A much needed strike for climate justice

[brokenbone]

13 minutes ago, RPCVguy said:

I now see that you can neither interpret data that is in a graph, nor bother to read the introduction to it. "what Exxon's scientists told their management - back in 1982 as to the amount of heating to expect as CO2 concentrations would increase. " I posted a screen grab I'd done of the chart, so had to do a search - easy enough to do IF you were interested in learning, instead of trying to be witty.
Try this for how widely the story has spread:
►https://boards.fool.com/exxon-mobile-chart-from-1982-34353458.aspx   ... or for a link with the chart
►https://thinkprogress.org/exxon-predicted-high-carbon-emissions-954e514b0aa9/

So, to assist you in reading the graph, I've added some annotations:

 

The rest of your post got worse. The video by Tony Heller is an example of the quote: Figures Don’t Lie, But Liars Do Figure

This returns to the folly of reading news headlines without understanding details of a story. 70% of the Earth's surface is water, and the oceans are absorbing 93% of the heat imbalance underway, but that heat does not stay at the surface. Looking at surface temperatures over land vs over the oceans, average land temperatures are increasing faster.  Knowing this pattern, most non-forest shaded land masses will have some reporter able to say "such-n-such location is warming 2xfaster than the global average." That was the general pattern of the laughable video by Tony Heller. The sea-level rise issue should not have been brought into the video either, but Tony maybe can't help himself from commenting on whatever he want's to make fun of. He just deserves as smaller audience.
This is a NASA GISS image.

 

nasa keep adjusting historical temperature to colder once every few years,

along with the 'remove the blip line of tampering,

but i leave it at that, instead i think you should study

co2 vital role for life on earth, you seem to think its somehow an evil molecule

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=d0Z5FdwWw_c

 

[thaibeachlovers]

On 12/23/2019 at 11:53 PM, snoop1130 said:

My 10 year old daughter told me,“There is a climate emergency strike in Bangkok on 20th September, I really want to go. Can you please get permission from school for me to go strike”. At this point, I have to tell you that I have never gone on a strike for anything in my 41 years of existence and I was really surprised at her passion to go on this strike. She is very particular about reducing single use plastic, she would say, “Mommy, you know how many turtles have died from eating plastic, honey bees are affected too, we won’t have honey if we kill all of them”. She initiated a few sustainable practices in the house so her request was not entirely unexpected so I sent in an email in to school and got a positive reply. This strike was supported by the Ministry of Education and hundreds of students took to the road with slogans demanding climate justice.

 

The impacts of climate change are already evident around the world. Thailand, as part of the Mekong River Basin is struggling to deal with these impacts which result in part from ecological pressures introduced by large hydropower dams, deforestation, coastal erosion and urbanisation. Currently, Thailand is home to a population of about 70 million and is particularly vulnerable to extreme weather events such as floods and droughts which are becoming more frequent and severe as a result of climate change. For example, in 2011 Thailand experienced its worst ever flood event on record, at a cost of US$46 billion for repair and rehabilitation nationally and US$8 billion in Bangkok alone.

Does your 10 year old daughter actually understand what climate change is and how to stop/ change/ mitigate it? Does she know about the climate change industry propaganda? Does she know how opposing viewpoints are suppressed?

What are her solutions? Is she not going to use motorbike and walk to school? Is she going to have herself sterilised so doesn't overpopulate the planet? Is she going to travel to China and demonstrate there?

 

Not using plastic is a good thing, and should be encouraged, but that includes the phone ( made from plastic and polluting rare earth materials ), and the computer ( likewise ), and the car and motorbikes and anything bought from the local mom and pop shop.

It's not good enough to take a day off school and run around shouting "you are stealing my future" if not going to make big lifestyle choices.

 

the Mekong River Basin is struggling to deal with these impacts which result in part from ecological pressures introduced by large hydropower dams, deforestation, coastal erosion and urbanisation.

Everything you note is due to overpopulation. What do you think she should do about that?

 

Currently, Thailand is home to a population of about 70 million and is particularly vulnerable to extreme weather events such as floods and droughts which are becoming more frequent and severe as a result of climate change.

Thailand has always faced events such as floods- ask anyone in Issan. What has happened is that people stopped building to mitigate such. People in my wife's village stopped building wooden houses on poles and built concrete houses on the ground. I could see the water mark at the top of the wall after their flood.

They had to stop logging teak when all the hills started falling down in the rain because the trees were gone.

 

PS "climate emergency" is a propaganda term designed to allow governments to extract more taxes without actually doing anything to change it. Did you tell your daughter that?

[Chazar]

The  only  strike  needed  is an Air  Strike at one of the  save  the  planets meeting  places.

[GeorgeCross]

disappointed

 

thought they'd nuked Greta 

 

[Grumpy John]

If the answer was simple I would just say more morons sprouting BS and then I would tell you the answer.  But it is not simple.......the tags "Global warming" and "Climate change" are tags that those crAzy extremists love to use but a lot of the time they are talking out their butt.  Maybe they should try the facts for a change.   Fact: Global warming and climate change have been going on for a million years.  Fact: Weather patterns are effected by the earth's 11 year rotation around the sUn.   Fact: THere are a lot of places with pollution problems,  but you cannot blame changes in the weather for that. Fact: CO2 is not our enemy.  If we wish to feed a growing world population we need more CO2.  Fact: The Japanese have shown their HELE coal power station to be far more environmentally friendly than regular coal power stations. Of the 200+ being constructed in China,  India and Pukistan......how many are HELE? Fact: Its absolutely annoying how there is so much burning off in LOS yet composting is easy to do and cosT's very little.  So yer, we need to make some Changes.....but not the ones the morons are Suggesting!

[samuttodd]

I've said it once and I'll say it again.   There is nothing anthropogenic about climate change.   Nothing,  ZERO.   

 

Until mankind can somehow stop the changes that our sun is constantly having (Cyclic changes and periodic Mass ejection etc)   then the climate will be in a state of change.   It is the very nature of climate to be in a state of constant change.   

 

Anyone that believes otherwise is simply a denier of the sun.    I am a sun believer.

 

The entire notion of stopping climate change is a farce to impose economic taxation.   Why not come out with a push to "Stop seasonal change, or daily temperature change, or stop natural cycles."   You can not,  they are normal.

 

 Our planet is indeed precious,  and we must do what we can to keep it in as good a condition as possible.     

[samuttodd]

Ginning up hysteria and fear in the children based on incomplete science is not the way to expedite change that will be of benefit to the inhabitants we share this planet with.

[RPCVguy]

12 hours ago, thaibeachlovers said:

Does your 10 year old daughter actually understand what climate change is and how to stop/ change/ mitigate it? Does she know about the climate change industry propaganda? Does she know how opposing viewpoints are suppressed?

What are her solutions? Is she not going to use motorbike and walk to school? Is she going to have herself sterilised so doesn't overpopulate the planet? Is she going to travel to China and demonstrate there?
Not using plastic is a good thing, and should be encouraged, but that includes the phone ( made from plastic and polluting rare earth materials ), and the computer ( likewise ), and the car and motorbikes and anything bought from the local mom and pop shop.

It's not good enough to take a day off school and run around shouting "you are stealing my future" if not going to make big lifestyle choices.

the Mekong River Basin is struggling to deal with these impacts which result in part from ecological pressures introduced by large hydropower dams, deforestation, coastal erosion and urbanisation.

Everything you note is due to overpopulation. What do you think she should do about that?

Currently, Thailand is home to a population of about 70 million and is particularly vulnerable to extreme weather events such as floods and droughts which are becoming more frequent and severe as a result of climate change.

Thailand has always faced events such as floods- ask anyone in Issan. What has happened is that people stopped building to mitigate such. People in my wife's village stopped building wooden houses on poles and built concrete houses on the ground. I could see the water mark at the top of the wall after their flood.

They had to stop logging teak when all the hills started falling down in the rain because the trees were gone.

 

PS "climate emergency" is a propaganda term designed to allow governments to extract more taxes without actually doing anything to change it. Did you tell your daughter that?

Good points above, yet individual action alone can not much affect the pace of consumption driving the combustion - that's adding the bulk of CO2. Collective protest raises awareness and creates opportunity for the regulation needed. Without it, the constraint by some will be more than matched by the consumption of others. ... that is why governments are being pressed to act, urgently.
Agreed too as to population and changes in Thailand's building designs. I do question why you solely used the feminine pronouns "her" and "she" above? More effective is men choosing to be sterilized. A fertile woman can only have one baby a year, but a fertile man can impregnate many women. Really, it needs to be a concern for both genders to consider.

I did say similarly, though not as pointedly in my first comment to this thread... the full consequences will necessitate far fewer people living far more simply.

On 12/28/2019 at 12:21 PM, RPCVguy said:

A fair article on a worsening problem. It isn't being dealt with because our current global society is dependent upon, addicted to, and can not continue with its present values without fossil fuels. But, unless society shifts there is nothing but a dystopian future for the children born this century. Sadly, this gets chalked up to the bad luck of being born after the boomers of the 20th century embraced the boom and binge party attitudes enabled by industry in the post WWII era. Youth desire (rightly) to have an inhabitable Earth, and are slowly learning the full consequences of the legacy they will receive.

 

The issues were known since the 60s, the Nixon Library has documents showing discussion of CO2 and warming the planet. Carter tried getting people to adjust their use of energy. but marketing for a profit sold society on their being doubts. The story of how Exxon and the fossil fuel industry marketed those doubts was well documented in this post
►Climate Deception Dossiers

The series of articles that revealed what industry executives knew and when they knew it was first published in 2015 with this cataloguing the many articles: ►Exxon-The-Road-Not-Taken
Looking at the many comments ridiculing youth for their concerns, it's obvious that industry $Billions spent over the past 4 decades has been effective at causing doubts. Marketing can have that effect, and Exxon made many $Billions more in the process. The corporate executives did it despite what their own scientists documented.

What will some people feel - when more of the consequences lock in, when they then look into the eyes of children, grandchildren and other youth - knowing they were part of the public who mocked what was happening and denied reason or options for taking action?
Effective action will get harder - triage deeper, possibilities of success less likely, all because society of homo sapiens was far too self centered to do what might have allowed more of Earth's life to survive.

[brokenbone]

3 hours ago, RPCVguy said:

the Mekong River Basin is struggling to deal with these impacts which result in part from ecological pressures introduced by large hydropower dams, deforestation, coastal erosion and urbanisation.

more co2 increases biomass, ideally above 1500 ppm co2 as commercial greenhouse

operators can attest to, which is not surprising at all since much higher co2

saw the origin of life

 

3 hours ago, RPCVguy said:

Currently, Thailand is home to a population of about 70 million and is particularly vulnerable to extreme weather events such as floods and droughts which are becoming more frequent and severe as a result of climate change.

the trend is the other way around, less severe and less frequent weather events.

and water rise is at a record low, and more co2 makes plants more water efficient and resistant to drought.

more co2 is good news for the plants and consequently for everything else

https://www.researchgate.net/publication/336685904_The_Gulf_Stream_Beat

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SByP1IGBYJA

3 hours ago, RPCVguy said:

Effective action will get harder - triage deeper, possibilities of success less likely, all because society of homo sapiens was far too self centered to do what might have allowed more of Earth's life to survive.

ultimately only man can stave off life extinction that was destined to happen

in 2 million years as co2 was projected to fall to 150 ppm by then, and the only way we can save the planet is by recycling back co2 into the atmosphere where it belong, there just isnt any other specie around that can make it

[RPCVguy]

 

11 hours ago, brokenbone said:

more co2 increases biomass, ideally above 1500 ppm co2 as commercial greenhouse

operators can attest to, which is not surprising at all since much higher co2

saw the origin of life

 

Repeatedly, in comment after comment, you fail to grasp that there are balances needed so as to sustain life. H2O, like O2 or CO2, is essential, but too much can drown you. Even drinking too much too quickly will kill you. For oxygen, not enough and we suffocate, but too much is dangerously flammable.
CO2 is essential to formation of carbohydrates, but too much in the atmosphere added too quickly is warming the environment faster than plants can evolve or migrate to survive.

 

The planet differs from a commercial greenhouse in many ways. While people increase CO2 concentrations in a greenhouse, that option is necessarily combined with a way to cool/ vent off excess heat as the CO2 causes more insulation than the glass of a greenhouse causes on its own. Additionally, plants still need a full mixture of nutrients so as utilize well the added CO2. In the outdoors, other variables are hard or impossible to control (light, fertilizer, temp/humidity, pH, etc.)

"One thing to keep in mind while designing a CO2 system is that yields will only increase if CO2 is your ‘limiting factor’ (for more on ‘limiting factors’ and ‘Leibig’s Barrel’, see our previous post here). This means that if all your other variables are not optimal (light, fertilizer, temp/humidity, pH, etc.) you will not achieve the benefits of increased CO2 levels."
https://fifthseasongardening.com/regulating-carbon-dioxide
"Most plants are growing faster, but they have on average more starch, less protein and fewer key vitamins in them, said James Metzger, a professor and chair of the Department of Horticulture and Crop Science in The Ohio State University’s College of Food, Agricultural, and Environmental Sciences (CFAES)."
https://cfaes.osu.edu/news/articles/higher-carbon-dioxide-levels-prompt-more-plant-growth-fewer-nutrients

On a planetary scale, the earth's surface temperature during the Eocene , with a CO2 concentration of the order of 1000 ppm, was some 15ºC above the preindustrial benchmark. This is your "solution" ?? ... It's not looking too well thought out.

"Global warming has long been linked to the end-Permian mass extinction, but this study is the first to show extreme temperatures kept life from re-starting in Equatorial latitudes for millions of years."
https://phys.org/news/2012-10-tropical-collapse-lethal-extreme-temperatures.html

I'll respond to the rest of your comment below:

the trend is the other way around, less severe and less frequent weather events.

and water rise is at a record low, and more co2 makes plants more water efficient and resistant to drought.

more co2 is good news for the plants and consequently for everything else

https://www.researchgate.net/publication/336685904_The_Gulf_Stream_Beat

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SByP1IGBYJA

ultimately only man can stave off life extinction that was destined to happen

in 2 million years as co2 was projected to fall to 150 ppm by then, and the only way we can save the planet is by recycling back co2 into the atmosphere where it belong, there just isnt any other specie around that can make it

Do you just pluck sentence fragments hither and yon from the internet so as to spread misinformation? Or is there a purpose to such disingenuous/ erroneous statements as you pose here?

• the trend is the other way around, less severe and less frequent weather events.
  Are you solely viewing FAUX News? Do the events of 2019 and recent years not make it to your attention? (Decades ago I'd have asked you to share the weed you must be smoking.)

• and water rise is at a record low, and more co2 makes plants more water efficient and resistant to drought. (yes, they close the size of their stomata, so photosynthesis less!)

• more co2 is good news for the plants and consequently for everything else
  Please check and double check your facts. "the effect was clear: Higher CO2 reduced multiple key measures of rice's nutritional value. Across the different types of rice, they observed average decreases of 10 percent in protein, 8 percent in iron and 5 percent in zinc. Four important B vitamins decreased between 13 and 30 percent. The research was recently published in Science Advances." and the full article shows it is not just rice!
  https://www.npr.org/sections/thesalt/2018/06/19/616098095/as-carbon-dioxide-levels-rise-major-crops-are-losing-nutrients

Losing our food crops by mid century - that will be far more consequential.

 

You next refer me to:

https://www.researchgate.net/publication/336685904_The_Gulf_Stream_Beat
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SByP1IGBYJA

Citing these links by Nils-Axel Mörner, really? Are you at all serious? Neither his conference paper nor video statements are in agreement with the broad analysis of what is happening. His analysis is simplistic at best, but often simply wrong. I've also said several time already that it won't matter. The sea level issue is serious and costly, but not a threat of extinction.

 

Then you close saying:
"ultimately only man can stave off life extinction that was destined to happen in 2 million years "

(look at what we've done in 150 years)

... as co2 was projected to fall to 150 ppm by then, and the only way we can save the planet is by recycling back co2 into the atmosphere where it belong, there just isnt any other specie around that can make it

A "thermostat" the might have been adjusted to CO2 in the low 300ppm range has been cranked up to 415 and is still mounting.

 

I've been consistent in pointing to evidence so abundant that even US Republicans are changing how they deny climate. Instead of denying the change, they are denying human responsibility. That is its own form of fertilizer (a.k.a. BS) because the math shows amount of carbon humans are releasing vastly outweighs natural sources (though the Arctic soils that are thawing are at risk of catching and surpassing us. By that point it will be too late to hope to mitigate the warming.)
Already the forests are being affected enough to be accelerating the loss of trees, loss of their being a net sink, absorbing the excess carbon humans are releasing. Look to the news of forest fires in Australia, California, Alaska, Siberia, Greece, ...

"From a tree’s perspective, excessive heat may be as deadly as lack of water. To photosynthesize, a tree opens pores in its leaves called stomata and inhales CO2. Solar-charged chemical reactions then transform the CO2 into carbohydrates — the raw stuff of leaves and wood. During this process, a fraction of the tree’s internal water supply evaporates through its stomata, creating the negative pressure that pulls water from the soil into the tree’s roots, through its trunk and up to its canopy. But heat juices the rate at which trees lose moisture, and that rate escalates exponentially with temperature — so small temperature increases can cause a photosynthesizing tree to lose dangerous amounts of water. “Forests notice even a one-degree increase in temperature,” says Williams."
https://www.rollingstone.com/politics/politics-news/the-fate-of-trees-how-climate-change-may-alter-forests-worldwide-105316/

 

Humans are a social species. We exist in groupings and benefit from the knowledge and tools of our collective culture. Our collective global culture threatens the viability of the biosphere, and we will either collectively face our responsibility, revise our behavior and salvage what can be salvaged from where the energy imbalance is taking us, or collectively we will perish. There is no way for even a few to survive so long as the dominant society extracts and consumes as it does. ... That's why exchanging the best available science is important - to best shape where the society might shift. The protests are a societal way of calling attention to the problem.

 

[thaibeachlovers]

16 hours ago, RPCVguy said:

I do question why you solely used the feminine pronouns "her" and "she" above?

I used it as directed to HER, but yes, EVERYONE on the whole planet needs to be sterilised after one child if we want to make a difference.

If we don't reduce population everything we do is a waste of time.

I don't have children. I knew enough people in the world when I was in my twenties.

An extra few billion people by 2050 or so and every one of them wants wants stuff. We don't have a chance of surviving as we are if that happens.

[thaibeachlovers]

26 minutes ago, RPCVguy said:

Losing our food crops by mid century - that will be far more consequential.

 

Regarding the box about the food insecure- if they know they are food insecure what in <deleted> are they doing having the greatest population growth?

They should be limiting their population growth to a level their own country can sustain. What does it take to make people breed only what they can sustain?

Don't expect me to put my hand in my pocket next time they have a famine when it's down to them having too many children.

[thaibeachlovers]

33 minutes ago, RPCVguy said:

so small temperature increases can cause a photosynthesizing tree to lose dangerous amounts of water. “Forests notice even a one-degree increase in temperature,” says Williams."

I'm confused. That may be true if every day was the same and temperature increased one degree, but temperatures vary day to day, week to week, season to season. So when it's winter and it's cold, does that not balance out the hot season loss?

[RPCVguy]

13 minutes ago, thaibeachlovers said:

I'm confused. That may be true if every day was the same and temperature increased one degree, but temperatures vary day to day, week to week, season to season. So when it's winter and it's cold, does that not balance out the hot season loss?

It is a cumulative species response over a season, and the seasons have been warming globally - and too in varying amounts they vary regionally. A regional trend over time of a few decades can have a profound effect on trees that might otherwise live for a few hundred years. What may have started as ideal as a seedling will be less ideal, more stressful as seasonal trends continue.

 

[brokenbone]

2 hours ago, RPCVguy said:

 

.

 

 

you have eagerly absorbed the alarmist propaganda and wont

accept any data that contradict the hypothesis,

but can you with climate change logic explain why

scientists had been observing alarming arctic melt 1910-1950 ?

[RPCVguy]

2 hours ago, brokenbone said:

you have eagerly absorbed the alarmist propaganda and wont

accept any data that contradict the hypothesis,

but can you with climate change logic explain why

scientists had been observing alarming arctic melt 1910-1950 ?

The start is a bogus assertion. I'm a chemist who has used his retirement to explore in formal coursework and informal research the causes and factors affecting the Earth's climate. What is evident in the biosphere now is far different from prior human history, some changes have exceeded rates of change seen in at least a few hundred million years of Earth history. Implications for this change are dangerous to the ability of current life forms to continue. "Propaganda" is a loaded word, referring to messaging with an intent to persuade. Guilty. If our species is to continue, scientists like me need to persuade those who have the ability to read and learn that alternative behaviors need be adopted. That the message is alarming does not separate it from expressing reality.

I'm open to well presented ideas, but am tired of people who never acknowledge their recent assertions after a consistent set of data puts those assertions into question. I see a pattern of circling around and trying a different topic. This, most recent of your comments is an excellent example. It is challenge question offered out of context, lacking in data, not citing any, let alone multiple references, and certainly lacking in a scientific hypothesis that you are offering as to why the statement is true (or false?)

What constitutes "alarming" in the context of your question? How does your use of alarming for the time frame compare to what many would call alarming in the recent history of Arctic melt. More to the point, after multiple rounds of researched and focused responses, what are you trying to prove?
Secondly, I am not your personal "Ask Jeeves." If you are trying to learn you are not showing it very well. If you are trying to teach, you've been missing any consistent scientific explanation that covers the range of history known for a phenomena. What seems more the case is sheer harassment .
So, provide your hypothesis, the data, the references and we'll see if you get to again get to taste your shoe.

[brokenbone]

2 minutes ago, RPCVguy said:

 

So, provide your hypothesis, the data, the references and we'll see if you get to again get to taste your shoe.

i already uploaded climategate emails and historical data, here is more data,

scroll back for more data earlier in the thread, there is literally hundreds of

documentation from scientists how it was melting and later freezing over,

and you deny all of it no matter how much documentation i upload.

did charles x waltz over the belts of denmark 1658 or not ?

if they did, why cant i drive a car over the belts today ?

if they did not, why does history books written pre FUD mongering say so ?

https://trove.nla.gov.au/newspaper/article/69638689

[RPCVguy]

2 hours ago, brokenbone said:

i already uploaded climategate emails and historical data, here is more data,

scroll back for more data earlier in the thread, there is literally hundreds of

documentation from scientists how it was melting and later freezing over,

and you deny all of it no matter how much documentation i upload.

did charles x waltz over the belts of denmark 1658 or not ?

if they did, why cant i drive a car over the belts today ?

if they did not, why does history books written pre FUD mongering say so ?

https://trove.nla.gov.au/newspaper/article/69638689

Once again, your main reference source seems to be via Tony Heller. In this first case he's located a news article from 1947 in "The West Australian"  that quotes one geophysicist regarding Spitzbergen and the Barrents Sea. The news article does not provide the temperature readings and locations (i.e. data set) nor does Tony Heller. The years 1910-1950 were globally known for the rapid industrialization that led to WWI, then the Great Depression, then WWII. International scientific cooperation was minimal during that period. It wasn't until July 1957 that IGY (the International Geophysical Year) attempt to again support the unified data collection and calibration that marked the renewal of global data (though naval data and tables of individual national measurements have since gone back and filled in many gaps. That data was NOT available in 1947.)
Still, prior to satellite measurements, there was no way to regularly access temperatures in the deep Arctic - simply because there were too few locations from which to gather data. The ice extent data and ice volume data across the Arctic awaited satellite measurements in the late 70s before anything resembling precision from Dr Hans Ahlmann's statements could possibly be taken as factual for the whole Arctic.  What Ahlmann is talking about - the West Spitsbergen current - is within the range of  the Gulf Stream. that current REGIONALLY  brings relatively warm water along Spitsbergen's west coast. Relatively small shifts in the gulf stream's strength, or of the tropical waters it was starting with, would certainly have large effects on that coast and the amount of ice it did or did not have.

More specifically, your choice of examples has multiple holes in the consistency and the potential interpretation. Try again.

 

One of the best maps I've eve seen from that era is of ice extent in August 1926. Try comparing that to August in recent years.

 

Continuing on to your "other proofs."

• The 1958 NY Times article saying that within the lifetime of children of that day a ship could likely sail from NYC to Tokyo was certainly true.
• Albury Banner story is just an apples and oranges comparison of two locations and weather events which prove nothing. Why pick the Amazon and not the Sahara. The basic physics of what drives the wind patterns of the northern and southern hemispheres is the typical strength of temperature difference between polar and equatorial regions. The theory of polar warming faster than equatorial warming DOES explain why the jet stream would weaken, thereby getting more convoluted and allowing an increase in the frequency of polar vortexes dropping down into normally more temperate latitudes.

from http://ksuweb.kennesaw.edu/~jdirnber/oceanography/LecuturesOceanogr/LecCurrents/LecCurrents.html

A video explaining the jet stream and how it is changing is
Jennifer Francis - Understanding the Jetstream 

 

_____________________________________________

Back to you even less credulous climate gate reference. This has been debunked as a problem many times. Who is it that won't accept evidence?

"Climate skeptics are claiming that they show scientific misconduct that amounts to the complete fabrication of man-made global warming. We find that to be unfounded:

• The messages, which span 13 years, show a few scientists in a bad light, being rude or dismissive. An investigation is underway, but there’s still plenty of evidence that the earth is getting warmer and that humans are largely responsible.
• Some critics say the e-mails negate the conclusions of a 2007 report by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, but the IPCC report relied on data from a large number of sources, of which CRU was only one.
• E-mails being cited as “smoking guns” have been misrepresented. For instance, one e-mail that refers to “hiding the decline” isn’t talking about a decline in actual temperatures as measured at weather stations. These have continued to rise, and 2009 may turn out to be the fifth warmest year ever recorded. The “decline” actually refers to a problem with recent data from tree rings."

https://www.factcheck.org/2009/12/climategate/

 

 

[brokenbone]

48 minutes ago, RPCVguy said:

your choice of examples has multiple holes in the consistency and the potential interpretation. Try again.

on contrary, they are consistent with data graphs prior to the FUD propaganda,

and contradict FUD propaganda from 1990 on.

sometimes ipcc & gags even contradict them self,

specifically in the 1990 glitch when they realized they had acknowledged

data that contradicted their agenda of self survival,

-remember that ipcc mandate is to link warming to humans,

it expire if they cant make that link, along with their salary.

the mandate was defined to bias, it was the only possible outcome.

here is before and after they realized their mistake,

ironically manns hockey stick will make sense if you replace temperature with

plant growth, and fact is your graph and your attempted interpretation,

whether by exxon or impersonators, is embarrassing

 

[thaibeachlovers]

9 hours ago, RPCVguy said:

The start is a bogus assertion. I'm a chemist who has used his retirement to explore in formal coursework and informal research the causes and factors affecting the Earth's climate. What is evident in the biosphere now is far different from prior human history, some changes have exceeded rates of change seen in at least a few hundred million years of Earth history. Implications for this change are dangerous to the ability of current life forms to continue. "Propaganda" is a loaded word, referring to messaging with an intent to persuade. Guilty. If our species is to continue, scientists like me need to persuade those who have the ability to read and learn that alternative behaviors need be adopted. That the message is alarming does not separate it from expressing reality.

I'm open to well presented ideas, but am tired of people who never acknowledge their recent assertions after a consistent set of data puts those assertions into question. I see a pattern of circling around and trying a different topic. This, most recent of your comments is an excellent example. It is challenge question offered out of context, lacking in data, not citing any, let alone multiple references, and certainly lacking in a scientific hypothesis that you are offering as to why the statement is true (or false?)

What constitutes "alarming" in the context of your question? How does your use of alarming for the time frame compare to what many would call alarming in the recent history of Arctic melt. More to the point, after multiple rounds of researched and focused responses, what are you trying to prove?
Secondly, I am not your personal "Ask Jeeves." If you are trying to learn you are not showing it very well. If you are trying to teach, you've been missing any consistent scientific explanation that covers the range of history known for a phenomena. What seems more the case is sheer harassment .
So, provide your hypothesis, the data, the references and we'll see if you get to again get to taste your shoe.

All your well presented arguments are rendered null and void when grown men that should know better take a teenager shouting "you have stolen my dreams" seriously.

It makes a mockery of serious arguments when people take schoolchildren seriously. School children with no solutions, to boot.

So long as those obviously financially dependent on one side of the equation are involved, people like me will assume it's propaganda.

When people shout that "the ocean is rising" when it is obviously not, they and their arguments will be disregarded.

 

Even so, if their claims are true, they have absolutely zero chance, IMO, of actually doing anything about it that would make a difference. Shouting that "something must be done" is not a solution, and in truth, nothing is being done except making windmill and electric car manufacturers rich.

The one thing that would make a real difference, nuclear power generation, is disregarded for POLITICAL reasons. France shows that it can be done safely.

Air pollution- flight numbers expected to rise dramatically.

Not a single rainforest tree has been not cut down to "save the planet".

Greed reigns supreme.

 

Also, lost in the hubub, is the real cause of it all, overpopulation, to which no emphasis is given whatsoever.

[RPCVguy]

Sorry brokenbone. I don't think you can differentiate facts from oddball rumors. The only people with an admitted financial stake in an outcome has been the coal oil and gas industries. Any scientist who could present evidence that disproves the current theory would earn the Nobel Prize. Instead the data says the climate is changing and the cause is human release of greenhouse gases.
If. after pointing out how accurately Exxon's scientists warned of CO2 concentrations and temperature effects in 1982, you are now going to throw that conspiracy as to cash at the feet of the scientists, then it is you logic and motivations that must be questioned. You truly force the data you won't believe rather than accept the data that points to human behavior as the cause.

This is old, but it still fits.

 

The holidays are ending and there is again enough real news to review that I can occupy myself with. Been interesting chatting with you.

[RPCVguy]

10 minutes ago, thaibeachlovers said:

All your well presented arguments are rendered null and void when grown men that should know better take a teenager shouting "you have stolen my dreams" seriously.

It makes a mockery of serious arguments when people take schoolchildren seriously. School children with no solutions, to boot.

So long as those obviously financially dependent on one side of the equation are involved, people like me will assume it's propaganda.

When people shout that "the ocean is rising" when it is obviously not, they and their arguments will be disregarded.

 

She says "look at the science" and "Ask the scientists." The marketing effect of not going to school and instead pointing to lack of effective regulation is like the fable of the child calling out the emperor for wearing no clothes. No one was paying attention, people were trusting the political leaders, and most of them prefer keeping the energy Ponzi scheme going. calling out politicians in the quiet, non-violent way that she did - that caught media attention, it was less boring than most scientific reports.

 

Even so, if their claims are true, they have absolutely zero chance, IMO, of actually doing anything about it that would make a difference. Shouting that "something must be done" is not a solution, and in truth, nothing is being done except making windmill and electric car manufacturers rich.

The one thing that would make a real difference, nuclear power generation, is disregarded for POLITICAL reasons. France shows that it can be done safely.

Air pollution- flight numbers expected to rise dramatically.

Not a single rainforest tree has been not cut down to "save the planet".

Greed reigns supreme.

 

Also, lost in the hubub, is the real cause of it all, overpopulation, to which no emphasis is given whatsoever.

Mostly all too true - sadly so. Not because they don't work, but because the minerals are not there to supply the demand that 7½ Billion people add, and the extraction is still dirty, just in specific areas instead of the global atmosphere.
 

Ecological IMPACT is a function of Population compounded Affluent consumption and compounded again by the Technology embedded.  I=PAT.
Human societal leaders who recognize that and try dialing back societal impact, they don't stay in office very long. Bernie Sanders in the USA is the current iteration of recognizing the facts and suggesting what might be done. Most of his supporters are still dreaming that they'll get their safety nets and jobs while returning to the infinitely expansive economy that it seemed in the mid 20th century. Flattening inequality - like Borlaug's agricultural Green Revolution - can buy society some time, but the days of flying off to vacations or seminars are in need of dramatic adjustments. Population needs to shrink (less destructively by reducing births than by civil unrest/ famine and wars.)

Human society might survive, but not in the way it has prioritized its values, honored some members as successful - to be emulated. Peaceful, low extractive societies always lost out to the more extractive violent ones so it is a natural progression that our current global society is what it is. The wiser members of society see this - but like the nerds in most high schools, they are rarely among those the majority accepts as leaders. thus the demise of human society will all too likely proceed - by famine, disease and unrest - interspersed with catastrophic fires, storms etc. I don't adhere any longer to the Bible as any ultimate truth, but much of its ending is applicable.

[brokenbone]

35 minutes ago, RPCVguy said:

Sorry brokenbone. I don't think you can differentiate facts from oddball rumors. The only people with an admitted financial stake in an outcome has been the coal oil and gas industries. Any scientist who could present evidence that disproves the current theory would earn the Nobel Prize. Instead the data says the climate is changing and the cause is human release of greenhouse gases.
If. after pointing out how accurately Exxon's scientists warned of CO2 concentrations and temperature effects in 1982, you are now going to throw that conspiracy as to cash at the feet of the scientists, then it is you logic and motivations that must be questioned. You truly force the data you won't believe rather than accept the data that points to human behavior as the cause.

This is old, but it still fits.

 

The holidays are ending and there is again enough real news to review that I can occupy myself with. Been interesting chatting with you.

everything with a link to climate change [sic] in the abstract gets government funding,

cc science funding has gone up by a factor of over 20,

so everyone without dignity wants a chunk, unfortunately that include phil & nasa

https://www.skeptic.com/downloads/conceptual-penis/23311886.2017.1330439.pdf

 

Researchers from the University of Colorado and Kansas State University have been awarded a grant for more than $850,000 to study the impacts of climate change on prairie dogs in the Boulder area.

 

but no one is as helplessly dependent on allowance as ipcc,

for their only mandate is to link warming to humans

 

the appeal to a scientific consensus is yet another inability

to build valid statistics, seems none of you understand statistics,

the correct answer is 2%

 

In 2008 Margaret Zimmerman asked two questions of
10,257 Earth Scientists at academic and government institutions. 3146 of them responded.
That survey was the original basis for the famous “97% consensus” claim.

For the calculation of the degree of consensus among experts in the Doran/Zimmerman article,
all but 79 of the respondents were excluded. They wrote:
https://agupubs.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/pdf/10.1029/2009eo030002

“In our survey, the most specialized and knowledgeable respondents
(with regard to climate change) are those who listed climate science as
their area of expertise and who also have published more than 50% of
their recent peer-reviewed papers on the subject of climate change
(79 individuals in total).
Of these specialists, 96.2% (76 of 79) answered “risen”
to question 1 and 97.4% (75 of 77) answered yes to question 2.”

The basis for the “97% consensus” claim is this excerpt:

[of] “the most specialized and knowledgeable respondents
(with regard to climate change)… 97.4% (75 of 77) answered yes to question 2.”

 

 Q1: “When compared with pre-1800s levels, do you think that mean global temperatures
have generally risen, fallen, or remained relatively constant?”   
76 of 79 (96.2%) answered “risen.”

 Q2: “Do you think human activity is a significant contributing factor
in changing mean global temperatures?”   75 of 77 (97.4%) answered “yes.”

Q1. When compared with pre-1800's levels, do you think that
mean global temperatures have generally risen, fallen, or remained relatively constant?
1. Risen
2. Fallen
3. Remained relatively constant
4. No opinion/Don't know
 
Q2. Do you think human activity is a significant contributing factor in
changing mean global temperatures?  
[This question wasn’t asked if they answered “remained relatively constant” to Q1]
1. Yes
2. No
3. I'm not sure
 
Q3. What do you consider to be the most compelling argument that supports your previous answer
(or, for those who were unsure, why were they unsure)?
[This question wasn’t asked if they answered “remained relatively constant” to Q1]

Q4. Please estimate the percentage of your fellow geoscientists who think
human activity is a contributing factor to global climate change.
 
Q5. Which percentage of your papers published in peer-reviewed journals in
the last 5 years have been on the subject of climate change?
 
Q6. Age
 
Q7. Gender

 

[thaibeachlovers]

3 minutes ago, RPCVguy said:

Ecological IMPACT is a function of Population compounded Affluent consumption and compounded again by the Technology embedded.  I=PAT.
Human societal leaders who recognize that and try dialing back societal impact, they don't stay in office very long. Bernie Sanders in the USA is the current iteration of recognizing the facts and suggesting what might be done. Most of his supporters are still dreaming that they'll get their safety nets and jobs while returning to the infinitely expansive economy that it seemed in the mid 20th century. Flattening inequality - like Borlaug's agricultural Green Revolution - can buy society some time, but the days of flying off to vacations or seminars are in need of dramatic adjustments. Population needs to shrink (less destructively by reducing births than by civil unrest/ famine and wars.)

Human society might survive, but not in the way it has prioritized its values, honored some members as successful - to be emulated. Peaceful, low extractive societies always lost out to the more extractive violent ones so it is a natural progression that our current global society is what it is. The wiser members of society see this - but like the nerds in most high schools, they are rarely among those the majority accepts as leaders. thus the demise of human society will all too likely proceed - by famine, disease and unrest - interspersed with catastrophic fires, storms etc. I don't adhere any longer to the Bible as any ultimate truth, but much of its ending is applicable.

There is a thread on the Farang Pub about "will humanity survive". Last time I looked most posters on it thought not.

I certainly do not think humanity will survive if it keeps on the same way.

I'm just happy I had most of my life when the population was under 5 billion.

[lamyai3]

On 12/23/2019 at 5:53 PM, snoop1130 said:

Cole Sprouse is really hot

No way cold sprouts are hot, but given there's a lot of them left over after Christmas, it's good that they're biodegradable.