Global Warming :D

[Chalenge]

Political climates?  Did you get that from watching "Higher Learning" on HBO last night or something?...  

No I dont put dog squeeze in the old blender if you know what I mean.

You assume too much all along that post but I think its habitual with you. 

[Angus]

I do not see a climate discussion here for many a post.
Anyway, biology is a very good background for realizing climate change. It isn't just some temperature gauges, - each and every living organ has it's own, and that amounts to...a lot. AFAIK the biologists do not differ much in their opinion about climate change, - but hey, I guess the oil companies forgot about that branch.
In my field, agriculture, we do not differ much about it either. Now our business has to do with both climate and biology, so we must adabt to new cirkumstances, either defensively, or by benefitting from them, - where I live it is the latter one. So, to us, a climate change, in this case warming, is not a theory, but a fact, and thereby a part of the job. And in my case, on my latitude, GW is good for us 

[Chalenge]

... And in my case, on my latitude, GW is good for us 

[bozon]

...
Anyway, biology is a very good background for realizing climate change. It isn't just some temperature gauges, - each and every living organ has it's own, and that amounts to...a lot. AFAIK the biologists do not differ much in their opinion about climate change, - but hey, I guess the oil companies forgot about that branch.
In my field, agriculture, we do not differ much about it either.
...

There is a great difficulty in discussing this topic due to poor definitions and choice of terms. "Climate change" is completely open to interpretations. The weather this year is different from last year so the "climate changed". The last 10 year average is different from the last 50 years averages so the weather changed. The last 50 years are different from the past milenia.. and so on. Everyone will agree that the climate is changing or not if they are allowed to choose their own definition of "change". Most discussions end up returning to whether there is or there isn't a "climate change" because everyone can choose the data and definition to suit their opinion.

Do humans affect the weather, is a slightly better defined question. Humans have a strong and clear effect on the biosphere without invoking any climate change caused by them or not. When people detect a "change" in the biological environment it is not easy to distinct the effects of the climate change from other human influence, or other "natural" causes.

It is the fashion today that the first hypothesis is that the cause is of human nature. It is driven by different world views about religion, new-age philosophies and technology. When bee hives are being abandoned (colony collapse disorder) one of the first things to be accused were cellphones - why? not because of any evidence or serious theory, but because there are certain groups that believe cellphones are a source of evil. Of course genetic engineered plants were also the immediate suspects. 500 years ago it would have been because of that weird looking woman with the wart on her nose. The media has an amplifying effect to human-related theories. Accusing cellphones or genetic-engineering will draw much more public attention than some complicated explanation about the bee's immunity system - even if humans had something to do with this. It also guaranties that some political groups will jump on this wagon.

The climate issue has two faces:
1. Is the climate changing.
2. Do humans affect it and HOW.
People tend to confuse the two and attack #1 when the do not agree with #2, or assume #2 and try to prove it by demonstrating #1 is true. We have to answer both parts. If we prove #1 we may know what is ahead of us, but we will have no idea of how to act, unless we answer #2. There is a lot of evidence to sort through in order to answer #1. We have extremely thin evidence and almost no theoretical understanding of #2. The CO2 craze as an academic discussion could have passed, but acting on a global scale without a shred of understanding of what we are doing and what will be the effect is sheer folly.

[bongaroo]

LOL

How can you possibly stand to wallow in this cesspool of humanity?  With all due respect?  Don't be disingenuous.  

He's attempting to sound slightly civil in his response to your comment:

Translation:  "The unforeseen results in my studies of "global climate change" require more time to cook the books."

Which to me and everyone else looks like your calling into question his life's work.  I'm surprised he even sounded slightly civil in his rebuttal with how you spoke of him.

Get back under your bridge troll.

----------------

DON'T FEED THE TROLLS!

[sluggish]

He's attempting to sound slightly civil in his response to your comment:

Which to me and everyone else looks like your calling into question his life's work.  I'm surprised he even sounded slightly civil in his rebuttal with how you spoke of him.

Get back under your bridge troll.

----------------

DON'T FEED THE TROLLS!

I don't live for some elitist's approval.  I'm no more calling into question his life's work than he is calling into question everyone's intelligence who slightly disagrees with his "sky is falling" mantra.  The FACT of the matter is that every day more and more scientists are coming out AGAINST man made "climate change" to the detriment of their future grant money.  I am much more inclined to believe a climatologist who is making a statement that could very well lose funding than a "scientist" whose statements will increase his funding

[bongaroo]

I don't live for some elitist's approval.  I'm no more calling into question his life's work than he is calling into question everyone's intelligence who slightly disagrees with his "sky is falling" mantra.  The FACT of the matter is that every day more and more scientists are coming out AGAINST man made "climate change" to the detriment of their future grant money.  I am much more inclined to believe a climatologist who is making a statement that could very well lose funding than a "scientist" whose statements will increase his funding

My comments to you weren't about your belief or disbelief in climate change.  This is about you treating people like trash.

Did you struggle in sunday school about lessons in manners as much as you must have struggled in any sciene courses later or do you just get your jolly's by being a jerk on the interwebs?

On another note your using "quotes" is making me laugh.  I keep imaging someone making the motions with their fingers while they spew nonsense.

[Chalenge]

Learning manners in sunday school?  How far off topic will you go to attack someone? 

[bongaroo]

Learning manners in sunday school?  How far off topic will you go to attack someone? 

At least your fairly well mannered.  <S>

[sluggish]

My comments to you weren't about your belief or disbelief in climate change.  This is about you treating people like trash.

Did you struggle in sunday school about lessons in manners as much as you must have struggled in any sciene courses later or do you just get your jolly's by being a jerk on the interwebs?

On another note your using "quotes" is making me laugh.  I keep imaging someone making the motions with their fingers while they spew nonsense.

I treat rude people with the same "respect" that they treat others.  Stop being being a lap dog.

[bongaroo]

I treat rude people with the same "respect" that they treat others.

But this would require you being respectful in the first place to make any sense...


BACK UNDER THE BRIDGE FOR YOU!

[sluggish]

But this would require you being respectful in the first place to make any sense...


BACK UNDER THE BRIDGE FOR YOU!

I will be when "he" is...

[Chalenge]

Political climates?  Did you get that from watching "Higher Learning" on HBO last night or something?  About the last thing in today's labs are politics.  Everyone's too busy trying not to screw things up.  

Your take on higher education belies the fact you probably never went and are irritated by those that do.  Your take on science shows you, in fact, know no scientists.  

You look at grant money like it goes to the scientist that is awarded it.  The grant funds the research.  It does not fund the scientist. Which, sir, is why almost every scientist teaches.

Bongaroo I just want to point out that this right here is a travesty of upper education. Politics is defined as the process by which groups make decisions and I would say that applies to scientists in labs also especially those competeing for funds and publication rights not to mention seniority and tenure. That someone could go so high into education as to masters level and not understand the definition of politics or know it when they see it... lets just say book smart alone doesnt bring success. But of course he will say he understands that but meant politics as in civil governing... he smacks of ignorance through his insults and therefore deserves what he gets.

I will ignore him henceforth as I have given him more then enough warning that his behaviour should lead to censure.

[Angus]

I would interprete the "ignore" as submission for your part Chalenge. BTW, wasn't that you who choked on the decimals regarding volcanic CO2 ouputs? Must be frustrating for a scientist to mud-wrestle with that kind of logics...
Anyway, Bozon:
"The climate issue has two faces:
1. Is the climate changing.
2. Do humans affect it and HOW. "

About time for a good post. Isn't climate constantly changing anyway? Are we humans effective enough with our various efforts to affect a climate change globally?

Here comes my shot at it. We know that locally we can easily affect climate, that is an old story. We also know that single natural disasters (like eruptions, meteors etc) can easily change global climate by quite some bit. So how big is the human effort, and where. Okay, what we know:
- Earths surface affects how much solar energy is trapped and how much bounced away. We have had a big effect on earth's surface, - however 2/3rds are oceans...
- Earths vegetation affects in the same way, as well as influencing the atmosphere. We have affected that on a grand scale.
- The atmospheric components affect temperature, which is why we are not frozen over completely. We seem to be able to jack up the carbon part quite easily, by fetching it from deep down.

IMHO it is but folly to think that we do NOT affect climate in some way. But by how much and in which direction.
Warming is the theory, since our doings all have effects in that direction, and it also seems to add up.
Climate change is a more subtle term than Global Warming, - maybe because it is less absolute, and gives a space for the fact that a global warming does not have to mean warming EVERYWHERE, but as a total. If GW for instance allows the Gulf stream to run in a different way (due to the ice-mass not pushing it where it goes), some places will warm up by quite a bit, while other will cool by quite a bit. That would be a climate change due to a warming effect....
But we can but wait and see. The next 10 years or so will probably see the end of the debate, - we will see if any records will keep falling during the next solar cycle. But bearing in mind that the hottest year on record (AFAIK) is during an almost solar minimum sort of gives the tune....

[bongaroo]

Politics is defined as the process by which groups make decisions

Hmm...you constantly voiceing your disdain of higher education is fairly ironic.

politics [pol-i-tiks]   

–noun (used with a singular or plural verb)
1. the science or art of political government.
2. the practice or profession of conducting political affairs.
3. political affairs: The advocated reforms have become embroiled in politics. 
4. political methods or maneuvers: We could not approve of his politics in winning passage of the bill. 
5. political principles or opinions: We avoided discussion of religion and politics. His politics are his own affair. 
6. use of intrigue or strategy in obtaining any position of power or control, as in business, university, etc.
7. (initial capital letter, italics) a treatise (4th century b.c.) by Aristotle, dealing with the structure, organization, and administration of the state, esp. the city-state as known in ancient Greece.

I don't see anything about politics being group decisions.  Your attempt to link peer reviewed science to politics fails even the basic definition test.   

That someone could go so high into education as to masters level and not understand the definition of politics

 

Use a dictionary before you open up about how evil education is perhaps?  Or wouldn't that just be education?