Slashdot Mirror
Swedish Farmers Have Doubts About Climatologists and Climate Change
cold fjord (826450) writes with this excerpt from ScienceNordic: Researchers the world over almost unanimously agree that our climate is changing ... But many farmers – at least Swedish ones – have experienced mild winters and shifting weather before and are hesitant about trusting the scientists. The researcher who discovered the degree of scepticism among farmers was surprised by her findings. Therese Asplund ... was initially looking into how agricultural magazines covered climate change. Asplund found after studying ten years of issues of the two agricultural sector periodicals ATL and Land Lantbruk that they present climate change as scientifically confirmed, a real problem. But her research took an unexpected direction when she started interviewing farmers in focus groups about climate issues. Asplund had prepared a long list of questions about how the farmers live with the threat of climate change and what they plan to do to cope with the subsequent climate challenges. The conversations took a different course: "They explained that they didn't quite believe in climate changes," she says. "Or at least that these are not triggered by human activities."
(Original paper here.)
Repeat that after me, Mr. Fjord.
It is expected that there will be areas of happy, mild weather in any scenario you care to imagine. It is to be expected that a bunch of locals in regions suffering from happy, mild weather might not be as concerned about the issue as someone who had their house wiped out by a tornado.
But it the concerns and insights of either set of persons would be irrelevant to the discussion of GLOBAL climate change (hint, the word that is BOLDED is important).
Climate in not weather. Weather is not climate.
Faster! Faster! Faster would be better!
"...don't believe in Global Warming"
A little polar bear goes up to his mum and asks her, “Am I real polar bear?”
“Of course you are” his mum replies. “I’m a polar bear, your dad’s a polar bear, so you’re a polar bear”.
“But are you sure I don’t have any brown bear or grizzly bear in me?” he asks.
“Listen, if you don’t believe me go ask your grand-dad”
So he goes and asks his grand-dad
“Grand-dad, are you sure I’m a polar bear. I don’t have brown bear or grizzly bear in me?”
His grand–dad looks down on him and smiles.
“Listen, my boy, I’m a polar bear, my mum and dad were polar bears, and your granny, she was a polar bear, so your dad is a polar bear and so is your mum and her mum and her dad and her grand parents. We’re all polar bears so you are a pure, 100% polar bear”
The little polar bear doesn’t look convinced so his grand-dad asks him’
“What’s worrying you?”
“Well” he replies, “If both mum and dad are polar bears and all my grannies and grand-dads are polar bears, and even their mums and dads were all polar bears, and there’s no trace of grizzly or brown bear in methen why am I so fucking cold?”
Anecdotally, I don't believe the Earth revolves around the sun and YOU CAN'T MAKE ME.
That doesn't mean it's not the case, that I'm qualified to research or understand the model or that my opinion holds ANY weight whatsoever.
What it means is that on some topics, the "majority opinion" doesn't really have much bearing on the facts of the matter - and thus "Democratic" approaches to dealing with problems that are important but beyond the scope/scale of one person or group's anecdotal experiences probably won't be successful without education.
Should we listen to what they have to say? Absolutely. With that grain of salt handy, absolutely. They aren't 99% of the world's climatologists.
We can safely discard decades of satellite data and trends on global weather and climate, and the analysis of all climatologists all around the world, because a few carefully choosen farmers in sweden think that it is not happening.
Sweden is a liberal hellhole. They are attempting to shame the people into compliance like they did with their insane immigration policy.
Posting anonymously because Slashdot is also a liberal hellhole.
Your brain is small. Really small. Being outdoors probably isn't going to help you understand climate patterns any more than watching Fox News will help you understand politics.
We have measured the increase in the percentages of several gasses in our atmosphere, big or small, it has changed - denialists like you need a hole in the head.
You have no idea how "minor" or major the effects of human industry are, because you're too stupid/feckless even to honestly look. Go die of thirst already.
Maps showing anomalies for summer heat in the paper "Perception of climate change" by Hansen et al. show Sweden as having led a charmed existence so far. http://www.pnas.org/content/10...
The US Northwest and Mid-Atlantic, A region around the Urals and China have been fortunate thus far as well.
"Farmers also spend a lot of time outdoors, unlike researchers, and have a better idea of how minor human effects are."
They also shat in their fields for millenia giving all the population worms and other parasites before science told them to stop.
That was a 'human effect' too.
They want to make Scandinavia the breadbasket of Europe.
"There's alot of ppl. who don't believe in climate change (or its cause). I doubt Swedish farmers are the only group so I wonder why they are newsworthy while the groups are not?"
It's because when they were still called Vikings, they followed a guy named Eric the Red, a famous Global Warming believer, to Greenland where they perished almost all.
Now they are cautious.
Someone who can see more than one paticular area and who keeps particular records of temperatures and weather patterns?
Try those who still believe in science rather than going with the band wagon. I've been told climate is long term, is it not? The changes thus far observed are short term, making them weather patterns; also, you must account for the fact that the models used to support climate change are broken, they cannot back-cast nor fore-cast with known data corresponding to historical data, meaning they are worthless. The sea level change statistics are so wrong it's funny, as they never bothered to account for the lower density of ice versus sea water, nor the change in ocean area as sea levels rise, nor the geography on rock below ice masses.
"Researchers the world over almost unanimously agree that our climate is changing" if this was true, there would be no climate deniers, we would all agree"
If you were a RESEARCHER, that is.
There's plenty of people who believe that germs don't cause disease, that the Earth is the center of the universe, that Einstein was wrong, that the Holocaust didn't happen.... so does their denial indicate they have a point, or that there's always a few idiots who believe nonsense?
"We're gonna need a bigger re-education camp"
Why would there be no deniers if researchers almost unanimously agree? Biologists nearly unanimously agree that evolution is caused by random mutations and natural selection, but there are many millions of people that believe an intelligent agent designed all DNA. Never underestimate the power of a person to disagree if agreeing means that they will need to alter their worldview.
What a fool believes, he sees, no wise man has the power to reason away.
I take it you don't believe in atom decay either?
[FUCK BETA]
Some people.
My friend from Norway is paranoid about Global Warming slowing the gulf stream and leading to a localised ice age.
Bjorn Lomborg Is Part Of The Koch Network — And Cashing In: http://thinkprogress.org/clima...
I don't believe the two concepts are mutually exclusive, for a few reasons. First, "Random" is a subjective term, in the sense that a particular person considers something "random" if he can't spot a pattern. Secondly, most Christians I know consider it perfectly consistent with their worldview to believe that evolution is a mechanism by which God achieves His goals.
Then presumably that's true for persons on every side of an issue, no?
Got some smart farmers up there.....
Definitely not the one who thinks that farmers dealing with weather means the same farmers are dealing with climate
A fact means the models should match the observed results
Unfortunately, there are no correct models. The question is: does a model with a smaller climate sensitivity produce a better match with reality ?
Well, if you read the article, the farmers are not denying that the climate is changing, as they can clearly see this themselves. They are disagreeing about the cause. Now, how much experience do farmers have with climate change and its possible causes ? Not much at all. They've only seen climate change once in their lifetimes.
So I went into the thesis.
There is NOTHING quantitative here. Department of Thematic Studies? WTF?
As far as I can tell this is a conclusion based on building castles in the air.
The key is the last item in the article:
“This is a resistance to decrees which they think undermine competitive Swedish agricultural production,”
The researcher has probably never spent time on a farm. She apparently had a stereotype of farmers as victims of big industry helplessly struggling to live in harmony with nature in the face of changing climate. In real life farmers are industry - the agricultural industry. They work very hard to maintain a farm, a farm being something radically out of balance with nature. Unless the laws and 'free' 'trade' agreements change to alter their economic incentives, their focus will be on their immediate, short-term economic situation and whatever mythology is tied up with their understanding of those economics.
The telling part is "Or at least that these are not triggered by human activities." If the climate is changing, then the question of the cause is the first part of finding a solution, but the problem does not magically become less serious depending on who or what the cause is. Someone who goes off-topic about human activities is trying - poorly - to rationalize their denial.
And as we know, farmers are on the cutting edge of science.
But, but, but...
What happens if we clean up the environment and it not the cause of global warming. All we'd have then is no smog, non-polluting power and clean water.
I've never eaten any food from Sweden, other than a few candy fish. Is it logical for me to doubt the existence of Swedish agriculture based on it not affecting me (as far as I know)?
... IPCC has been furiously back pedaling...
Furiously back pedaling? - or - Careful restatement of certain specific points based upon new information, while keeping the overall context intact?
.
I've seen so much over the top hype and hysteria from the climate change deniers, that I no longer believe their 10 word or less summaries of why climate change is not happening.
The climate change deniers need to start presenting a better level of peer-reviewed data and conclusions, and stop their unproven assertions (note: hypothetical research papers funded by the oil and coal industries, however well that funding is hidden, do not count.)
If you think an intelligent agent is causing changes to DNA, that is absolutely at odds with thinking the changes are random mutations. When I hear people say that some Christians believe that evolution is how God achieves his goals, I always thought that meant that an intelligent designer set the process in motion and went away and let nature run its course. Are you saying that people who say this believe that an intelligent agent is actively changing DNA? If so, how many changes are due to the agent and how many are natural? And how do you tell?
People who disagree because of their worldview are typically at odds with vast amount of evidence that falsifies their beliefs. From the disagreements I've seen, it generally a two-sided issue with evidence firmly coming down on one side, and the other side unwilling to change their beliefs to fit the evidence. In the case of evolution and AGW, the evidence comes down firmly on the side of natural process without intelligence for evolution, and human-produced greenhouse gases causing warming for AGW.
What a fool believes, he sees, no wise man has the power to reason away.
Secondly, most Christians I know consider it perfectly consistent with their worldview to believe that evolution is a mechanism by which God achieves His goals.
Yes. I think he was smart enough to realize it is a lot easier and kewler to do creation using procedural generation with DNA evolution than having to hand carve every model by hand.
But, but, but... You forgot the one-world gubment ruled by socialist dictator Obamabot!
What a fool believes, he sees, no wise man has the power to reason away.
[citation needed]
What a fool believes, he sees, no wise man has the power to reason away.
Quite the opposite. As of 2007, when the American Association of Petroleum Geologists released a revised statement,[ no scientific body of national or international standing rejected the findings of human-induced effects on climate change. - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/S...
I don't believe the two concepts are mutually exclusive, for a few reasons
They are for a lot of people, which is what matters for the analogy.
Nobody thinks scientists are magically infallible, just that they have a much better track record than Swedish farmers.
So where are all the dissenting scientists, and how did you figure out their numbers if they are invisible ?
Oh really? So how many of the predictions our esteemed climate scientists made with their precious models actually held?
I would rather side with the farmers.
Because they're not in the US? Just supposed to be US right wing doubting climate change.
William of Ockham had no beard. The most likely explanation is that it was chewed off by squirrels every morning.
A couple of years ago I talked with a swedish meteorologist that explained me it's quite difficult to shame people in his country about their impact on global warming, because definitely when you spend a very large part of the year with few sunny hours and one meter of snow at your door stop, "a bit warmer" definitely doesn't sound this bad.
I expect this applies to Swedish farmers as well...
Herve S.
It would be easier to focus on things that people can see everyday like litter everywhere or rivers they can't swim in rather than push what is seen as climate faith on the uneducated through media babble. Unfortunately people would rather be indignant over the common man being skeptical of what's seen as a bunch of chicken littles and accomplish little to nothing rather than drop a pointless argument.
Why are lay folks so hung up on models?
The data has proven that our climate is warming. The models are just to see how that warming will affect the climate in certain parts of the World. The climatologist are trying to predict what will happen in the future and they are tweaking them. The funny thing is, many of their models were a little too conservative - in some areas, things are worse than they predicted.
It's unfortunate that the denier pundits (AM Talk Radio and Fox News - a foreign owned entity) use the models as an argument to discredit the facts. I have personally heard Sean Hannity use the "models are wrong" argument in an attempt to discredit global warming and the unsophisticated fall for it hook line and sinker.
The pundits are nothing but entertainers and their game is to scare their listeners (Oh no! The liberals are using Global Warming as an excuse to tax more!). They want their listeners to be too scared to not listen. They bend the truth, lie, and say anything to piss off and terrify their listeners off so they keep listening.
I'm always cynical whenever someone labels an issue "Conservative" or "Liberal" because whoever they may be, they are attempting to manipulate me.
Oh and here's another factoid: Cox family of Cox communications owns and makes millions of dollars off of those pundits. They donate heavily to the Democrats. Yeah, while your listening and boosting listeners, they are funneling money to the Democrats. Suckers.
Please show a graph with actual temperature, the model output from the scientists, and the global climate model output from the Swedish farmers, so we can see who got closer. Of course, when I mentioned track record, I didn't imply to focus just on climate models. After all, you brought up aether theory as an indication that we were looking much broader than that.
So while I'm not ready to completely discount the stories of some Swedish "focus groups" (from the article), that anecdotal evidence would be balanced (overwhelmed? flooded? washed away? submerged?) by the experiences of tens of millions of rice farmers here in S.E. Asia (Mekong delta) who are literally seeing their future disappear before their eyes.
I think the rate of inundation by the ocean here (I live in Vietnam) is getting ridiculous, I frequently read in the local papers about KILOMETERS per year of rice paddies being lost to the sea; if not by direct submergence then by saltwater infiltration. I don't think there's a shadow of a doubt to these farmers that SOMETHING very bad is happening, though honestly I'm not sure if many of them have even heard of climate change.
Now of course there are a lot of other things going on that could be contributing to this. Overuse of groundwater, damming of the Mekong, improper irrigation; I'm not a climate scientist and I haven't screened out those effects (of course climate scientists who've looked at this closely have and they say the effect is real). But neither are those Swedes climate scientists so if their unprofessional opinion is that nothing out of the ordinary is going on, well I've got ten times (a hundred times? a thousand times?) more opinions here to counter that. Then again, there just might be some biases in listening more to white europeans as opposed to brown asians so maybe their opinions don't count. (I rarely if ever see any articles in Western media about the tremendous loss to agriculture that these farmers in the Mekong are facing; the rice basket to HUNDREDS of millions of people; nor do I see articles about the gloomy forecasts made by the governments here that in 20 years or so millions of people in cities like mine, saigon, will be flooded out).
If we get rid of all the farmers, not only will we have unity of ideas, but everyone will starve so we've solved anthropogenic global warming.
Of course, even at this point it may well take a long time for the existing effects to reverse, but we can rest easy in our graves. ;)
(Extreme tongue in cheek warning for the humorless bastards on both sides of this flamepit topic who'd take anything seriously no master how ridiculous.)
Nice straw man fallacy you've got there.
What actually happened is that as more data came in, the confidence interval narrowed and is now focusing in somewhere around the middle of the old confidence interval.
Naturally, this means that some of the most severe scenarios haven't verified. If the most extreme predictions were actually the ones that were true, that would indicate that science was doing a terrible job, since in that case it would turn out that almost everyone underestimated.
It also means that some of the least severe scenarios (including the "this'll all blow over" scenario) haven't verified either, but you didn't pay attention to that since you were busy riding your hobbyhorse.
Anthropocentric global warming is being forced down our throats. But not in the way you meant.
Climate change is not local weather. Got it now? If not climb under the rock where you belong.
ivory tower
I've got a working hypothesis that anyone who uses the term "ivory tower" generally has a massive chip on his shoulder and very little idea what he's talking about. I have yet to see a counterexample.
SJW n. One who posts facts.
I've always thought this whole situation to be rather ignorant of humans to think that we can single-handedly destroy a planet that has been here billions of years in our relatively minor existence.
If the history of the world was a full day, it would be like humans showing up in the last 5 seconds and saying "holy cow we are destroying the planet."
Don't get me wrong, I think we should do everything we can to lessen our environmental impact, but thinking that the Earth won't be able to correct itself in many ways to compensate is ignorant.
Sweden and some other northerly countries are probably situated in much better locations to observe minor climatic variations. A bit hotter probably doesn't mean much in the Midwest of the USA, where they already have long growing seasons. It means a lot where a few degrees can make the difference between sucess and failure of a crop and an entire society. And having such a sensitive indicator makes them better judges of past climate patterns.
Have gnu, will travel.
What happens if we clean up the environment and it not the cause of global warming. All we'd have then is no smog, non-polluting power and clean water.
This kind of post shows ignorance about reality. CO2 is not smog, stopping AGW is orthogonal to cleaning the water (and could make the water messier, considering all the mining that must be done for lithium batteries etc).
"First they came for the slanderers and i said nothing."
And like the effect under discussion, a far less of one than the benefits provided by farming, especially considering the effect was present prior to the farming.
And frankly, the hysteria mongers need to quit using "climate change deniers" as this is a misnomer, purposefully omitting that it's AGW that being challenged.
China officials once said they're not going to do anything to reduce pollution, and that the west started started it, so it's their problem.
Since you're lazy, here's a good start -> wikipedia.
How many biologists understand the nature of randomness though? When it comes to metaphysical stuff, the biologists are punting the difficult bit into the term 'random' and ascribing this 'random' thingamajig the properties that fundies ascribe to their God. Then things such as mind, consciousness and intelligence have yet to be turned into sufficiently concretely defined concepts to answer questions like 'is evolution directed in an intelligent way' let alone how and if human intelligence and consciousness arise from brain activity, or emerge in other ways. We really know less than we think, and many untestable hypothetical foundations are elavated to the position of unquestionable dogma by the phenomena of 'near universal acceptance by experts'.
That climate change is happening is beyond doubt, but the case that humanly produced CO2 emissions are the primary cause, and that massively reducing our CO2 emissions will fix the issue is not beyond doubt. Funding for projects which subject these ideas to scrutiny is harder to get than funding for projects which assume the CO2 caused warming and then show results consistent with it. The diagram correlating CO2 with global temperature as inferred from ice cores, famously used by Gore in his 'inconvenient truth' has been claimed by some to put the causative relationship the wrong way round (suggesting that instead rising temperatures cause the oceans to release stored CO2, hence the increase in CO2). Some have advanced the notion that solar activity is the cause, with evidence. But global warming has become so politicised that proper scientific debate is stifled, for example by the need to adhere to CO2 caused warming theories in order to get funding for your project.
Your point of 'Never underestimate the power of a person to disagree if agreeing means that they will need to alter their worldview.' is just as valid for the wide acceptance of the CO2-warming relationship. The great political momentum attached to this worldview is hard to argue against, even on scientific grounds, since those who don't wish to change can keep pointing to the mass who believe CO2 causes global warming.
Caveat: I'm not an expert in this area, but find how politicised it is to be worrying.
John_Chalisque
... and fucked farm animals for entertainment thus spreading gloriously nasty bugs around the human race.
Now now, I think it's probably safe to say that some of them only made out.
I mean, seriously, you've seen people with their pets, right? DEE-scusting.
"You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
I can tell you are not a farmer, and certainly aren't familiar with any other farmers. In my experience--and that of many of my colleagues--the typical bell curve of innovation and knowledge acceptance is not different from the larger population. You have forward thinking early adopters, the slower changing mass in the middle, and those who must be dragged kicking and screaming from one millennium into the next.
true, a certain conservatism guides farming decisions--we're not too distant from a time when a bad choice or bad timing would lead to hunger and misery for an entire community. At least farmers can give concrete reasons for what you perceive as silly.
But overall, your post is rather ignorant. But then again, if I couldn't grow a crop, I guess I'd feel inferior like you. Farming and Fighting are the only real skills needed for abundant life. Every thing else is ancillary.
sorry pal, but the IPCC predictions being back pedalled on were "the averages" of their report
I'm old enough to remember the Food Pyramid and the groupthink 'science' that led to it. To say I'm suspicious of the current AGW craze is an understatement. Anytime contrarian scientific findings and theories are discounted out of hand, my BS detector blows a fuse. Take the politics out of current Climate Science and let's look at *all* the data and theories.
Organization? You must be joking..
Then there is the Aether theory. You think scientists are somehow magically infallible or something like that?
Not trying to go a little off topic, but
I actually think the whole concept of Aether being the medium to transmit light "waves" is a good example of science working the way it should. Individuals observed that all waves appear to need a medium to travel in. Therefore, there must be a medium for light waves.
Now, the difference between blind faith and science is that someone wanted to show that the Aether theory was correct. This was the famous Michelson-Morley experiment where the theory was shown to be wrong (yes, I know there were many experiments in this area of study with varying results) and was a stepping stone to special relativity.
So yes, scientists are fallible but that isn't the same as not willing to be show the "light" in the face of evidence.
I love the sound of distortion in the morning -- webcommando
Swedish farmers, like most people of Fennoscandia do indeed see less effect from global warming that vast majority of planet's population.
First of all, our ground is rising several times faster than global warming is rising sea levels. This is because of depression caused by recent ice age, and after ice mass retreated, the ground started to rise to the state in which it was before vast amounts of ice were sitting on top of it. This is an ongoing process that completely eliminates the problems from rising sea levels around here.
Then there's the fact that our winters are more dependent on Gulf Stream than on any other global trend, and Stream is still going strong enough to keep us warm. That amortises the effect of global warming to a significant degree.
I guess we Americans aren't the only stupid people in the world!
And as we know, farmers are on the cutting edge of science.
Many are, actually, because agricultural science is one area where the government both funds it very well (at least in the US) and there's a lot of work put into practical applications. (Some) farmers are using RTK GPS for tending their fields, robots equipped with vision processing to pick fruit (a piece of fruit's IR reflectivity is an excellent way to judge ripeness) and so on.
I know someone who owns a milk farm. He jokes he's got a "degree in dirt" - but what that means is that he spent four years learning about soil/nutrient management and how to most effectively use his family's most valuable resource.
Now, that said: these guys are idiots. We have more than a hundred thousand years of ice core samples showing climate data. Everything we're collecting now is far off the charts from everything else.
Please help metamoderate.
Exactly, thank you.
This is just like Iraq, Afghanistan, or wherever we fight the next war to line Halliburton's pockets. If you want to know the historical and political factors driving the different factions in the war, are you going to ask a scholar who has researched the history and analyzes news from all sources? No, just ask one of the grunts from some FOB - they know the straight shit.
Racist
"Although it is the sister species of the brown bear, it has evolved to occupy a narrower ecological niche, with many body characteristics adapted for cold temperatures, for moving across snow, ice, and open water, and for hunting the seals which make up most of its diet."
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/P...
So no, not racist, the question only involved adaptation for cold climates. Scientific facts are not racist. Racism is about *false* claims or about discrimination because of a difference.
Sure, by just going back to an agrarian society.
Just yet another small group relying on provincialist reasoning to deny the existence of something that vast majority of the world's experts agree, after carefully collating data collected on a truly global scale, does exist. Same ignorant denialist shit. Different day. If you substitute "Energy Industry Shill on Fox News" for "Swedish Farmers" would this even be news?
CO2 is not smog, but reducing CO2 production will most likely also reduce smog.
You can see through
Your rose coloured glasses
In a world that seems
Like glamour to you
You've got opinions and judgments about
All kind of things
That you don't know anything about
Ivory Tower, Van Morrison
Actually, deniers usually go like this: Climate isn't changing (there's a pause!). Even if the climate is changing, it's not caused by CO2 (it's the sun!). Even if CO2 causes climate change, humans didn't produce it. Even if humans have caused it, the effect isn't bad (CO2 is good for plants!). Even if the effect is bad, it's not catastrophic (I like it a bit warmer where I live). Even if the effect is catastrophic, there's nothing we can do about it.
The earth does not care about the composition of the atmosphere. The presence of oxygen at its current percentage is not the "normal" state, a higher carbon dioxide level was "normal" millions of years ago. Go back billions of years and you will find that our oxygen rich atmosphere is the result of an organism that changed the global climate by emitting oxygen as a waste product.
Don't confuse what is normal for the human species, what we are evolved to expect, for what is normal for the "earth". Environmentalism is about saving humans not the earth.
That's only a handful of people. Where's the real list ?
Please show your proof that "people have been caught manipulating and flat-out lying".
Yep, just like Germany which, one day last month generated 50% of their electrical power from solar and is planning to phase out all coal-burning generation (they've already eliminated nuclear after Fukushima). Oh, wait, they have one of the strongest industrial economies in the world. Or Estonia with close to 100% Internet connectivity and a network of EV charging stations nationwide.
It REALLY depends on what you do to reduce CO2. Some ways of reducing CO2 will actually increase pollution. As will all things, any policy changes should be carefully thought out. The details matter. Don't support something only because it claims to stop AGW (or give better healthcare, or give more freedom, etc).
"First they came for the slanderers and i said nothing."
Well, if the Gulf Stream ceases to exist due to the changes (which has been considered a couple of times), the Swedes won't be all that glad I guess. Siberia will look like a warm and cozy place in comparison. Rome will be a bit colder than New York.
It REALLY depends on what you do to reduce CO2. Some ways of reducing CO2 will actually increase pollution.
Well, don't use those then.
If we don't reduce dependency on fossil fuels soon, the agrarian society will be here even quicker.
and if human intelligence and consciousness arise from brain activity, or emerge in other ways
If Quantum Field Theory is correct, there is no other way. And with the LHC performing 100 million collisions per second, every single one matching with QFT predictions, there's not much room left for big errors. There's only room for tiny adjustments whose effects would be too small to notice in daily life.
Climate change is happening and nothing is going to stop it. The thing is, nobody is willing to make sacrifices to stop human-made climate change. Essentially we will have to cease being such zealous consumers of resources. That 's never going happen generally because very few people are willing to:
Give up your cars, including hybrids and electricals. Those may be low or zero-emission vehicles, but the factory where they were build isn't.
Cancel your annual flight down south each winter.
Give up your 300W 50" LCD TV, 100W/channel 7-speaker amplifier, and the rest of their electronic gadgets that soak up coal-plant produced electricity.
Endorse nuclear energy and be willing to allow reactors to be build nearby your homes.
Be willing to wait an extra week for your courier packages to get shipped by rail instead of fuel-guzzling trucks.
Give up tropical fruits & vegetables in winter months to cut down on the trucks (thus emissions) needed to ship those items up north from the tropics. Do you really need watermelon in January when it's -25C outside?
Get rid of your lawn so you no longer need to fertilize it. The nitrogen fixation process uses a ridiculous amount of energy, which likely comes from coal plants.
The point of this comment is that (if) climate change, sea level increase, melting glaciers & polar ice caps, etc. are caused by human activities, then we humans are going to have stop doing many of things that we normally take for granted in our high standard of living lifestyles. How many of us are willing to make these changes? I bet very few.
That is a very good example - but of the reverse of what you probably meant.
Aether was a gang of ideas created to solve problems in the scientific models. They were tried and one after another failed when compared to the real world.
There are still a few people that believe in some form of aether however they are mostly ignored.
That is the scientific process succeeding. AGW is one of the models that have survived many tests and is the most likely to be proven right.
I don't... I don't get it. Woosh?
d be more concerned about politicians and corporations that deny climate change.
Why? There's an easy solution for that problem. Just put them in prison. The German people went from being racist murders to being accepted back as part of the world community just because they put deniers in prison. We need to do the same.
Quoting just for the bat-shit insanity of it.
If you think I voted for Trump because of this post, you're wrong. I voted for Dr. Jill Stein of the Green Party. Again.
It's Norway, how would they even know a "localized ice age" kicked in?!?
Very well replied. Now I think imminent changes in the Gulf Stream are more difficult to actually check Comparing this to the remark above (some more warm days will make or kill the growing season), we are facing a hard time...
Herve S.
And no money.
A hundred thousand years of ice core samples? Don't scientists claim the earth is over 2 billion years old? I don't doubt the earth is getting warmer and undoubtably man has contributed to that warming. How much contribution may be debatable but what is not debatable is that the earth has been far hotter than it is now. The problem is that we have a group of people who have made up their minds that humanity is destroying the world's climate and that this must be stopped at all costs and they are willing to go to any length whatsoever to further their aims. There is another group that is more afraid of these people than they are of the average global temperature climbing another 10 degrees farenheit in the next century. The first threat is here now and drastic while the second threat is mostly in the future and gradual. The strident howling and shrieking of the climate change gurus is more feared by many than climate change itself.
And that's why europeans are building coal power plants at astounding rates, and Germany is buying lots of power from France. With that, Germany also has the most expensive electricity in the world. Forward to bankruptcy!
Om, nomnomnom...
I've always thought this whole situation to be rather ignorant of humans to think that we can single-handedly destroy a planet that has been here billions of years in our relatively minor existence.
Of course we are not going to destroy the planet. The Earth will go on with or without us. What we may be destroying or at least altering drastically are the geophysical systems that we have built our complex technological civilization on and that allow us to support 7+ billion humans. We may not be able to adapt fast enough to the changes that are occurring to maintain it all.
Wow, one comment that Obama is a socialist and one that the Christian Democrats in Germany are a facist dictatorship.
These must be comments from the US, the home of the NSA and the largest domestic spying program in the world.
In the US, as in Germany, you are entitled to your own opinion, however only in the US is there a clear belief that ignorance makes your opinion more worthwhile. Here's a clue, it doesn't. Study some facts, get information from places other than FOX news and come back when you actually know something about, well, anything really, but you could start with geography and the poltics of countries in Europe. Here's a hint, Ted Cruz is not electable (even on the crackpot fringe) and Obama is center-right anywhere outside the US.
It's called the Farmers Almanac, and it has over the last 100+ years been more accurate than any other model out there.
Om, nomnomnom...
What a bizarre claim. Glaciers in Alaska are melting like they want to quit the party early. There are glacier overlooks constructed where you can no longer see the glacier in question. Fairbanks has had a 50% increase in frost-free days over a century, and overall the rate of warming in the Arctic is roughly double the rest of the world. Temperatures have risen about 4 degrees F overall, and winter temps are up 6 degrees. Arctic sea ice has been shrinking steadily. Snowfall is up a little due to increased evaporation but not enough to counter the glacial melting. Sea ice that has protected settlements for centuries or milennia has vanished and forced the relocation of several villages.
The glacial melting is dramatic. Some of the melting has been attributed to other factors than climate change, specifically that of the Columbia Glacier. The majority of glaciers in the world are in retreat, but the warming effects are most visible in the Arctic.
The landscape is visibly changing. By the time I am old it will be unrecognizable. Cassandra, you have my sympathies.
Those who advocate genocide deserve every protection afforded by law, and none afforded by common human decency.
There's been some analysis of when the next ice age would occur. Based on Milankovitch Cycles and natural conditions you are correct. But there's been some work that shows CO2 levels have to be below 250 ppm for the Earth to drop into the next glaciation. As long as levels are above that the next glaciation will be indefinitely postponed.
we kind of like the longer growing season. Please don't do anything that would shorten it.
The USA is only 4X older than me...perspective
farmers the world over have been amongst the most skeptical of the whole thing because they have weather and climate records that go back hundreds of years.
People seem to forget that farmers were the first climatologists. And to this day, the most accurate predictions about the weather and climate changes actually come from the agro sector.
Silly publications like the Old Farmer's Almanac consistently out predict the pHDs and super computers of climate academia.
example:
http://news.investors.com/ibd-...
Now, does that mean global warming isn't real? No... but it does mean that farmers especially feel they understand the climate at least as well as anyone else... and they're therefore less inclined to accept the opinion of experts without more information. And that information has to be in line with their existing information... which as cited... remains at least as accurate in its ability to predict the future as anyone else... if not a great deal more accurate.
I've decided to stop wasting my time responding to AC trolls/sockpuppets... so if you want a response from me... login.
As I mentioned, you are entitled to your opinions, but you are NOT entitled to your own facts. Coal usage in the EU is decreasing, renewable use (not fossil fuel generation) is increasing:
http://theenergycollective.com...
http://www.renewableenergyworl...
(older data) http://www.eea.europa.eu/data-...
While the price per kWh in Germany is high, it's not even the highest in the EU and certainly not the highest in the world. That statement is just plain WRONG. The price in Germany is not even that far out of line with the rest of the EU where prices are generally at least double the US rates:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/E...
You go on a viking to a place that you used to raid for wine, and find out that they don't have any because grapes don't grow there anymore?
You realize that using google will disprove the first two links in about 8 seconds right? And the last with Germany on average running 38c/KwH isn't the highest in the EU right now right? Old data from wikipedia isn't exactly making your point.
Om, nomnomnom...
Some academic with a model in an ivory tower with a million dollar grant or the lyin' eyes of a farmer who spends his life outside dealing with the real climate?
That line of thought leads you to weather forecasting via groundhog appearance.
You've posted another opinion, unsupported by ANYTHING as if it were FACTS. Have newer data that disproves mine - post it. Have citations that support you positions - post them. Until you do, you're just making it up...
What about if we fail to take on global warming and the effects cause millions or billions of people to starve to death because of reduced agricultural production? To just simply assume we can keep doing what we've been doing without consequences is just as absurd.
"You really should take another look at the situation. The AGW Priesthood actually behave very similarly to the Creationists, and nothing whatsoever like the Evolutionary Science. The only difference is that the AGW people are adherents to a more fashionable religion.
Oh please. The weight of scientific evidence is far greater on the AGW side. People who think the scientific predictions of climate theory have been inaccurate generally don't understand how accurate scientists expect them to be in the first place.
This is just like Iraq, Afghanistan, or wherever we fight the next war to line Halliburton's pockets.
Lets test that.
Reporter - 1943: Why is the US fighting the Empire of Japan?
Marine on Tarawa: Because the Japs bombed Pearl Harbor.
Reporter - 2004: Why is the US fighting in Afghanistan?
Marine in Afghanistan: Because Afghanistan hosted al Qaeda when it attacked the US, killing as many people as Pearl Harbor.
Reporter - 2014: Why did the US go to war in Afghanistan?
DexterIsADog: Cuz Halliburtonz!
I'm going with the Marines.
much of left-wing thought is a kind of playing with fire by people who don't even know that fire is hot - George Orwell
The RSS record shows some cooling in the past 18 years but they're using an old satellite whose orbit is decaying and there are questions about how accurate that record is. The MSU satellite record and all of the surface temperature records still show warming.
Regarding the surface temperature records even if you use the raw data without any adjustments they still show warming.
Finally the US surface temperature record only covers ~3% of the globe. A minor factor in the whole picture.
It was hundred of years ago. They all died wherever they were.
If you think I voted for Trump because of this post, you're wrong. I voted for Dr. Jill Stein of the Green Party. Again.
Yeah, because they're looking at the whole planet instead of just their little piece of it. Right.
"And as we know, farmers are on the cutting edge of science."
Actually, we are. Historically a lot of scientists were farmers.
And frankly, the hysteria mongers need to quit using "climate change deniers" as this is a misnomer, purposefully omitting that it's AGW that being challenged.
The more accurate term would be "climate science deniers".
Exactly. Warmer would be appreciated. Warmer is nice for those of us living in the north country. Please come farm through our -45ÂF winters and then pretty soon you'll appreciate a 10ÂF or 20ÂF rise in temperatures. Balmy.
Some of you are confused, very confused. I believe in global warming, I'm for it. I'm pro-warming. I'm pro-climate change. The best of times have been when our planet was warmer. Life and biodiversity flourished. The worst of times were during global cooling, the ice ages. Move north and get some perspective on this. Or just study geological history. Science rules.
Except all the major sources of CO2 are also the sources of the particulates that cause smog?
True but climate doesn't change for some magical reason. There are physical reasons behind climate changing. That's one of the things climate scientists are studying. If you want to counter their views on the subject you need to present some actual physical evidence for something different causing the changes.
Point out anything counter to the politically-correct paradigm on global warming. B-)
Religious zealots are more than happy to abuse the moderation system to suppress discussion threads when they begin to question any aspect of their religion.
Bantam Dominique roosters crow a four-note song. Once you've heard it as "Happy BIRTHday" you can't NOT hear it that way
More likely they used a relatively simple energy balance calculation but computers were no doubt involved. Just not regular climate models.
Swedish farmers dont believe the climate scientists and all of the climate science evidence that has been collected and analysed.
Well, it was fun guys, but all the climate scientists the world over now need to pack their things, close everything down and start looking for a new career. Climate Science is now officially dead and wrong.
The Swedish farmers have spoken.
And who then refuses to show those records in response to lawful requests for information, and who finally destroys that information to ensure it doesn't get seen and analyzed?
You have to complete the sentence properly.
If you think I voted for Trump because of this post, you're wrong. I voted for Dr. Jill Stein of the Green Party. Again.
You are correct that it is motivated reasoning. However, not in the way you seem to think. Farmers are highly motivated to understand what the weather is going to be like from year to year (how hot is it going to be, how much is it going to rain, etc), because if they get it wrong they go broke and starve. If enough farmers get it wrong, we all starve. In summary, it is more important to a farmer to get it right than it is to a climatologist.
The truth is that all men having power ought to be mistrusted. James Madison
But there's been some work that shows CO2 levels have to be below 250 ppm for the Earth to drop into the next glaciation. As long as levels are above that the next glaciation will be indefinitely postponed.
Which would make the release of all the evil CO2 the best thing ever done for human sustainability.
You know, Sweden and the other Scandinavian countries are really a lot like the US. It looks really liberal if you're in the big cities but it starts to get distinctly redneck if you head out of town. The farmers there are like the farmers in the US, a conservative bent that things should stay they way they always were and that the distant remote government really doesn't understand them (same with loggers, another big industry in Scandinavia). Doesn't help that Scandinavian TV likes to portray rural people as ignorant hicks (same as US TV actually!).
So I can really understand that Swedish academics get confused if they spend their lives in the middle of Stockholm and think that the rest of the country is equally liberal. Then all these European countries feign shock and surprise when suddenly there's a surge at the elections for center and right-of-center parties. The real difference in US is that there a broader balance of political power between the urban, suburban, and rural areas.
But then again, I'm in California, and I'm always surprised by how many people assume CA is solidly liberal through and through, when we're more like a 55/45 split (all those red/blue states look purple if you look at it county by county).
Just /. trolling for "news" to get people blabbing.
Not worth my time; but somebody could write up a similar thing talking about immunizations and parents of Autistic children...
They have Autistic children so they must consistently out perform pHDs on things their children (or the pregnant mother) did during their development.
Too bad the internet wasn't 20 years younger so I could have experienced all this BS with the fight over smoking causing cancer.
Democracy Now! - uncensored, anti-establishment news
I think you're accidentally misattributing positions to different groups of people. In particular, I think randomness and divinely guided are fairly orthogonal beliefs in this case.
Whether or not a person can spot a pattern in DNA mutations has little to do with whether or not one believes an omnipotent, omniscient, invisible God is directing the mutations.
If the God believed in by Christians was some dumb, naturally powered autonomon, then you might reckon that human beings would understand it/Him about as well as we understanding the workings of physics, and therefore we'd have about equal success with understanding why/how Earthly evolution took the path that it did.
But Christians believe that we're far less intelligent than their God, and that we basically can't comprehend His mind. And so it's pretty consistent with their theology that we wouldn't understand what/how He was up to.
Having actually been there and visited a few of the glaciers, some of them have signposts that say how far they've receded. There's posts along the path with years on them. Thing is the posts go clear back to the late 1800's. Heading back in a couple weeks, I'll take pictures this time.
Here's the thing...
Scientists claim the world is billions of years old. They also claim that weather patterns can emerge over the course of thousands of years. All well and good.
But then they take 150 years of reliable data, add in some stuff involving tree rings and God knows what else, and expect us to simply trust them.
I believe in global warming, I really do. But assuming people who don't are simply morons is a major mistake. Some really are morons or willfully ignorant, but it's nowhere near 100%.
Real scientists don't make assumptions by measuring the current data point 100,000 times and giving it equal weighting. Of course, when I went to school Earth Science wasn't a real science compared to biology, Chemistry and Physics. But as it turns out, it's all the "science" you morons could handle and was the only one you even attended. Here's my prediction, there's another ice age coming, and since stupidity has survival factor, you less idiotic descendents will be burning all the coal they can dig out of the ice. Please STFU.
Actually... successful farmers do need to keep up with the latest and greatest and evaluate cost/benefit of those advances. I really hate that people think that farmers are idiots. The ones that are, went out of business years ago.
A lot of the changes that are occurring won't be reversible, at least on any human time scale. But we can keep things from getting worse than they are already bound to get if we do something. The problem isn't really that climate change is occurring but how fast it is occurring (which still seems slow relative to the time scales that most humans are used to dealing with). If you could take the changes that are occurring in two centuries and spread them out over two millenia it wouldn't be that hard to adapt to them. But I think we will be hard pressed to adapt at the speed at which they are and will be happening.
...don't believe in Global Warming
Film at 11.
Well, to be fair, climatologists have always been a little dubious about Swedish farmers, too....
Crumb's Corollary: Never bring a knife to a bun fight.
So are you suggesting they should publish their methods and data? Good thing that's part of the scientific process. Pick a reference: http://climate.nasa.gov/eviden...
People often deny fact and logic based on nothing more than conviction. If that doesn't make them stupid, it makes them something much worse.
"If so, how many changes are due to the agent and how many are natural?" That is a completely pointless question given the previous statement which was basically that God and Nature are simply different names for the same thing.
I was going to point out that the researchers have only seen it change once in their lifetime as well and then I remembered how smart and infallible they are and realized that that means they are gods and gods are immortal.
And, in the end, they got it right so why are you arguing with them in the first place?
The problem is not their method or whether they publish it. I believe their methods are quite sound.
The real problem is two-fold: First, weather is an extremely complex process. I doubt that we understand enough of it to reliably predict what's going to happen if one or more factors change.
Second, as was said before, the data they have to work with is very young. And what they use to 'create' older data might or might not be very accurate.
I don't quite believe that we are able to say without a doubt whether this change we are seeing now is unnatural.
That said, prudence suggests that we limit our consumption and production of waste of any kind to a tolerable minimum. Even if climate change were not caused by us, that doesn't mean that we're not running out of resources.
The next glaciation wouldn't have started for several thousand years. The best thing for human sustainability is to maintain the climate as it has been for the past several thousand years. Then if CO2 started dropping toward 250 ppm it would be easy to burn some coal to bring it back up.
http://what-if.xkcd.com/33/
you are so wrong, it almost hurts
Make a man a fire and he will be warm for a day, set a man on fire and he will be warm for the rest of his life
We are not working on "is it real". You clearly don't know much about this.
Most commenters above consider farmers to be to simple to understand the bigger picture. It is worse.... Lot's of them are smart entrepreneurs in a business that is run in a way that pollutes the environment big time. Lot's and lot's of chemicals are being used. They have a business model that does not work with considering the environment. So they are skeptical about everything environmental. I know quiet a couple of farmers, most don't farm biological/ecological and they don't want to hear about it, don't want to know what is wrong with their work (and how it can damage them and their own families) and they don't even want to talk to any bio-farmer. So they are not going along with the climate change reasoning either. Just deny everything and don't change your life. That is the mindset. Now, the bio-farmers (who once where "normal" farmers) have a completely different mindset and do admit that how they used to farm was wrong (and how they realy realy didnt like bio-farmers). They will agree with climate change being a very very serious risk. As a farmer you choose side and stick to (the views) of the group you belong to.....
It's Norway, how would they even know a "localized ice age" kicked in?!?
When their glaciers start growing. Duh!
"Little does he know, but there is no 'I' in 'Idiot'!"
I grew up in the country in Ohio, lived in Columbus and NYC for awhile, moved to a fishing village in Turkey for a couple years and currently live in the countryside in the UK. Politically, I don't agree with either side of the American political false dichotomy (aka the Two Man Con).
What I do understand, however, is that looking at personal observations or eyewitness testimony is a really bad way to do science, criminal investigation or any sort of objective work. Individuals process objective data through the neurological system, which includes lots and lots of personal beliefs, bias and filters. Climate models may be wrong (I am not a scientist), but personal observation from "country folk" is certainly no more reliable and likely less so... particularly if they are part of a political party which denies global climate change as part of its tribal identifier.
See Also the 23 Enigma or the Law of Fives.
Get a life, not a lifestyle. - Hikem Bey
The hippiest liberalist place on earth has no room for them. Kick them out.
Quoting song lyrics does not make you correct, even if Van Morrison had some kind of point he was making.
SJW n. One who posts facts.
People seem to always mistake weather (ie what happens every day, or even over weeks or months) for climate, which is more like an average.
Think of a desert - here, the Sonoran Desert (http://wiki.answers.com/Q/What_is_the_average_temperature_in_Arizona) - the average temperature over a year is 22.5 Centigrade, if one simply takes the day and night temperatures for each month, add them up and divide by 24; 22.5C is really quite pleasant. So why is it so damned hot there in July? Who's lying?
By your logic a soldier in a trench knows more about the progress of an entire war than the generals... Really?
Every single shred of evidence points to them not being correct. If one of them was correct, and did not base their conclusion on opinion, they could win the Nobel prize in a heartbeat, and have endless funding for whatever science they want to work on for the rest of their lives. It's rather telling that they haven't.
I would be amazed if any sign there were older than 1897. However, yes, you are correct that that is when the warming trend started -- somewhat earlier than the rest of the globe. You're implying that this stands in opposition to AGW. Let's review:
The foundation of AGW is based on the physical properties of CO2, specifically its absorption spectrum. This is measurable both under laboratory conditions and via satellite. Theoretically you could measure it yourself. Sunlight shines on Earth, and Earth re-radiates this same energy at a lower wavelength. This is described by the Stefan-Boltzmann Law. You can trivially calculate that, based on the incident solar irradiation and Earth's albedo, the planet should be about -18 degrees C. The effect of the atmosphere is to slow radiation leaving the Earth (the atmosphere is mostly transparent to incoming solar radiation). Outgoing radiation is absorbed and re-emitted often before it reaches space.
The lower atmosphere is already pretty much opaque to outgoing radiation; increased CO2 does not block more radiation than would otherwise be blocked. There was a point where it was theorized that no warming could occur because of this. However, it was determined that the effect of an increased partial pressure of CO2 was to extend the CO2-rich region further into space. That this increases the heat energy on the planet's surface should be obvious. The direct effect of a doubling of CO2 in the atmosphere is extremely easy to calculate, again using Stefan-Boltzmann, and it comes out to 3.7 W/m^2, which is usually considered to be equivalent to 1 degree C.
Unless you can find a new way to radiate energy to space, or unless everything we know about radiation is wrong, then the Earth must experience at least that degree of warming for a doubling of atmospheric CO2. Anything further than that is a matter for study and scientific debate, and of course the effects in different places. However, given that warming must be happening, the ability of scientists to say whether specific incidents are or are not related is more plausible.
I am glad you visited Alaska. I lived there for about 25 years, in the middle of the Chugach Mountains. There was some degree of glaciation on all of the surrounding peaks. Being in an isolated town meant that going anywhere else meant traveling across a great deal of the land. The glaciers have been melting my entire life, but the warming accelerated in the late 1990s; retreat measured in meters or tens of meters per year is very noticeable. This is very easily explained as an effect of AGW. Some other plausible explanation would be quite welcome; anything that would give me the hope of some day having the Alaska of my memory back. Unfortunately there is a great deal of science that speaks against the possibility.
Those who advocate genocide deserve every protection afforded by law, and none afforded by common human decency.
The future threats are not going to be gradual. The very fact you claim that as gospel truth shows you really don't have a good grasp of the science. If you fear people calling attention to a problem more than the problem itself, you are not operating in the realms of reason.
Earth has been very much warmer than it is now, but there were no humans around. If it gets hotter and keeps hotter, there also will be no, or at the very best far fewer, humans around. That's the problem.
Of course the planet has been much hotter than it is now. The problem is that we have a large civilization that is adapted to a climate that's been varying within limits for thousands of years, and is getting outside those limits. The planet will survive. The biosphere will survive. Humanity will survive. It's very likely to be extremely expensive, though.
"When you have eliminated the unacceptable, whatever is left, however improbable, must be the truthiness" - Holmes
I heard they are going to hire Swedish farmers for the CERN and MIT is going to fire all the staff to substitute it by Mongolian shepherds.
-- 29A the number of the Beast
I've seen so much over the top hype and hysteria from the climate change deniers
I don't pay attention to hype or hysteria, but I do pay attention to this reasoned comment from James Lovelock:
"The problem is we don’t know what the climate is doing. We thought we knew 20 years ago. That led to some alarmist books – mine included – because it looked clear-cut, but it hasn’t happened."
That that is is that that that that is not is not.
It appears that Swedish farmers are no better than Murcan farmers in this regard. All farmers regardless of country/ideology: if profits increase this year (food prices going up everywhere)--status quo; if profits do not go up, ignore/disparage the economic/environmental influences because the concepts are well beyond their grasp. Farmers are in essence superstitious and anti-science. Climate change? I got the Farmer's Almanac.
That's really not a very long list, and it includes quite a few people who aren't climate scientists. I've got nothing against (say) physicists, but I don't go to climate scientists for the latest theories on dark matter. Moreover, there's three categories in that Wikipedia entry: people who generally distrust the modeling and think the predictions are unreliable, people who think the observed warming is not anthropogenic, and people who don't think there is a single main cause. There is no category for scientists who think the planet isn't warming up.
"When you have eliminated the unacceptable, whatever is left, however improbable, must be the truthiness" - Holmes
Emerging industry? I see no one making profits from actually making things. They're getting rich by government grants. The taxpayers support this new "industry" by grants, loans and subsidies.
Gee I'm surprised that Farmers may not accept the evidence.
From a local perspective given that the Aussie farmers took over 50 years to understand that clear felling was causing the erosion they were bitching about it is not that great a surprise that their Swedish confrères are equally unable to understand reality.
Now if someone can prove that Farmers are the keystone of right wing blindness and not just religion the world will be explained.
Wolja Future Tombstone: Shit happened then I died
I don't know. Immediate threats tend to be more likely to get attention.
No matter what it'll get expensive. Ocean rise will be a real bitch for those living on the coasts.
That there is nothing we can do about it because we didn't cause it.
Of course Swedish Farmers are mainly concerned about supplying the larders of Swedish Chefs!
But there is only one way to prepare Chicky in the Basky, and that's by firing a shotgun into the air.
Bork, bork, bork!
Tracy Johnson
Old fashioned text games hosted below:
http://empire.openmpe.com/
BT
... farmers in cold norther climes who would benefit from longer growing seasons?
It's not that they "don't believe" in climage change, just that they want us to keep doing it!
You give away you know nothing. Turn off your TV and learn to think.
Democracy Now! - uncensored, anti-establishment news
I believe 1880 or 1890 was the first, but I could be wrong. I was trying to say the glaciers were receding without our help. I'm not saying they haven't accelerated, but it's implied that they wouldn't be receding without out us. To say it's re emitted often is an exaggeration. If that were the case it would impossible to make detailed IR images of Earth's surface from space, it would just be a blur. It would look like what blue light does in daytime, which is scattered a lot (I know, not exactly the same).
I'm fond of the Kenai Peninsula. Plan to move there in a couple years.
I believe it's commonly accepted that we are still on the upward side of the current interglacial period. To say that IR is re-emitted often is not an exaggeration, the mean free path of an IR photon varies with the exact partial pressure but is generally in the low tens of meters as far as I know; I haven't bothered to calculate it myself. I found an anti-AGW site which claimed 65 meters for the atmosphere as a whole. The sky is blue because scattering is strongly dependent on wavelength, with blue light being scattered much more than red or IR. A cursory search didn't provide me with any high resolution IR images of Earth from space; I would appreciate if you could find me some.
At this level of explanation, any inconsistency is most likely due to one's own lack of understanding.
Those who advocate genocide deserve every protection afforded by law, and none afforded by common human decency.
That's peculiar - because in the winters that I've worked in Norway, it has been very different to the winters when I was courting in Siberia. I sure as hell can tell the difference, even if you can't.
Birds are not dinosaur descendants;birds are dinosaurs, for all useful meanings of "birds", "are" and "dinosaurs"
There's also some evidence (skull morphology from cave deposits) that the polar bear evolved due to isolation of a population of brown bears on the European Atlantic seaboard during the most recent ice age.
Birds are not dinosaur descendants;birds are dinosaurs, for all useful meanings of "birds", "are" and "dinosaurs"
This is great news! (at least for Americans). See? We are not the only idiots denying climate change. Take that, rest of the World!
-- sudon't
Air-ride Equipped
Yes, the would is dynamic and changes all the time. Life is non-linear aF(x) not equal F(ax) and F(x+y) not equal F(x) + F(y) for some x and y.
When a photon is absorbed and then re emitted, the direction it's emitted is random. The effect would have little difference from being scattered. So yes, if it was done often then it would blur out anything you'd try to see from orbit. You're claiming a lack of understanding. Is there anything else I could clarify for you?
This is just like Iraq, Afghanistan, or wherever we fight the next war to line Halliburton's pockets.
Lets test that.
Reporter - 2004: Why is the US fighting in Afghanistan? Marine in Afghanistan: Because Afghanistan hosted al Qaeda when it attacked the US, killing as many people as Pearl Harbor.
Reporter - 2014: Why did the US go to war in Afghanistan? DexterIsADog: Cuz Halliburtonz!
I'm going with the Marines.
You remain adorable! I know, a lesser mind could infer that I claimed Afghanistan was motivated to line Halliburton's pockets, but that's not actually true. Try asking someone with English comprehension skills to read that to you - your conclusion does not logically follow.
Anyway, it was especially endearing that you left out Iraq entirely, which I now explicitly contend WAS stage managed by neocon war criminals looking for some profit.
And while the *proximate* cause of the Afghanistan war was Al Qaeda, even in your fake interview, your imaginary soldier left out the reasons Al Qaeda attacked the U.S. in the first place, as if history began on 9/11/01, so you made your hypothetical marine as ignorant as I contended.
Why do you hate our troops?
Yes, images taken in the IR spectrum in Earth's atmosphere are fairly blurry. For the same subject, at the same resolution, the IR image will have far less detail. The atmosphere is opaque to IR, or "optically thick" if you prefer. There is a narrow band called the Infrared window which is less absorbed, it is marked in blue in this image.
Previously, yes, I had been claiming that you were ignorant. Now I'm claiming you're devoted to upholding a single mistaken datapoint against freshman-level physics. Claiming that outgoing radiation is not absorbed by the atmosphere certainly takes care of that pesky greenhouse effect. It's entirely contradicted by reality, but you two don't seem to be well acquainted anyway. Sarcasm aside, if you'd like to continue this, you have my email.
Those who advocate genocide deserve every protection afforded by law, and none afforded by common human decency.
Weather is extremely complex, but global average climate is relatively simple. It's simply a matter of accounting for the amount of energy going in, which is fairly constant with some changes due to variance in solar flux, and the amount of energy going out, which depends primarily on surface reflectivity and the greenhouse effect. Spectroscopy and atomspheric lifetime measurements tell us which gases have a significant greenhouse effect, and carbon dioxide is up there (#3, if I'm not mistaken, after methane and water). Several forms of data, ice-core drilling being one of the best, tells us what historic CO2 levels were. These measurements are calibrated and corroborated by several other forms of evidience, such as radioactive dating, tree-ring analysis, and correlation with fossil beds. These measurements indicate that CO2 levels are the highest they have been in ~5 million years, and rising very rapidly. It is uncontested by all but the most ignorant opponents that this increase in CO2 is caused by the burning of fossile fuels. Basic physics dictates that a rise in CO2 will result in a reduction in the rate of energy escaping from Earth, which will result in higher global average temperatures.