is Global Warming?

Postby Monk » Mon Aug 25, 2014 9:41 am

Also, it doesn't make sense for those in power to use global warming as a pretext for lowering population or profiting from renewable energy. That's because the world economy is dependent on an expanding market and on oil for manufacturing.
User avatar
Monk
 
Posts: 59
Joined: Wed Mar 24, 2010 8:56 am
Blog: View Blog (0)

Re: How Bad Is Global Warming?

Postby stillrobertpaulsen » Mon Aug 25, 2014 1:45 pm

Monk » Mon Aug 25, 2014 8:38 am wrote:There is no pause in the increasing heat as it is being absorbed by the oceans.


We can look forward to another ten years of denialists sticking their fingers in their ears shouting, "There is a pause! There is a pause!"

Global warming pause 'may last for another decade', scientists suggest

Heat is being stored deep in the Atlantic and Southern Oceans but is likely to return to the surface in a decade, triggering more warming, scientists say

Image
A new study suggests that a natural cycle of ocean currents has caused the global warming "pause" by drawing heat from shallow waters down almost a mile into the depths of the Atlantic and Southern Oceans. Photo: Tiago Fioreze/ Wikimedia Commons

By Emily Gosden, Energy Editor

7:00PM BST 21 Aug 2014

The “pause” in global warming may last another decade before surface temperatures start rising again, according to scientists who say heat is being stored in the depths of the Atlantic and Southern Oceans.

Global average surface temperatures rose rapidly from the 1970s but have been relatively stable since the late 1990s, in a trend that has been seized upon by climate sceptics who question the science of man-made warming.

Climate change scientists have proposed more than a dozen theories to explain the "hiatus", which they say is a "distraction" from the widespread consensus on global warming.

A new study, published in the journal Science, suggests that a natural cycle of ocean currents has caused the phenomenon by drawing heat from shallow waters down almost a mile into the depths of the Atlantic and Southern Oceans.

The cycle naturally produces periods of roughly 30 years in which heat is stored near the surface of the Atlantic Ocean, leading to warmer temperatures, followed by roughly 30 years in which it is stored in the depths, causing cooler surface temperatures, it suggests.

Rising surface temperatures in the last three decades of the 20th century were roughly half caused by man-made global warming and half by the ocean currents keeping more heat near the surface, it finds.

When the ocean cycle reversed around the turn of the century, drawing heat down into the depths, this served to counteract the effects of man-made global warming.

"When the internal variability that is responsible for the current hiatus switches sign, as it inevitably will, another episode of accelerated global warming should ensue," the study concludes.

Prof Ka-Kit Tung of the University of Washington, one of the report's authors, said: "Historically the cool period lasted 20 to 35 years. The current period already lasted 15 years, so roughly there [are] 10 more years to go."

But he said that other impacts of climate change could upset the cycle, which is caused by variation in the salinity of the water as denser, saltier water sinks.

Prof Tung said the study's findings were a surprise because previous studies had suggested it was the Pacific Ocean that was "the culprit for hiding heat".

"The data are quite convincing and they show otherwise," he said.

Prof Piers Forster, professor of climate change at the University of Leeds, said the paper was "another a nail in the coffin of the idea that the hiatus is evidence that our projections of long term climate change need revising down".

"Variability in the ocean will not affect long-term climate trends but may mean we have a period of accelerated warming to look forward to," he said.

Prof Richard Allan, professor of climate science at the University of Reading, said: "Although it is human nature to seek a single cause for notable events, in reality the complexity of the climate system means that there is not one simple explanation for a decade of unusual climatic conditions.
User avatar
stillrobertpaulsen
 
Posts: 2414
Joined: Wed Jan 14, 2009 2:43 pm
Location: Gone baby gone
Blog: View Blog (37)

Re: How Bad Is Global Warming?

Postby Ben D » Mon Aug 25, 2014 5:36 pm

Monk » Mon Aug 25, 2014 11:38 pm wrote:There is no pause in the increasing heat as it is being absorbed by the oceans.

Monk....that is wrong...the observed global temperature measurement records prove that there has been no increased in global heat.

The claim that the AGW heat that was otherwise expected by the UN IPCC computer model predictions went into the oceans is not an observed fact..merely theory...it has not been verified by measurement....you see the difference?

AGW claims about why the pause, and AGW computer models predictions, are not the same thing as observed fact such as the pause in increase in heat.
There is That which was not born, nor created, nor evolved. If it were not so, there would never be any refuge from being born, or created, or evolving. That is the end of suffering. That is God**.

** or Nirvana, Allah, Brahman, Tao, etc...
User avatar
Ben D
 
Posts: 2005
Joined: Sun Aug 12, 2007 8:10 pm
Location: Australia
Blog: View Blog (3)

Re: How Bad Is Global Warming?

Postby Ben D » Mon Aug 25, 2014 5:48 pm

Monk » Mon Aug 25, 2014 11:41 pm wrote:Also, it doesn't make sense for those in power to use global warming as a pretext for lowering population or profiting from renewable energy. That's because the world economy is dependent on an expanding market and on oil for manufacturing.

So you think that the PTB think like you, and do not take the peak oil projections seriously.....rather they think there is enough oil in the ground to supply the world's ever expanding market for the foreseeable future?
There is That which was not born, nor created, nor evolved. If it were not so, there would never be any refuge from being born, or created, or evolving. That is the end of suffering. That is God**.

** or Nirvana, Allah, Brahman, Tao, etc...
User avatar
Ben D
 
Posts: 2005
Joined: Sun Aug 12, 2007 8:10 pm
Location: Australia
Blog: View Blog (3)

Re: How Bad Is Global Warming?

Postby Sounder » Mon Aug 25, 2014 6:15 pm

It’s a pity people choose to engage with thought stopper labels, oh well.

In any case I am not a ‘denier’. My position is simple; it is that there is no intention of ‘curing’ anything via institutionally motivated means. No, that interest is to distract people away from the many factors that must be addressed if humans are to create a society based on dignity rather than coercion. Multi-nationals do much worse than emit carbon as they ‘shop’ the world for secure bases that facilitate their abusive practices.

The number one imperative of the planet fuckers is to tie the allegiance of large segments of the population to institutional structures. When that is accomplished they can fuck away all they want.

But they are good liars, so ya gotta give them that.

Multi-nationals have always been the designed for benificiary from these (constant) social salvation projects. Look at the record and be honest. AGW is no different.

Quite simply, the institutions (and the thinking) that got us into this mess do not have the standing or the ability to provide necessary solutions.
All these things will continue as long as coercion remains a central element of our mentality.
Sounder
 
Posts: 4054
Joined: Thu Nov 09, 2006 8:49 am
Blog: View Blog (0)

Re: How Bad Is Global Warming?

Postby Ben D » Mon Aug 25, 2014 9:04 pm

^ ....that's one of the most curious things...there is practically a consensus here on RI about the corrupt nature of the pervasive power of the PTB....finance, military industrial complex, invasion of privacy, war mongering, etc.,....yet when it comes to the PTB's UN organization, whose IPCC panel first reported in 1990 that humans were contributing to global warming, and whose later reports saw humans as the predominant cause......wherein AGW became settled science according to the PTB and their well funded climate science organizations, well before normal due process of time for real free flowing scientific discussion and debate among all scientists interested in climate took place....resulting in AGW climate science skeptics being locked out of climate science grants, being labeled deniers, accused of being shills of big oil, etc......many RI members accept unquestioningly the announcements of the PTB's funded UN IPCC and of global AGW climate science organizations that the science is settled.
There is That which was not born, nor created, nor evolved. If it were not so, there would never be any refuge from being born, or created, or evolving. That is the end of suffering. That is God**.

** or Nirvana, Allah, Brahman, Tao, etc...
User avatar
Ben D
 
Posts: 2005
Joined: Sun Aug 12, 2007 8:10 pm
Location: Australia
Blog: View Blog (3)

Re: How Bad Is Global Warming?

Postby Monk » Mon Aug 25, 2014 9:54 pm

Ben D » Mon Aug 25, 2014 10:36 pm wrote:Monk....that is wrong...the observed global temperature measurement records prove that there has been no increased in global heat.

The claim that the AGW heat that was otherwise expected by the UN IPCC computer model predictions went into the oceans is not an observed fact..merely theory...it has not been verified by measurement....you see the difference?

AGW claims about why the pause, and AGW computer models predictions, are not the same thing as observed fact such as the pause in increase in heat.


It is not wrong because oceans are absorbing the heat, but AGW has been measuring only atmospheric temperature. That means there has been no pause in the heat increase:

http://www.skepticalscience.com/graphics.php?g=65

Computer models cannot predict pauses because they use math formulas. Even then, the long-term trend shows increased heat:

http://www.skepticalscience.com/graphics.php?g=47
User avatar
Monk
 
Posts: 59
Joined: Wed Mar 24, 2010 8:56 am
Blog: View Blog (0)

Re: How Bad Is Global Warming?

Postby Monk » Mon Aug 25, 2014 9:55 pm

Ben D » Mon Aug 25, 2014 10:48 pm wrote:So you think that the PTB think like you, and do not take the peak oil projections seriously.....rather they think there is enough oil in the ground to supply the world's ever expanding market for the foreseeable future?


Why else would the notional value of global unregulated derivatives reach hundreds of trillions of dollars?
User avatar
Monk
 
Posts: 59
Joined: Wed Mar 24, 2010 8:56 am
Blog: View Blog (0)

Re: How Bad Is Global Warming?

Postby Monk » Mon Aug 25, 2014 9:59 pm

Ben D » Tue Aug 26, 2014 2:04 am wrote:^ ....that's one of the most curious things...there is practically a consensus here on RI about the corrupt nature of the pervasive power of the PTB....finance, military industrial complex, invasion of privacy, war mongering, etc.,....yet when it comes to the PTB's UN organization, whose IPCC panel first reported in 1990 that humans were contributing to global warming, and whose later reports saw humans as the predominant cause......wherein AGW became settled science according to the PTB and their well funded climate science organizations, well before normal due process of time for real free flowing scientific discussion and debate among all scientists interested in climate took place....resulting in AGW climate science skeptics being locked out of climate science grants, being labeled deniers, accused of being shills of big oil, etc......many RI members accept unquestioningly the announcements of the PTB's funded UN IPCC and of global AGW climate science organizations that the science is settled.


Due to the complexity of the issue, there will be no conclusive results. That's why those in power have not agreed on cutting emissions. There is simply to much money involved in ensuring that business continues as normal.

However, there is also peak oil, which is why more are now forced to look at other sources of energy. It will not matter, though, as the effects of AGW will continue.
User avatar
Monk
 
Posts: 59
Joined: Wed Mar 24, 2010 8:56 am
Blog: View Blog (0)

Re: How Bad Is Global Warming?

Postby Ben D » Mon Aug 25, 2014 10:46 pm

Monk » Tue Aug 26, 2014 11:55 am wrote:
Ben D » Mon Aug 25, 2014 10:48 pm wrote:So you think that the PTB think like you, and do not take the peak oil projections seriously.....rather they think there is enough oil in the ground to supply the world's ever expanding market for the foreseeable future?


Why else would the notional value of global unregulated derivatives reach hundreds of trillions of dollars?

^ Well monk, I am not an expert in derivatives but as I understand. it is a form of gambling....there will be winners and losers when a particular bubble bursts, but the game as a whole goes on...and the insiders mosty win on average. AGW is a good example...if as the article above about the pause lasting another 10 years is on the money, or if a cooling trend develops, AGW climate science will be totally debunked and all the scientists who staked their professional future on it will be put out to pasture (btw, they already know this which is why they are making up so many excuses, over 30 on present count, as to the present pause,...their financial and professional future is at stake...they gambled)...and the winners will laugh all the way to the bank, hundreds of billions, perhaps a trillion has already been spent and much much more in the pipeline, it is their pockets as long as they can keep it going....the losers are the taxpayers who are coughing up this money to combat an human caused increase in global warming that isn't happening...and the rich get richer!
There is That which was not born, nor created, nor evolved. If it were not so, there would never be any refuge from being born, or created, or evolving. That is the end of suffering. That is God**.

** or Nirvana, Allah, Brahman, Tao, etc...
User avatar
Ben D
 
Posts: 2005
Joined: Sun Aug 12, 2007 8:10 pm
Location: Australia
Blog: View Blog (3)

Re: How Bad Is Global Warming?

Postby Ben D » Mon Aug 25, 2014 11:11 pm

Monk » Tue Aug 26, 2014 11:54 am wrote:
Ben D » Mon Aug 25, 2014 10:36 pm wrote:Monk....that is wrong...the observed global temperature measurement records prove that there has been no increased in global heat.

The claim that the AGW heat that was otherwise expected by the UN IPCC computer model predictions went into the oceans is not an observed fact..merely theory...it has not been verified by measurement....you see the difference?

AGW claims about why the pause, and AGW computer models predictions, are not the same thing as observed fact such as the pause in increase in heat.


It is not wrong because oceans are absorbing the heat, but AGW has been measuring only atmospheric temperature. That means there has been no pause in the heat increase:

http://www.skepticalscience.com/graphics.php?g=65

Computer models cannot predict pauses because they use math formulas. Even then, the long-term trend shows increased heat:

http://www.skepticalscience.com/graphics.php?g=47

Monk..we know the global atmospheric temperature because it has been measured...but we don't know how much heat the oceans have absorbed because it can't be measured. It is only claimed as a theoretical possibility that unmeasured heat went into the ocean......

Did you hear the one about the AGW scientist explaining the reason for the pause to the skeptic...."The ocean ate my global warming"!

Sorry Monk...this is nonsense " Computer models cannot predict pauses because they use math formulas. Even then, the long-term trend shows increased heat". :rofl:

Monk..all climate computer models use math formulas, that is their basis!

Monk.. your "Even then, the long-term trend shows increased heat" is a computer derived mathematical projection of future heat...it is not real heat as observed in reality!

It is the math in the computer model that didn't predict the pause that predicted the long term trend of increased heat that is not happening....the pause continues unabated...

Monk, if you are seriously interested in climate science...don't ever take anything from SkS at face value...think about it....my explanations to you are logically sound. If you think not..please in your own words, not links, try and debunk it.
Last edited by Ben D on Tue Aug 26, 2014 12:00 am, edited 3 times in total.
There is That which was not born, nor created, nor evolved. If it were not so, there would never be any refuge from being born, or created, or evolving. That is the end of suffering. That is God**.

** or Nirvana, Allah, Brahman, Tao, etc...
User avatar
Ben D
 
Posts: 2005
Joined: Sun Aug 12, 2007 8:10 pm
Location: Australia
Blog: View Blog (3)

PreviousNext

Return to General Discussion

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 166 guests