Global Warming?

[turnkey4099]

Earth's clouds are getting lower, NASA satellite finds

Posted: 22 Feb 2012 08:43 AM PST

Earth's clouds got a little lower -- about one percent on average -- during the first decade of this century, finds a new NASA-funded university study based on NASA satellite data. The results have potential implications for future global climate.


I notice there seems to be a preponderance of posts regarding CC (Climate Change) posted by non believers. Their posts tend to be more sarcastic and emotional than rational.

I wonder if this is the equivalent of whistling in the dark?

I have seen cattle form a circle with their horns to the outside to mutually protect their backsides not unlike good ole boys reassuring each other their group think is OK irrespective of its specious nature.

Sometimes (usually?) an issue is not best addressed as black or white but shades of grey. Appropriate management requires a reasoned proportional analysis and response not just a 0 or 100% good or bad.

The last time I appropriately applied "all or nothing" management to anything more complex than a light switch was driving a VW bug where intermediate throttle positions were infrequently needed... usually full throttle or none.

Pat

That last bit is so, so true. I helped row a VW van from Spokane, Wa to the east coast back in the 60s. Head wind? Drop a gear and still keep it floored.

Harry K

 

[Egon]

California Academy of Sciences

As a kid I used to go to the Steinhart aquarium. I was at the new California Academy of Sciences, what a joke. The worst aquarium make over the USA. It's a disappointing failure. Where are the fish? Nothing but fluff, and environmental trash propaganda. The sphere is so stupid. And the plants on the roof are equally stupid. What a loss for the city, don't recommend it to anyone. And the de Young museum building is the most ugly building I have ever seen. What a debacle. Want to take your family to an aquarium go to Atlanta. Even the small aquarium in Dallas blows the new Steinhart of the water. LOL.

HS

Are you having a bad day??

 

[patrick_g]

Back in the 60's I often used an inverted bicycle to explain one of my concerns for the ecosystem that sustains life as we know it on our planet. Turn a bike over and crank a pedal like crazy getting the back wheel going really fast and then stop cranking. With no more input the wheel will eventually stop. The system was dead and/or doomed to death when cranking stopped. It was inevitable that the wheel would eventually coast to a stop depending on inertia, bearing attributes, lubrication etc. The wheel will stop with insufficient input.

Man finally developed the means to kill off all (intelligent or otherwise)life on the planet through nuclear bombs, pollution, reduction in arable land area, poisoning the air, water (biosphere in general) destruction of the forests introduction of exotic species where they can wreck havoc on native species upsetting many chains of life (Including food.)

View the earth and its ecosystems as the spinning bicycle wheel, perhaps dead but not coasted to a stop yet. Have we killed our biosphere or sickened it beyond recovery by any means available or just headed in that direction? We don稚 really know! We have never been this way before so there is no historical precedent and man, in general, has a very hard time figuring things out for the first time.

Plenty of people have a hard time learning from their mistakes. More people have a hard time learning from the mistakes of others and precious few figure things out in advance for the first time with no direct previous experience. We have never killed a planet before so we have little direct experience to draw from. I would recommend caution lest we get too close to a slippery slope we can't back up on and slip to our destruction however hard we try to make amends too little too late.

We have the ability to poison ourselves and our planet to death. Have we already done so with the planet inevitably dying irrespective of do gooder efforts? We don't know. By acting promptly and committing appropriate resources could we make a difference or is it too late already? Again, we don't know. Maybe the planet is still inside �he envelope where it can sustain if we don't let things get too far out of balance. Again, we just don't know. The prophets of doom don't know and those whistling in the dark business as usual everything is OK crowd also do not know.

Since we really don't know where we are with respect to the point of no return, you'd hope that prudent persons would encourage a careful analysis of the situation rather than denying the possibility that it is possible for humankind to bring about their own destruction.

Rather than argue about the number of angels dancing on the head of a pin, lets use a microscope and count the buggers. We really don't know where we are along the continuum of self destruction but it seems prudent folks would want to know so as to make rational decisions of what to do if anything rather than just wrap oneself in a protective cloak of ignorant denial.

There is a surplus of vocal fanatics manning the battlements at both extremes of the argument, doing harm through engendering confusion through contradiction and naysaying. One is reminded of the war of the Lilliputians which started with tis, taint, tis taint, tis taint over which end of the boiled egg should be cracked open to spoon out the contents at breakfast.

Science can be complicated and difficult for the well intentioned but ill prepared lay persons to grasp. Nevertheless we need for everyone to try to support scientific efforts to find the truth of the matter in this grave area and be prepared to make amends or take corrective action as answers are found... if change is needed. Making this important debate/inquiry into a religious war where true believers of any stripe, unchecked by knowledge, accept a dogma on faith and cleave to it with maniacal ferocity out of proportion to the strength of their understanding is counterproductive in the extreme.

Blind loyalty to your side with concomitant denial of any information to the contrary and promulgation of this ignorant faith based foolishness serves no good cause. There are insufficient facts to justify many of the absolutist positions being taken. There is altogether too much don't confuse me with the facts, my mind is made up at both extremes of the spectrum.

I hope to have offended extremists of both ends of the continuum equally. If anyone feels shorted, please PM me with details and I shall endeavor to bring your offense quota up to par with the others.

Pat

 

[duke7595]

I do not, and will not believe in global warming,
It is another government sponsored PLOY MADE TO SCARE THE POPULATION
and of course we have the good ole boys (some politicians) that have been using this same platform for years to get ELECTED.

The sad thing is a lot of folks believe this crap.
Sincerely, Duke

 

[SPYDERLK]

Back in the 60's I often used an inverted bicycle to explain one of my concerns for the ecosystem that sustains life as we know it on our planet. Turn a bike over and crank a pedal like crazy getting the back wheel going really fast and then stop cranking. With no more input the wheel will eventually stop. The system was dead and/or doomed to death when cranking stopped. It was inevitable that the wheel would eventually coast to a stop depending on inertia, bearing attributes, lubrication etc. The wheel will stop with insufficient input.

Man finally developed the means to kill off all (intelligent or otherwise)life on the planet through nuclear bombs, pollution, reduction in arable land area, poisoning the air, water (biosphere in general) destruction of the forests introduction of exotic species where they can wreck havoc on native species upsetting many chains of life (Including food.)

View the earth and its ecosystems as the spinning bicycle wheel, perhaps dead but not coasted to a stop yet. Have we killed our biosphere or sickened it beyond recovery by any means available or just headed in that direction? We don稚 really know! We have never been this way before so there is no historical precedent and man, in general, has a very hard time figuring things out for the first time.

Plenty of people have a hard time learning from their mistakes. More people have a hard time learning from the mistakes of others and precious few figure things out in advance for the first time with no direct previous experience. We have never killed a planet before so we have little direct experience to draw from. I would recommend caution lest we get too close to a slippery slope we can't back up on and slip to our destruction however hard we try to make amends too little too late.

We have the ability to poison ourselves and our planet to death. Have we already done so with the planet inevitably dying irrespective of do gooder efforts? We don't know. By acting promptly and committing appropriate resources could we make a difference or is it too late already? Again, we don't know. Maybe the planet is still inside �he envelope where it can sustain if we don't let things get too far out of balance. Again, we just don't know. The prophets of doom don't know and those whistling in the dark business as usual everything is OK crowd also do not know.

Since we really don't know where we are with respect to the point of no return, you'd hope that prudent persons would encourage a careful analysis of the situation rather than denying the possibility that it is possible for humankind to bring about their own destruction.

Rather than argue about the number of angels dancing on the head of a pin, lets use a microscope and count the buggers. We really don't know where we are along the continuum of self destruction but it seems prudent folks would want to know so as to make rational decisions of what to do if anything rather than just wrap oneself in a protective cloak of ignorant denial.

There is a surplus of vocal fanatics manning the battlements at both extremes of the argument, doing harm through engendering confusion through contradiction and naysaying. One is reminded of the war of the Lilliputians which started with tis, taint, tis taint, tis taint over which end of the boiled egg should be cracked open to spoon out the contents at breakfast.

Science can be complicated and difficult for the well intentioned but ill prepared lay persons to grasp. Nevertheless we need for everyone to try to support scientific efforts to find the truth of the matter in this grave area and be prepared to make amends or take corrective action as answers are found... if change is needed. Making this important debate/inquiry into a religious war where true believers of any stripe, unchecked by knowledge, accept a dogma on faith and cleave to it with maniacal ferocity out of proportion to the strength of their understanding is counterproductive in the extreme.

Blind loyalty to your side with concomitant denial of any information to the contrary and promulgation of this ignorant faith based foolishness serves no good cause. There are insufficient facts to justify many of the absolutist positions being taken. There is altogether too much don't confuse me with the facts, my mind is made up at both extremes of the spectrum.

I hope to have offended extremists of both ends of the continuum equally. If anyone feels shorted, please PM me with details and I shall endeavor to bring your offense quota up to par with the others.

Pat

Good read Pat:thumbsup:. What a waste tho.
....larry

 

[patrick_g]

Good read Pat:thumbsup:. What a waste tho.
....larry

You mean like shiny round pieces of nacre in front of pigs? :laughing::laughing::laughing:

 

[DABSGT]

Let me just add to this in asking one very simple question. What is the ideal temperature that we are supposed to be at? Are we there right now? Are we supposed to cool the planet a few degrees and be colder?

I'm at a loss as to what the problem is since nobody has been able toe explain when we where at the perfect temperature and what it was. Obviously, since they feel the planet is warming and it's too hot now, what do they want us to go back to?

Eddie

Warmer is better! With the white house cheering the high gas and oil price global warming is a blessing. Just filled the oil tank $980.00 for 5 weeks.

 

[rsewill]

I do not, and will not believe in global warming,

That's what this issue needs, more open minds.

 

[EddieWalker]

Earth's clouds are getting lower, NASA satellite finds

Posted: 22 Feb 2012 08:43 AM PST

Earth's clouds got a little lower -- about one percent on average -- during the first decade of this century, finds a new NASA-funded university study based on NASA satellite data. The results have potential implications for future global climate.


I notice there seems to be a preponderance of posts regarding CC (Climate Change) posted by non believers. Their posts tend to be more sarcastic and emotional than rational.

I wonder if this is the equivalent of whistling in the dark?

I have seen cattle form a circle with their horns to the outside to mutually protect their backsides not unlike good ole boys reassuring each other their group think is OK irrespective of its specious nature.

Sometimes (usually?) an issue is not best addressed as black or white but shades of grey. Appropriate management requires a reasoned proportional analysis and response not just a 0 or 100% good or bad.

The last time I appropriately applied "all or nothing" management to anything more complex than a light switch was driving a VW bug where intermediate throttle positions were infrequently needed... usually full throttle or none.

Pat

Shrinking Sky! Cloud Tops Dropping Closer to Earth, NASA Satellite Finds | Atmospheric Science & Climate Change | Cloud Formation & Height | LiveScience

If NASA says so, then it must be true. Sadly, all they can say about it is they don't know what's causing it or what it means. All we know is that in the past ten years, the clouds are lower.

Sounds like another good examply of nothingness.

Eddie

 

[mostly_gas]

There is a reason that some of us don't buy everything that the scientist tell us. They don't know everything especially in new disciplines. They can make mistakes as well, such as when I was in high school I was told that it took 53 million years to form the petrified forest in Yellowstone Park. Now there is strong evidence that it is closer to hundreds of years not millions of years to form. And then the ignoring of the alarmist such as Prof. Mann. Sort of like Author Anderson as an accountant

 

[Egon]

Yep, them scientist's surely don't know everything. But then again, I, like most folks don't even know what they know! It' kinda like you don't know what you don't know.:thumbsup:

Sure do know the sceintist's have developed a whole pile of new instruments and such like that may allow better interpretation of what might be going on.

Why heck, when I was in High School the jukebox still had them vinyl records in them. Can't say that I've seen one in operation lately. Think folks use those memory sticks now. Don't know how they work either!

 

[houstonscott]

There is a reason that some of us don't buy everything that the scientist tell us. They don't know everything especially in new disciplines. They can make mistakes as well, such as when I was in high school I was told that it took 53 million years to form the petrified forest in Yellowstone Park. Now there is strong evidence that it is closer to hundreds of years not millions of years to form. And then the ignoring of the alarmist such as Prof. Mann. Sort of like Author Anderson as an accountant

Lotts of things that were thought to be true years ago have been shown to be wrong. What is funny is the PHd Scientist today that is telling everyone how correct they are about global warming got that PHd with all the wrong answers years ago when they earned their degree. Anyone who got a degree in the 50's or 60's would flunk out if their answers to questions of those days were applied to the questions of to day. Doesn't say much for a PHd in science. The earned their degrees with all the wrong answers.

HS

 

[EddieWalker]

Yep, them scientist's surely don't know everything. But then again, I, like most folks don't even know what they know! It' kinda like you don't know what you don't know.:thumbsup:

Sure do know the sceintist's have developed a whole pile of new instruments and such like that may allow better interpretation of what might be going on.

Why heck, when I was in High School the jukebox still had them vinyl records in them. Can't say that I've seen one in operation lately. Think folks use those memory sticks now. Don't know how they work either!

I don't think anybody is knocking science or Scientist. In fact, for a period of time, Man Made Global Warming was a big concern. They just pushed it too fast, too far and exposed themselves for pushing an agenda without anything to support it. Once it was exposed what was fabricated, what was destroyed and that they went into it trying to prove a position that they already have, and not let the science decide the facts, they lost all credibility.

When they had support by the public, that was used to push it, now that they don't, they insult the public, call us names and try to make up worse case scenerios of what is going to happen. When none of those things happen, they change to something else, or try to blame somebody else.

What is really sad is that those who have a personal agenda, or belief, have joined in to to try and get what they want to happen, less polition, more solar or wind, electric cars, or just end of the world dooms day beliefs to Man Made Global Warming. Like the so called global warming scientist who want grant money, fame and power, the supporters want something out of it too.

If it is real, then real scientist will join in and support it. Real scientist wont be doubting what the leaders of this hoax are pushing. The fake scientist will release all their data and make it open for inspection. When you have to hide your science, then it's not real science.

Eddie

 

[Tollster]

What is really sad is that those who have a personal agenda, or belief, have joined in to to try and get what they want to happen, less polition, more solar or wind, electric cars, or just end of the world dooms day beliefs to Man Made Global Warming. Like the so called global warming scientist who want grant money, fame and power, the supporters want something out of it too.

Eddie

Whats sad is paying 4.20 a gallon for non renewable fuel, and being held hostage by large gas companies. Without those so called "Hidden agendas" we will always be held hostage, as no alternative will ever be developed.
If they need to secure funding under the presumption of global warming, I am all for it!

 

[EddieWalker]

Who has the hidden agenda? The oil company that is selling you fuel for a profit and having to get it half way across the planet in locations that hate the US?

Or a government that relies on tax money raised from selling that fuel, but even more from voters who donate to them so they will fight the oil company with an empty promise to force somebody to invent something better. In the mean time, to keep their supporters happy and giving them more money, they use tax dollars to promote industy that doesn't work and requires more energy to operate then it produces. Have you heard of ethynol? What about solar companies like Sylendra? Or the Chevy Volt?

If you want to find a hidden agenda, look at goverment policy on energy and explain why the pipeline was canceled, why the Gulf was closed down, why ANWR was cancelled, why no more refineries are being built, why no more Nuclear power plants have been built, why Obama threatened to shut down coal and why we are spending billions of tax payer dollars to develop other countries oil industry like Brazil.

Eddie

 

[houstonscott]

Whats sad is paying 4.20 a gallon for non renewable fuel, and being held hostage by large gas companies. Without those so called "Hidden agendas" we will always be held hostage, as no alternative will ever be developed.
If they need to secure funding under the presumption of global warming, I am all for it!

I think you will find oil is a renewable fuel. Not ever going to run out. It's wind and solar that have to be renewed, to the tune every 12hrs or more, and wind is even more unpredictable.

HS

 

[mostly_gas]

Thanks Eddie, you said it very well. I would add the the Dept of Energy was founded to get us (the US) off of foreign oil. Why would anyone want the government to fund research when they have such a dismal record of achievement.

 

[Tollster]

Eddie, youhave all the answers,very broad, half truths added in for extra measure. I won't hold it against ya as we always have good debates,and I can see things form your point as well because you have such a way to express yourself.
You got quite abit outa that sentence, sit back and have a cup of joe, and catch up on current energy construction in the Nuclear construction field.
https://www.google.com/search?q=vog...nIuHr0gGDoqTvDQ&ved=0CGAQsAQ&biw=1280&bih=591

Sorry I am not pro oil such as yourself, yes I need it now,but believe there has to be something better, and I like the idea of research to find an answer to an alternative

 

[patrick_g]

Climate change, increasing temperatures alter bird migration patterns

The scientific method lives on in the face of change. There is still a best process for discovering truth and training in the application of that process is important. To discount all science because over time it learns more and more is not rational.

On balance we as a species have advanced much faster and more appropriately due to the application of the scientific method than any group ever has through superstition, ignorance, and naysaying.

There was a time when the "state of the art" regarding understanding what the world and universe was made of gave rise to a conviction that there were 4 elements; earth, air, fire, water, and a possible candidate 5th, phlogiston. Science advanced beyond that and folks had to modify their thinking in light of "better science." Should we not strive to advance for fear of being ridiculed for not having got it perfect and complete in the beginning?

It hasn't been all that long since light, radio waves, and other electromagnetic wave energy was thought to require a medium through which to propagate as with waves in water or sound waves through air. That medium was ether (yup the ether of ethernet.) Scientists (mostly Michelson and Morley) while performing experiments to learn about ether got results denying its existence. So, were they dunces for having tried to learn about something that didn't exist or heroes for finding and revealing the truth?

We are a curious lot, in the main, and strive ever for a better more complete understanding of life, the universe, and everything and won't settle for 42 as the ultimate answer. Why should the reward for learning more be to be castigated for not getting everything perfect immediately like finding a secret encyclopedia of all knowledge of infinite detail regarding everything.

(My apologies to Douglas Adams, may his soul rest in piece and his works be remembered.)

Earliest Horses Show Past Global Warming Affected Body Size of Mammals

http://www.sciencedaily.com/release...ciencedaily/top_news+(ScienceDaily:+Top+News)

Mayans put out of business by modest decrease in rainfall.
http://www.sciencedaily.com/release...ciencedaily/top_news+(ScienceDaily:+Top+News)

Urban deforestation.
http://www.sciencedaily.com/release...ciencedaily/top_news+(ScienceDaily:+Top+News)

Global climate change messes with cute furry chipmunks, oh my.

http://www.sciencedaily.com/release...ciencedaily/top_news+(ScienceDaily:+Top+News)

Injecting Sulfate Particles Into Stratosphere Won't Fully Offset Climate Change

http://www.sciencedaily.com/release...ciencedaily/top_news+(ScienceDaily:+Top+News)

Pat

 

[houstonscott]

Eddie, youhave all the answers,very broad, half truths added in for extra measure. I won't hold it against ya as we always have good debates,and I can see things form your point as well because you have such a way to express yourself.
You got quite abit outa that sentence, sit back and have a cup of joe, and catch up on current energy construction.
https://www.google.com/search?q=vog...nIuHr0gGDoqTvDQ&ved=0CGAQsAQ&biw=1280&bih=591

Sorry I am not pro oil such as yourself, yes I need it now,but believe there has to be something better, and I like the idea of research to find an answer to an alternative

You know what that's fine. I think you should pay for it though. Oil companies are in the oil business, why should they do the research? Let the people who want this stuff pay for the research. Let the New York Times develop wind and solar, or maybe ABC. We saw a bunch of I am smarter than you types from the Santa Clara Valley (silicon valley) try to develop an electric car, what a mess. If the battery is drained it destroys the battery forever, called bricking the car. Oh, it's 40K to replace. You turn it into a big brick. Not necessary or even preferable or even desirable to switch to something else, not necessary, oil is plentiful, clean, safe, and cheap.
HS