The Great Global Cooling/Warming Thread

[Slybacon]

A group of more than 100 scientists and experts say in a new report that California faces the risk of a massive "superstorm" that could flood a quarter of the state's homes and cause $300 billion to $400 billion in damage. Researchers point out that the potential scale of destruction in this storm scenario is four or five times the amount of damage that could be wrought by a major earthquake.

It sounds like the plot of an apocalyptic action movie, but scientists with the U.S. Geological Survey warned federal and state emergency officials that California's geological history shows such "superstorms" have happened in the past, and should be added to the long list of natural disasters to worry about in the Golden State.

The threat of a cataclysmic California storm has been dormant for the past 150 years. Geological Survey director Marcia K. McNutt told the New York Times that a 300-mile stretch of the Central Valley was inundated from 1861-62. The floods were so bad that the state capital had to be moved to San Francisco, and Governor Leland Stanford had to take a rowboat to his own inauguration, the report notes. Even larger storms happened in past centuries, over the dates 212, 440, 603, 1029, 1418, and 1605, according to geological evidence.

The risk is gathering momentum now, scientists say, due to rising temperatures in the atmosphere, which has generally made weather patterns more volatile.

The scientists built a model that showed a storm could last for more than 40 days and dump 10 feet of water on the state. The storm would be goaded on by an "atmospheric river" that would move water "at the same rate as 50 Mississippis discharging water into the Gulf of Mexico," according to the AP. Winds could reach 125 miles per hour, and landslides could compound the damage, the report notes.

Such a superstorm is hypothetical but not improbable, climate researchers warn. "We think this event happens once every 100 or 200 years or so, which puts it in the same category as our big San Andreas earthquakes," Geological Survey scientist Lucy Jones said in a press release.

Federal and state emergency management officials convened a conference about emergency preparations for possible superstorms last week. You can read the whole report here

U.S.C. 15 Chapter 9a: WEATHER MODIFICATION ACTIVITIES OR ATTEMPTS; REPORTING REQUIREMENT 02/01/2010

Can also check out NOAA form 17-4:Initial Report on Weather Modification Activities; though the one I found expired in 2007.

Another point to note is Public Law 92-205 & 94-460 (which amends 92-205): only non-federal parties are required to report weather modification activities. So what exactly does the Federal Government do in the area of weather modification?????

Some people claim there is no such thing as weather modification.... I would ask them if that were true, then why the need for the above?????

There are several other laws, rules, regulations that have been established regarding weather modification, which if I had the time I'd post them.

From the Flood Thread......

Govt defends $10m grant for untested rain-making technology

The World Today - Wednesday, 24 October , 2007 12:36:00

Reporter: Tanya Nolan

http://www.abc.net.a...07/s2069159.htm

ELEANOR HALL: The Federal Government is defending its decision to award $10-million to a company to trial rain-making technology.

The Environment Minister Malcolm Turnbull has announced the grant to the Australian Rain Corporation, a company part-owned by Rupert Murdoch's nephew, Matt Handbury.

But researchers commissioned by the National Water Commission to investigate the technology have questioned whether the $10-million grant should have been awarded now, saying a more careful evaluation of the science is needed first.

Mr Handbury himself agrees the science is in no way conclusive, but denies his family connections have helped him secure the federal money.

Tanya Nolan has our report.

TANYA NOLAN: It's a technique developed in Russia in the last decade, and it involves sending electrical charges into the atmosphere to make clouds and ultimately rain.

But the problem with it, says Neville Fletcher, a visiting fellow at ANU and emeritus professor of physics at the University of New England, is that it hasn't ever been examined in a thorough scientific way, nor has it been peer reviewed.

NEVILLE FLETCHER: I haven't seen yet enough evidence to say that I'm persuaded that it's going to work. The measurements in Queensland showed that there was more rain in the catchment area than there usually was when the equipment was running. But there was a lot more rain in that part of Queensland at that time as well. So it's a little bit hard to say. It didn't show that the equipment worked, but there was nothing to indicate that it didn't work. So it was a possible.

TANYA NOLAN: Professor Fletcher's conclusions are contained in a report released in August, prepared in conjunction with Ken McCracken from the CSIRO and commissioned by the Government's National Water Commission.

The report warned the commission not to go ahead with any trials of the technology until the science behind it could be more thoroughly tested. But it did say that if it could be done "at no great expense" a trial could be "worthwhile".

The report was produced after a small-scale trial of the technology was conducted in May in conjunction with the University of Queensland, which concluded there was an increase in rainfall at the time and recommended more scientific testing be done.

Environment Minister Malcolm Turnbull has now awarded $10-million to the Australian Rain Corporation, which owns the technology, to conduct a full scientific trial of it.

MALCOLM TURNBULL: The report commissioned by the National Water Commission recommended a further scientific trial. The University of Queensland went a lot further than that and recommended a very substantial long-term operational trial as well, which would have cost a great deal more than $10-million.

What I've endeavoured to do is to ensure that we do, we have both a meaningful operational trial and a scientific assessment so that we can investigate this technology in a timely fashion.

TANYA NOLAN: Professor Fletcher says the money would be better spent in stages, rather than funding all the stages simultaneously as the Government is doing.

NEVILLE FLETCHER: My preference would have been first to spend a smaller amount of money doing a careful evaluation of the science, and then, if that looked reasonable, to go onto a field trial. The trouble with jumping in immediately with a field trial in parallel with the science is that the science may turn up things which indicate the field trial ought to be done in a different way.

TANYA NOLAN: Professor Fletcher's view is supported by the water commissioner, Peter Cullen, who is quoted in the News Limited press as saying he is surprised the full $10-million has been awarded before the first step is taken of seriously evaluating the technology.

Chairman of Australian Rain Corporation Matt Handbury says he appreciates that argument, and agrees there are some holes in the science.

MATT HANDBURY: I can understand that logic, but as I said, even when you've worked out the science, how it works, we still wouldn't have demonstrated that it works, and the need for water supplies is so critical in Australia.

TANYA NOLAN: You're name has come up in connection with your uncle, Rupert Murdoch, as possibly a reason why you might be getting all this money at once without the rigorous scientific testing?

MATT HANDBURY: Oh, I haven't heard that Tanya. I think I don't seem to be able to get my name in the paper without my family connections, which I'm proud of and delighted in, but I don't see how… Rupert's aware of this, he's pretty interested in the environment and climate change at the moment, and very interested, but he has no direct involvement, and…

TANYA NOLAN: You don't think your family connection may have precipitated this $10-million windfall for your technology?

MATT HANDBURY: Not in the slightest. I think that… not in the slightest, I can't see the connection.

ELEANOR HALL: The chairman of the Australian Rain Corporation, also the nephew of Rupert Murdoch, Matt Handbury, speaking to Tanya Nolan.

[WoodDragon]

So the fact that some of the water released into Brisbane was captured in the rain in the months prior to the flood is of no significance? That walls of water were created by the sudden dumping of the dam in emergency mode did not contribute to the extra water?

Bacon, I don't think that you're getting what I'm saying.

What I'm saying is exactly that the rain captured in the months prior to the flood is of significance. The dam captured it and held it back, and then when a stonking great volume of rain came pissing down there was no room left in the dam to hold it all back. Some water was released from the dam to stop it from being over-stressed, but more water was held back than would have flowed straight to Brisbane. But if the dam had been emptied of old water before the rain, then much more of the water could have been held back. The dam reduced the amount of flood water reaching Brisbane - it it had been emptied beforehand it would have reduced the flood levels even more.

Whether it could have been forseen with sufficient time to actually release enough water is a different question, and not germane to the matter of the cause of the flood.

The term flood has been around for alot longer then Global Warming, and the once in a 200 year flood ussually indicates that nature has been here before... And will most likely go there again, with or without our help.

The science quite explicitly says that such events will have happened in the past. The thing is, in the past they would have been infrequent. The frequency of extreme events such as this is increasing, because the effect of global warming is being superimposed upon what would otherwise be less severe events. The result is that what was a 1 in 200 event before the Industrial Revolution will be a 1 in 100, or 1 in 50, or a 1 in 20 year event in a warmer world.

It's simple (or not so simple) physics.

[Slybacon]

Source

Weather modification program set to grow

Posted Thu Aug 12, 2010 3:05pm AEST

There is a push to expand the cloud seeding program in the NSW Snowy Mountains across the state borders.

Snowy Hydro has asked the NSW Government to allow the experiment to become permanent.

Snowy Hydro says its six year trial has increased snowfalls by 14 per cent.

Snowy's scientific officer Shane Belish says the program has the potential to significantly increase water flows into the catchment.

"Over the original smaller target area, if we were to operate in an operational phase we may expect in the order of 40 gigalitres per year," he said.

"Now that we've more than doubled the target area, we'd naturally expect a greater volume than that.

"There's a lot of potential for cloud seeding over the wider region, not just the roughly 2,000 square kilometres that Snowy Hydro currently targets."

Mr Belish says there has been some interest expressed from the ACT and Victoria.

"We would imagine that based on the positive results that we've received, there would be interest in expanding over a wider area," he said.

[Slybacon]

The science quite explicitly says that such events will have happened in the past. The thing is, in the past they would have been infrequent. The frequency of extreme events such as this is increasing, because the effect of global warming is being superimposed upon what would otherwise be less severe events. The result is that what was a 1 in 200 event before the Industrial Revolution will be a 1 in 100, or 1 in 50, or a 1 in 20 year event in a warmer world.

It's simple (or not so simple) physics.

 

Could Information Technology and reporting have anything to do with this....

[Slybacon]

Snapshot

1.

Torrential rain, floods in Rio leave 58 dead - Jan 12

2.

18 die in floods, mudslides in Sri Lanka - Jan 12

3. Brazil government says 100,000 displaced by floods - Dec 9

4. Australia floods larger than France strand 200,000 - Dec 31 <-- How many Floods has Australia had ???

5. BBC News - Floods force mass evacuations in Queensland, Australia - Dec 30

6. Australia PM urges help for 'unprecedented' floods - Dec 30

7. Philippine Flash floods left 2 dead, thousands evacuated - Dec 30

8. Widespread flooding reported across region; Qualcomm Stadium flooded; Corona airport submerged - Dec 22

9. NB flood damage 'beyond imagination'- Alward - Dec 19

10. Major winter storm hits Hawaii. Flash flood watches across entire state - Dec 19

11. Snow, floods hit France, Scotland, Spain - Dec 9 Oct 24 2000 they had really bad flooding !

12. Panama Canal closes because of flooding - Dec 9 This has not happened in 21 years!

13.

State of emergency declared across Massive flood zone in NSW and Queensland Australia - Dec 3

14.

Massive flooding leaves deadly trail of destruction in Venezuela - Dec 2

15.

State of emergency declared in 3 Balkan nations after worst flooding in over 100 years - Dec 2

16.

Floods affect 1.2 million Colombians, more rains forecast - Nov 19

17.

Red Cross UK Urges South East Residents to Prepare for Floods - Nov 19

18.

Sri Lanka floods force up to 300,000 from their homes - Nov 11

19.

8 million effected as Flooding Hurts Harvests in Thailand, Philippines - Nov 8 2010 8 million in Thailand now effected due to floods and this Typhoon = The Thai floods spread to 51 provinces over the past month, leaving 165 dead and affecting at least 7.6 million residents,

20.

Typhoon Megi leaves massive destruction with 200,000 homeless - Oct 20 Major Flooding !

21.

Flooding on eastern Greek islands leaves 2 dead, damages homes and ... - Oct 19

22.

UN - 377 dead in west and central African floods, 1.5 million affected - Oct 20 2010

23.

Super Typhoon Megi slams Philippines.. 140,000 evacuated as China braces for storm's arrival; Vietnam and Thailand hit by flooding - Oct 18

24.

Pakistan floods affect 20 million - Oct 14

25.

Bangladesh storms make nearly half million homeless - Oct 10 Another Flood and again not a natural event !

26.

Open flood gates displace 2 million in Nigeria - Sept 27 2 million out of home again due to floods... again it's flooding !!!

27.

Heavy rains spark big floods over Central America - Sept 27

I bet all of these area's would have reports of chemtrails....

Edited January 19, 2011 by Slybacon

[hutch]

Bacon, I don't think that you're getting what I'm saying.

What I'm saying is exactly that the rain captured in the months prior to the flood is of significance. The dam captured it and held it back, and then when a stonking great volume of rain came pissing down there was no room left in the dam to hold it all back. Some water was released from the dam to stop it from being over-stressed, but more water was held back than would have flowed straight to Brisbane. But if the dam had been emptied of old water before the rain, then much more of the water could have been held back. The dam reduced the amount of flood water reaching Brisbane - it it had been emptied beforehand it would have reduced the flood levels even more.

Whether it could have been forseen with sufficient time to actually release enough water is a different question, and not germane to the matter of the cause of the flood.

The science quite explicitly says that such events will have happened in the past. The thing is, in the past they would have been infrequent. The frequency of extreme events such as this is increasing, because the effect of global warming is being superimposed upon what would otherwise be less severe events. The result is that what was a 1 in 200 event before the Industrial Revolution will be a 1 in 100, or 1 in 50, or a 1 in 20 year event in a warmer world.

It's simple (or not so simple) physics.

 

Woody I haven't got the time to go through all your links just at the moment but warm in the knowledge that I will....I have noticed so many glaring contradictions coming from you in the last couple of days...

You really did step over the line when you blamed climate warming on these floods and now you are back peddling as fast as you can trying to squirm away from it...

Don't worry but cause I won't loose that quote....quoted you today....you have really amused a few with that gem of intelligence....

[WoodDragon]

Bacon.

I have limited training in scientific method and some of which I felt was complete garbage. To form my beliefs and opinions on a limited data set and give up money or personal freedoms based on someones intellectual analysis of that data set feels dangerous to me

See, this is where a lot of the problem is.

If you have "limited training in scientific method" then how are you able to decide what is "complete garbage"? The fact is that you can't, objectively. The reality is embedded in the second half of your comment - "[t]o... give up money or personal freedoms based on someones intellectual analysis of that data set feels dangerous to me".

I understand the desire to oppose the loss of money or of freedoms. Heck, I'm breaking my arse to try to stop the government trying to ban just about every useful plant that we grow. The thing is, the government's move to schedule just about every green thing in Australia is not based on science, where the calls to address climate change are so based.

What's more important for you, though, is that at some point in the future there will be no doubt about the fact of global warming, or of the fact that we are causing it. By then it will be too late to do anything about it that is cheap, or that does not involve wholesale loss of freedoms. It will also be too late to do anything about what's already been set in train, but if nothing is done done the track then your kids and grandkids won't even know what money and personal freedoms are.

If society had done something about this 20 or 30 years ago, when the first serious warnings were coming, by now fossil fuels would be a minor part of our economy, and we'd probably all be better off than we are, and with more technology and with no less freedoms.

It's a bit like a person not taking out fire insurance until after his house burns down, because it's going to cost him money...

We would still need to take someone elses data as truth. Either that or run our own experiments. Have you yourself done this? Can you provide us with data you have collected your self? Or at least been involved in?

I'm an ecologist, and my work is involved in how species use their environments. My work, and that of my ecological colleagues, shows that plant and anima species are shifting their ranges and their phenologies as climate changes. Simple as that.

If you want data, whether it is phenological data or climatological data, go to your local uni libray and open a journal. It's there in black and white. Heck, a huge wad of it can be found with google scholar, because many papers these days aren't even behind paywalls.

Bacon, get out there and research for yourself. I don't mean reading conspiracy sites, or lobby sites, I mean read the actual papers coming out. If you don't understand something that you read there, pick up a text book and learn the background.

If you want instant answers, well, shit mate, I've been trying to link to sites that give them, with links back to the primary literature. Seriously, what are you looking for?

If you want to talk face to face with someone who does ecological work, of climatological work, so that you can believe the science, go to your local uni and knock on the door of a scientist's office. If you ask earnestly enough, they'll be happy to try to help with whatever problem it is that you have in believing that scientists actually understand what they're doing.

I'm happy to talk specifics with you, and I've twice posted a series of questions that were structured to find out where you, or anyone else who doesn't accept the science, disagrees with it. Use those questions and focus on specifics. This wholesale cutting and pasting from sources with no scientific credibility serves you no benefit, and it's jsut wasting my time.

{Edit:

I'm happy to contiue answering serious questions about the science, but I am not going to be further drawn into nonsense that has no basis in objectivity. Hutch is especially good at coming up with this sort of garbage.

I am much more concerned about dealing with the idiots in Canberra who are trying to take away our rights to grow plants that are not threats to society, so I will have little time for the next few months to spare on the silliness that has been characteristic of some of the arguments here. Please, if anyone things that they've found in their latest edition of Playboy or Extreme Hunting an exposé of the Global Scientific Conspiracy Fraud, do your own fact checking first instead of forcing me to show why it's crap.]

Edited January 19, 2011 by WoodDragon

[WoodDragon]

Woody I haven't got the time to go through all your links just at the moment but warm in the knowledge that I will....I have noticed so many glaring contradictions coming from you in the last couple of days...

You have to be joking.

I've hammered more of your canards, tropes and misadventures in science than I could begin to count, and you think that I am putting up contradictions?

What's that word?

I... id...?

You really did step over the line when you blamed climate warming on these floods and now you are back peddling as fast as you can trying to squirm away from it...

Learn to parse hutch, and then try again. And dude, whatever I personally think about the floods (and yes, I reckon that their effect was enhanced by global warming), it doesn't change the fact of global warming.

Why is it that you cannot explain in a paragraph or two why there is no global warming?

Huh?

[Slybacon]

If you want instant answers, well, shit mate, I've been trying to link to sites that give them, with links back to the primary literature. Seriously, what are you looking for?

If you want to talk face to face with someone who does ecological work, of climatological work, so that you can believe the science, go to your local uni and knock on the door of a scientist's office. If you ask earnestly enough, they'll be happy to try to help with whatever problem it is that you have in believing that scientists actually understand what they're doing.

 

I'm some what religious not in the sense of following any strict doctrine but enough to feel science doesn't explain everything. I'm very much one of those people that feel beliefs dictate reality. If you want answers bad enough you will find them..... I've made things come true. I've refrained from adding my religious views to this topic but whats to say they are any less valid then a scientific standpoint? Science seems to have no room for my beliefs as they are not measurable and to me only seems to move us further away from understanding god. Hence my stubbornness to accept scientific fact.

[hutch]

It will also be too late to do anything about what's already been set in train, but if nothing is done done the track then your kids and grandkids won't even know what money and personal freedoms are.

Come on Woody...reminds of the Krudd and the think about Gracie or what ever....Oh please...don't bother with scare tactics!

I'm an ecologist, and my work is involved in how species use their environments. My work, and that of my ecological colleagues, shows that plant and anima species are shifting their ranges and their phenologies as climate changes. Simple as that.

 

Brilliant! Just what they have been doing for millions of years...what did these poor creatures do throughout earths history when temps were higher, when temps were colder? When volcanoes were blocking out the sun as they spewed more carbon and crap into the atmosphere than we ever have. Call it adaption or call it evolution...how many species have evolved because of what mother earth has thrown at them? It is silly in my mind to think that we believe WE can play god. Ignorant little mortals we are...

[Slybacon]

Can I ask you a question WD.....

Do you think it is healthy to view our species as a destructive ulcer on the planet?,

Do you think that without the guidance of an intellectual scientific community we would meet our end in global climate disaster?

[synchromesh]

The New "Skeptical Science" Website: What is Going On Here?

Latest In-Depth Tree Ring Analysis Refutes The Infamous Mann/IPCC 'Hockey Stick'

Rare self-rolling giant snow balls found in UK

 

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IzG5HkaVMBE

Oh My! 2010 tied for 'hottest' year?! Relax, it is 'purely a political statement' -- Even NASA's Hansen admits it is 'not particularly important' -- Prof. mocks 'hottest decade' claim as 'a joke'

Australian govt is considering renaming 'climate change' to 'climate challenges'

Greenwashed Corporatism is Still Corporatism

Senators target Cuccinelli's UVa probe

 

 

Baby girl survives after being shot in the chest in parents' 'global warming suicide pact'

[hutch]

[quote name=synchromesh' timestamp='1295426152' post='286221

Baby girl survives after being shot in the chest in parents' 'global warming suicide pact'

 

What in the hell will people do in the name of this new religion.....I know they were obviously mentally unbalanced in the first place but if they keep pushing the horror stories out what do you expect....It is almost criminal

[hutch]

The New "Skeptical Science" Website: What is Going On Here?

Latest In-Depth Tree Ring Analysis Refutes The Infamous Mann/IPCC 'Hockey Stick'

Rare self-rolling giant snow balls found in UK

 

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IzG5HkaVMBE

Oh My! 2010 tied for 'hottest' year?! Relax, it is 'purely a political statement' -- Even NASA's Hansen admits it is 'not particularly important' -- Prof. mocks 'hottest decade' claim as 'a joke'

Australian govt is considering renaming 'climate change' to 'climate challenges'

Greenwashed Corporatism is Still Corporatism

Senators target Cuccinelli's UVa probe

 

 

Baby girl survives after being shot in the chest in parents' 'global warming suicide pact'

 

It blows me away at how tied up in this fraud is the Meeeedga......"Climate Challenges"..for fuck sake....life is a fucking challenge...Climate just is..Get used to it like we have been doing forever till these alarmists were overly funded to come to a predetermined answer.

[Slybacon]

 

 

 

Golden Satanic, hardly.......

Edited January 19, 2011 by Slybacon

[hutch]

I'm happy to contiue answering serious questions about the science, but I am not going to be further drawn into nonsense that has no basis in objectivity. Hutch is especially good at coming up with this sort of garbage.

I am much more concerned about dealing with the idiots in Canberra who are trying to take away our rights to grow plants that are not threats to society, so I will have little time for the next few months to spare on the silliness that has been characteristic of some of the arguments here. Please, if anyone things that they've found in their latest edition of Playboy or Extreme Hunting an exposé of the Global Scientific Conspiracy Fraud, do your own fact checking first instead of forcing me to show why it's crap.]

Why did you slip this in as an edit...would have missed it if I didn't go back.......Suddenly not being hailed a hero so you will take your bat and ball and go home....fine, but I will continue on with the challenge you basically set for me with your insults....

You created me! You and your condescending and insulting nonsense in your links...Most don't click on them after time but I have....

[hutch]

I'm happy to contiue answering serious questions about the science, but I am not going to be further drawn into nonsense that has no basis in objectivity. Hutch is especially good at coming up with this sort of garbage.

I am much more concerned about dealing with the idiots in Canberra who are trying to take away our rights to grow plants that are not threats to society, so I will have little time for the next few months to spare on the silliness that has been characteristic of some of the arguments here. Please, if anyone things that they've found in their latest edition of Playboy or Extreme Hunting an exposé of the Global Scientific Conspiracy Fraud, do your own fact checking first instead of forcing me to show why it's crap.]

My wife just called it good...your running out of links

[WoodDragon]

Bacon.

Science seems to have no room for my beliefs as they are not measurable and to me only seems to move us further away from understanding god. Hence my stubbornness to accept scientific fact.

Belief and faith in a religious context are a different thing to belief and faith in science. The former operates without empirical proof, and the latter with such proof. Science is not intended for the understanding of God, because, by human definition, God is supernatural, and science only studies the natural.

Many people find conflict between their beliefs in God on the one hand, with what science says, on the other. Many people refused to believe that the world was spherical, for this reason. It didn't mean that science was wrong, it simply meant that their understanding of the universe had become too limited for a simplistic faith.

But this is the stuff for priests and philosophers. I can't discuss science in this context: if the fundamental premises of science are wrong, they need to be demonstrated to be wrong, and not simply taken to be so because it conflicts with articles of religious faith.

Otherwise the Earth really would be flat.

Do you think it is healthy to view our species as a destructive ulcer on the planet?

The question presupposes that our species actually is "a destructive ulcer on the planet". Frankly, there are many examples of our species not destroying its environment, so the question is rendered moot.

If you want my best answer though, I would couch it thus: many organisms, in the dynamic equilibrium of evolution, find themselves in a context where they subsume the resources of the ecosystem in which they find themselves. Consider a bird species that flies to an island, or myxoma virus in Eurpean rabbits. The first wave of colonisation results in a heavy toll on the ecosystem - island, or rabbit physiology - in which they are establishing. The individuals that cause the greatest damage tend to die out, leaving more benign decendants. In island birds species these decendants are nearly always much smaller individuals, which do not overcrowd their niches. In rabbits, it's a myxoma virus that only makes its host sick, rather than killing it.

Humans will either learn to ameliorate their impact on the planet, or they'll fuck it up for their decendants. If the latter option is followed, and if luck goes humanity's way, some may soldier on in a way that is kinder to what is left of the rest of the ecology. If the latter option is followed and the resultant the shock to the global ecosystems is sufficiently great, then maybe the collapsing Western cultures may even take unknown New Guinean tribes with them.

It's just how it is. It has nothing to do with uclers, beyond the subjective value that we as humans place on ourselves and our environment. I value humanity, but I don't have a very high opinion of unsustainable Western exploitation of the environment.

Do you think that without the guidance of an intellectual scientific community we would meet our end in global climate disaster?

No, without the "guidance of an intellectual scientific community" we would not have a technological society. We would be agrarian, and we would die from TB and plague and measles and polio and any number of other diseases. But we would not have a "global climate disaster", because the tools to drive our hyper-charged economic activity would not exist.

Science is amoral. It does not guide; not in an active sense. It only discovers. It is up to society itself to put those discoveries to good, or to not so good, use. Science discovered how to use fossil fuels and internal combustion engines. It discovered how to release energy from the atom. Science is a powerful analytical methodology - the best we have - but it doesn't tell us what to do.

Only our governments tell us what to do. They can take the best advice, and the best advice of science says that

1) if you emit too much CO2 you'll warm the planet, and

2) if you warm the planet too much you start knocking off parts of our global ecosystem functions and our biodiverity, and

3) if you knock off too many parts of our global ecosystem functions and our biodiverity, you'll compromise humanity's ability to thrive and to prosper.

That's it. Science, if it guides at all, simply guides passively by telling us what are the choices in our use of scientific discoveries.

It is humanity's wisdom (or lack thereof) that guides us directly.

Edited January 19, 2011 by WoodDragon

[hutch]

Bacon.

Belief and faith in a religious context are a different thing to belief and faith in science. The former operates without empirical proof, and the latter with such proof. Science is not intended for the understanding of God, because, by human definition, God is supernatural, and science only studies the natural.

Many people find conflict between their beliefs in God on the one hand, with what science says, on the other. Many people refused to believe that the world was spherical, for this reason. It didn't mean that science was wrong, it simply meant that their understanding of the universe had become too limited for a simplistic faith.

But this is the stuff for priests and philosophers. I can't discuss science in this context: if the fundamental premises of science are wrong, they need to be demonstrated to be wrong, and not simply taken to be so because it conflicts with articles of religious faith.

Otherwise the Earth really would be flat.

The question presupposes that our species actually is "a destructive ulcer on the planet". Frankly, there are many examples of our species not destroying its environment, so the question is rendered moot.

If you want my best answer though, I would couch it thus: many organisms, in the dynamic equilibrium of evolution, find themselves in a context where they subsume the resources of the ecosystem in which they find themselves. Consider a bird species that flies to an island, or myxoma virus in Eurpean rabbits. The first wave of colonisation results in a heavy toll on the ecosystem - island, or rabbit physiology - in which they are establishing. The individuals that cause the greatest damage tend to die out, leaving more benign decendants. In island birds species these decendants are nearly always much smaller individuals, which do not overcrowd their niches. In rabbits, it's a myxoma virus that only makes its host sick, rather than killing it.

Humans will either learn to ameliorate their impact on the planet, or they'll fuck it up for their decendants. If the latter option is followed, and if luck goes humanity's way, some may soldier on in a way that is kinder to what is left of the rest of the ecology. If the latter option is followed and the resultant the shock to the global ecosystems is sufficiently great, then maybe the collapsing Western cultures may even take unknown New Guinean tribes with them.

It's just how it is. It has nothing to do with uclers, beyond the subjective value that we as humans place on ourselves and our environment. I value humanity, but I don't have a very high opinion of unsustainable Western exploitation of the environment.

No, without the "guidance of an intellectual scientific community" we would not have a technological society. We would be agrarian, and we would die from TB and plague and measles and polio and any number of other diseases. But we would not have a "global climate disaster", because the tools to drive our hyper-charged economic activity would not exist.

Science is amoral. It does not guide; not in an active sense. It only discovers. It is up to society itself to put those discoveries to good, or to not so good, use. Science discovered how to use fossil fuels and internal combustion engines. It discovered how to release energy from the atom. Science is a powerful analytical methodology - the best we have - but it doesn't tell us what to do.

Only our governments tell us what to do. They can take the best advice, and the best advice of science says that

1) if you emit too much CO2 you'll warm the planet, and

2) if you warm the planet too much you start knocking off parts of our global ecosystem functions and our biodiverity, and

3) if you knock off too many parts of our global ecosystem functions and our biodiverity, you'll compromise humanity's ability to thrive and to prosper.

That's it. Science, if it guides at all, simply guides passively by telling us what are the choices in our use of scientific discoveries.

It is humanity's wisdom (or lack thereof) that guides us directly.

 

Maybe we should start a thread about things science got wrong? Why do I read this so often in one form or another every where " It is the best science of the day" How many times are those "best scientists of the day" proven so wrong so often?...should we start another thread highlighting them here? How many examples could be so easily brought up of when scientists and elitists have got it so wrong.... The science gets trashed by poor scientists who are chasing big money! Simple as that..They are supported by those who love fluffy animals

[WoodDragon]

Brilliant! Just what they have been doing for millions of years...what did these poor creatures do throughout earths history when temps were higher, when temps were colder? When volcanoes were blocking out the sun as they spewed more carbon and crap into the atmosphere than we ever have. Call it adaption or call it evolution...how many species have evolved because of what mother earth has thrown at them? It is silly in my mind to think that we believe WE can play god. Ignorant little mortals we are...

I'm a biologist Hutch - you don't need to explain evolution to me.

The simple point is that environmental shock can result in the extinction of species that would have otherwise survived. Rapidly changing climates are one such shock. Human warming of the planet is changing climate faster than any of the natural cyclical processes that the Earth encounters over time, to the point where what we are doing rivals the impact of stochastic events such as the asteroid that wiped out the dinosaurs. Look at this graph:

Many ecologists who work in the field think that we as a species would be in grave trouble if we push the current human-caused extinction event past around 20%, due to the collapse of ecosytem services upon which our complex Western society relies. At the rate we are going, and if we permit the planet to continue warming as it is, we'll be well past 20% by the end of the century.

The planet will recover of course, but I doubt that humans will be able to sit on their fingers for the approximately 1-10 million year it would take for ecosystem services to re-evolve.

What in the hell will people do in the name of this new religion.....I know they were obviously mentally unbalanced in the first place but if they keep pushing the horror stories out what do you expect....It is almost criminal

What crazy people do is tabloid fodder, and a problem of education. It isn't science.

Have I mentioned yet the logical fallacy of poisoning the well? Huh?

Oh, and I've addressed the hockeystick nonsense before.

It ain't broken.

Why did you slip this in as an edit...would have missed it if I didn't go back.......Suddenly not being hailed a hero so you will take your bat and ball and go home....fine, but I will continue on with the challenge you basically set for me with your insults....

Nothing sinister Hutch. I meant to type it before I clicked post, but I was trying to catch up with so many posts that I forgot until I proofed my own after submitting it. I included it as an edit because I wanted everyone to know that I didn't slip it in and pretend that it had always been there.

You can stop taking the paranoid pills now.

You created me! You and your condescending and insulting nonsense in your links...

Hutch, you've always been what you are. If you can't tolerate being told that you're wrong, to the point that you're being idiotic about holding on to your wrongness, that's your issue.

If you believe that you are correct you will answer my questions regarding where it is that you stop agreeing with the science. There's no point telling me or the world that it is condescending or insulting - where is the science wrong?

My wife just called it good...your running out of links

No Hutch, I'm running out of patience and time. I want to deal with the "Consultation on implementation of model drug schedules for Commonwealth serious drug offences".

Your nonsense here is stoppiong me from doing that, and that is why I am going to stop wiping your arse on stuff that a high school kid could figure out for herself.

If you have a substantive point to discuss, I am happy to discuss it. If you don't, then as far as I am concerned this ridiculous thread can sink into an echo chamber for ideology triumphing over rationality.

I know that you don't believe in science, so how about once and for all we get to what it is that distresses you so much about the science of climatology...

Hutch.

1) Do you accept that gases with polar bonds are able to absorb certain frequencies of electromagentic radiation, and subsequently reradiate them in random directions?

2) Do you accept that when such absorption is of infrared radiation originating from that reflected from the surface of the earth, that the random re-radiation results in the planet's surface/lower atmosphere warming?

3) Do you accept that CO2 is such a radiation-absorbing/re-emitting gas?

4) If "yes" to the previous question, what do you understand the sensitivity of warming to be, per doubling of the concentration of pre-industrial CO2?

5) Do you accept that the concentration of CO2 in the atmosphere is increasing?

6) Do you accept that humans are responsible for the current increasing of CO2 concentration in the atmosphere?

7) Do you accept that there is much independent instrumental evidence that the planet has been warming over the last century?

8) Do you accept that there is much phenological, ecological, and hydrological evidence that the planet has been warming over the last century?

9) Given the most robustly defensible determinations of climate sensitivity to CO2, does the current observed warming fit with our understanding of orbitally-driven warming? Does it fit with our understanding of the sun's level of activity in the past century? Does it fit with our understanding of 'greenhouse' gas physics?

Don't go off on a wild goose chase repeating stories from the Sun Herald or Machine-gunners' Almanac...

...just answer the bloody questions!

[hutch]

I'm a biologist Hutch - you don't need to explain evolution to me.

The simple point is that environmental shock can result in the extinction of species that would have otherwise survived. Rapidly changing climates are one such shock. Human warming of the planet is changing climate faster than any of the natural cyclical processes that the Earth encounters over time, to the point where what we are doing rivals the impact ofstochastic events such as the asteroid that wiped out the dinosaurs.

And there in lies the dispute Woody. Is human warming of the planet changing climate faster.....You have not yet convinced me of that....As I and others have already pointed out all species on this planet have been evolving and going extinct since the dawn of time. What we have now is a species of this planet who thinks it can play god! One asteroid could wipe us off the face of this earth as it did other species. And you call minor fluctuations in the earths temp an environmental shock that can (glad you said can) wipe out some species! And I just don't believe it.

The planet will recover of course, but I doubt that humans will be able to sit on their fingers for the approximately 1-10 million year it would take for ecosystem services to re-evolve.

You don't have much of an opinion of people do you. We are to blame for everything and we wont be smart enough to adapt.

We will adapt...we will most likely be zipping around the galaxy by then...It would happen a lot sooner but we are wasting billions and billions of dollars employing people like you to convince us of a fantasy dreamed up by those who seek to control the rest of the people. And this time they have taken some of the earths wisest peoples and made them into (dare I say it) IDIOTS.

No Hutch, I'm running out of patience and time. I want to deal with the "Consultation on implementation of model drug schedules for Commonwealth serious drug offences".

Your nonsense here is stoppiong me from doing that, and that is why I am going to stop wiping your arse on stuff that a high school kid could figure out for herself.

I am in no way stopping you from doing anything....I don't ask you back here each day...you do it cause you cant stand to see your religion being trashed by the likes of me. It is just like Scientology...pick on them and your in for it.....I am trying to rewrite the Australian Constitution at the moment so I do understand your issue with time though...next week I plan on studying the mating habit's of fossils... Never enough time hey

Hutch

Edited January 19, 2011 by hutch

[hutch]

1) Do you accept that gases with polar bonds are able to absorb certain frequencies of electromagentic radiation, and subsequently reradiate them in random directions?

2) Do you accept that when such absorption is of infrared radiation originating from that reflected from the surface of the earth, that the random re-radiation results in the planet's surface/lower atmosphere warming?

3) Do you accept that CO2 is such a radiation-absorbing/re-emitting gas?

4) If "yes" to the previous question, what do you understand the sensitivity of warming to be, per doubling of the concentration of pre-industrial CO2?

5) Do you accept that the concentration of CO2 in the atmosphere is increasing?

6) Do you accept that humans are responsible for the current increasing of CO2 concentration in the atmosphere?

7) Do you accept that there is much independent instrumental evidence that the planet has been warming over the last century?

8) Do you accept that there is much phenological, ecological, and hydrological evidence that the planet has been warming over the last century?

9) Given the most robustly defensible determinations of climate sensitivity to CO2, does the current observed warming fit with our understanding of orbitally-driven warming? Does it fit with our understanding of the sun's level of activity in the past century? Does it fit with our understanding of 'greenhouse' gas physics?

Don't go off on a wild goose chase repeating stories from the Sun Herald or Machine-gunners' Almanac...

...just answer the bloody questions!

ROFLAO.......Straight out of science journal weekly....you really expect me to answer those questions or are you just showing off again?

Here goes...

#1 Yea I can see that...could do...I will have to ask them though.

#2 Well maybe but it got me thinking...lets put a big pool blanket over the ocean...made my pool fucking cold...

#3 Yes

#4 0000.2%

#5 Maybe

#6 No to that sorry mate...

#7 No...I see a lot of data rigging going on..

#8 Nope...fudged figures and all...

#9 Most likely not because we only THINK we know it all...next year you will tell me something different.

There you go and I didn't even go near one of Australia's largest newspapers to get my answers...As I have continually read in that paper the very things you wish me believe then I should ignore them too because they have no idea either, based on your logic. It shouldn't be about the source...it should be about the information.

Anyway...back to the constitution....

[hutch]

I'm quite happy to go on the record as believing that the current catastrophic Queensland flooding has been made much worse than it might otherwise have been, by the warming that we've had even just to date. The oceans temperatures off Australia are an enormous heat engine that is driving the evaporation of the water in the present El Niño/La Niña-Southern Oscillation cycle responsible for the rain. If we keep warming the planet, ocean temperaures with themselves warm even further, and instead of this type of flooding happening evern century or so, it could happen every decade or two. Can we really deal with that?

 

BRISBANE was being placed at a greater flood risk because authorities preferred to hoard water in Wivenhoe Dam rather than use more expensive alternatives, according to a leading resource economist.

http://www.couriermail.com.au/news/debate-heats-up-as-expert-calls-for-dam-levels-to-drop/story-e6freon6-1225991407676

[hutch]

instead of this type of flooding happening evern century or so, it could happen every decade or two. Can we really deal with that?

Well yes Woody..I think we can. We would do what I hope they are planning on now, though I doubt it... We will make those who wish to live in flood prone area's like on the banks of the bloody river move to higher ground! As well as the poor people of this country who have been forced into cheap land deals that now obviously put lives at risk. We should resume that land for communal vegetable gardens and parkland instead....You need a permit to site a house. Those who signed that permit and approved that estate should be responsible...That is the government. But were they listening to the wrong scientists.... We have been spoon fed that we would never see rains like that again and now we are told "every things alright people...we new that was going to happen...nothing to see here, move along" That just don't cut it with me. For a couple of years this country needs to focus a little more on itself...Our infrastructure in QLD is fucked as it is every where else. I and another 350 or so people have been isolate for over 7 weeks since March because of lack of infrastructure. We call ourselves the lucky country but are we really? Foolish and gullible more like it...I am all for helping those around the world that are a little worse off than me and we should. Those tradesman and companies that would benefit from the building of those 2000 schools in Indonesia for example will not be worse off. Why do we give money to dictators around the world to buy more guns? Spend the money here and get this country up and running and much more productive. We are starting to lag behind...

So in answer to your question, YES we can deal with that. We will get smarter Woody...that is my hope....

Edited January 20, 2011 by hutch

[dworx]

How does this work ?

THE TOP EIGHT COUNTRIES THE AUSTRALIAN GOVERNMENT GAVE YOUR TAX DOLLARS TO IN 2010-2011

Indonesia $458,700.00 million

Papua New Guinea $457,200,00 million

Solomon Islands $225,700.00 million

Afghanistan $123,100.00 million

Vietnam $119,800.00 million

Philippines $118,100.00 million

East Timor $102,700.00 million

Cambodia $64,200.00 million

TOTAL = $ 1,669,000,000.00 - given away in 52 weeks

..but wait there’s more.

· Australia provides approximately 150,000 tonnes of food aid every year—about $65 million—to Bangladesh, Indonesia, Sri Lanka, Sudan and Chad

·

· In 2005 John Howard committed Australia to double Australian aid to about $4 billion a year by 2010

·

· In 2010-2011 the Australian Government plans to spend almost $4.4 billion on development assistance

·

· In 2008 the Australian community contributed $812.19million to non-government organisations

And now Gillard will give $500,000,000.00 for Indonesia’s Islamic schools

which are largely moderate in outlook but there have been pockets of radicalism that

have produced terrorists in Indonesia, most notably the cleric Abu Bakar Bashir’s school in Ngruki, central Java, where some of the Bali bombers studied.

SO….. Ask your local member how come 2010 Queensland flood victims get $1 million ?

When insurers, such as Allianz and CGU, provide cover for storm damage but exclude flood from their home and contents policies.

It's from an email I received, if its true than ............................F*$@ me!