Conservation groups feel the strain
About nine months ago, I spent a fascinating (and very agreeable) week on a research boat in the Canary Islands, attempting to study the elusive family of beaked whales.
Lucky for me it happened last year; because the boat in question, Song of the Whale, is now being taken off such operations, for at least a couple of years, for financial reasons.
The group that runs Song of the Whale, the International Fund for Animal Welfare (Ifaw), appears to have been hit particularly hard by the world's financial troubles. Mothballing the boat's research is one of several cuts it's had to make, including staff cutbacks.
Ifaw is certainly not alone. According to the head of one major UK conservation charity, most organisations in the field are feeling the pinch.
Over the past year, I'm told, UK green groups have seen their income fall by an average of 10-20% - some by more.
You might assume this was down to people withdrawing their membership or being less generous with their gift donations.
These trends are real; but they are regarded as minor compared with declining legacy income and adverse foreign currency movements.
The main component of a legacy donation is often the sale of a house; and often the legacy is worded along the lines of "person X gets so much and person Y so much, with the remainder going to charity Z" - in which case a fairly small dip in house prices can have a large proportional impact on the amount going to the charity.
It shouldn't come as any surprise to find the global financial situation impacting conservation groups - why should they be exempt from the general mayhem? - but it's worth having a quick think about what it might mean.
True, there's a strong propaganda element to much that environmental groups do, and you might either bemoan or applaud a decline in its intensity, depending on your political stance.
But projects such as Song of the Whale generate data that could prove important in understanding - and thus protecting - little-known species.
In developing countries, wildlife protection regimes often struggle for money and resources, certainly when compared to the poachers of valuable species and the industrialists who would expand the human footprint without restraint.
I came across a particularly stark example this week from India - wardens in tiger reserves working without simple equipment such as torches, without proper shoes, with meagre salaries often paid in arrears.
It's a common tale. And sometimes, Western-based groups fill this kind of funding gap, paying the human costs without which there can be no effective conservation.
The links between the world's ecological crisis and its economic woes are manifold and complex; and you can certainly argue that any slowing in the breakneck pace of human economic development is good news if it retards the rise in greenhouse gas emissions, the expansion of human habitat into areas occupied by other species, and the depletion of shared resources such as water.
But conservation projects such as Song of the Whale will be casualties; and in a world where we are often struggling to understand what is already on the verge of being destroyed, they are losses we can ill afford.
I'm Richard Black, environment correspondent for the BBC News website. This is my take on what's happening to our shared environment as the human population grows and our use of nature's resources increases.
© MMIX~RS~q~RS~~RS~z~RS~40~RS~)
Comments
Sign in or register to comment.
Richard, one reason that these groups have lost revenue is the extremist elements within them, these Green activists have turned people away from supporting organisations such as the Ifaw, the growing political agenda of many of these organisations has also caused bequests to drop.
Of course the economic situation is not helping the funding of these groups, however, it is high time some of these groups started to take a look at how they present themselves to the world at large.
As a lifelong member of the RSPCA, I have grown more and more concerned with its political agenda, which seems to be less to do with saving animals, and more to do with telling us what we should and should not be doing.
Complain about this comment
"1. At 4:06pm on 15 Jun 2009, Rustigjongens wrote:
Richard, one reason that these groups have lost revenue is the extremist elements within them, these Green activists "
And another reason for it is that Our Lizard Overlords are piping commands into our brains to avoid any payments on green issues so that only lizards will remain.
Well, it's about as big a problem as your one.
Complain about this comment
I think these terms being used are too benign, financial troubles, financial crisis, and the like. Banks, investment firms and financial services betrayed the trust of everyone and the governments stood by and did nothing. They are thieves..criminals and should be treated as such. Men in suits are always treated differently than those in coveralls.
This matters because philanthrophy will be difficult to reestablish. Who will want to establish funds for some cause they support when the investments to maintain such a fund are subject to mismanagement,disception, lies and misappropriation with no recourse for recovery and collusion on the part of governments. After all that has happened, nothing about these businesses has changed and no new meaningful regulations are in the offing.
There should be some discussions among environmental groups about consolidation and even the development of self-administered environmental trusts, so as to not be subject to the same theft or reliance on governmental over-sight.
What we do know is that there has been an expansion of environmental organiations and each with some nich in the fund-raising community. Human being are human beings and these groups will be reluctant to cooperate and work together as with other groups. Power and prestiage usually over-ride purpose. It is always the executive directors making the decisions and they never make the decision to end the position of executive director. Cooperation and cooridnation would greatly advance the science and advocacy but organizations tend to promote themselves and minimize or point out differences with others. Headquaters or organizations have staff and pay rent and have economic investments such as equipment. Even when these efforts are clearly duplicative they remain. The environmental community needs to study what has happened to other issues. They all start out as addressing issues that governments fail to address. They educate and garner public support and resources. Once the issue is established and public support is gained the government will come in and start and agency to "address" the issue. This of course if to "control" the issue and make sure that industries are protected, the powerful are not threatened and the polticians can take credit for things they previously fought against. Governments do this with money because they can tax. Independent organizations often, and especially in times like these, seek governmental funding and this is the beginning of the take over and the loss of objectiveness and the onslaught of agenda foreign to the original purpose of the organization.
Change always comes from outside the system. Survival of some of the environmental organizations is not nearly as important as their remaining independent, but that is a choice that is hardly ever made. The larger groups will survive and become handmaidens to goernments and the incremental process of change will muddle forward until a crisis results, usually predicted well ahead of time, and everyone begins pointing fingers and someone writes a book about how it all could have been avoided.
Human beings appear to be no different than deer in a corn field and will eat all the corn until there is not enough to support the population and they die.....
We should learn from the mistakes of others because we will not live long enough to make them all ourselves.
Complain about this comment
Ghost, we're supposed to be smarter.
It's just that being smarter is more trouble than following the herd.
Complain about this comment
There can be zero doubt that all sorts of socially beneficial activities will suffer for the duration of this global recession.
It is extremely difficult to raise money for protecting and understanding the environment at the best of times and there's definitely a lot more talk about saving species or tackling climate change than there is committed funding.
I personally feel that too many important environmental activities rely on erratic, biased, emotive and short-term sources of funding and that there is not enough stable, fair, evidence-based and long-term funding.
Personally, I would like to see activities which impact on the environment be more adequately costed into the prices we pay for goods and services, and much more substantial funds invested in ensuring that the world is fit for human and wildlife to co-exist and survive.
I know many professional ecologists and feel that too few institutions are dedicated to getting money out to the people and projects in the field, such as researchers the Song of the Wale, who really need help and make a big difference.
At the moment, way too much money goes to funding the writing of reports which nobody reads or ticking boxes on forms within the World Bank, UN and government departments.
Complain about this comment
Yeah:
Please point to signs of "smarter." Would it be the polluted oceans and air, or maybe the constant wars or perhaps the worldwide financial meltdown, or the poverty in the world. The accumulation of "things" has somehow been viewed as a result of being "smarter."
I would offer that maybe mankind is, at best, a half step out of the cave. Kings with princes or emperors with warlords, shamans with followers, these are the basis of our governmental organizations, we just call them something different. Mankind was in a primative state for at least 250,000 years and in organized society for about 5,000. Change is slow or more correctly we are slow learners. The competition among the various tribes for resources and lack of tolerance for thought or beliefs of others does not portend a promising future. As the Greeks would scratch on the pyrimids "the moderns were here", so do we proceed with our arrogance. We lack humility and so we will be humbled.
Don't sail too far from the coast or you will fall off the edge of the earth and navigate based on the sun revolving around the earth. Oh, and trust your broker and politicans.
Complain about this comment
Ghost, part of the "smarter" is that we can see it happening and some can and will try to change it.
It's just easier to ignore it. Seeing it happening is "intelligence" which isn't the same as "smarter". Ignoring it is dumb.
But for some they just don't like "greens". Or "Green Issues".
Now it's fine to have someone question whether the badger sanctuary is actually a good idea. Just because we see a problem doesn't mean we have the right idea for undoing it.
But some just WILL NOT condone any interference in the humans "god given" right to exploit this world. Some will have had some dumb ideas thrown at them and rather than just treat any future correspondence with skepticism, merely denies the problem even exists.
And some won't have time to investigate and will, rather than spend time working on looking at the issues, will just parrot what someone they think is right. Adding nothing new to the thread except noise.
Complain about this comment
Im detecting the seeds of change and real anger here.
I remember touring a high maintenance nuclear facility, I think in Manitoba. The tour leader was bright and cheerful, but most definitely nor an engineer or scientist. Yet this was the person chosen to 'explain' to us how safe everything was.
I asked: "Do you know what your Achilles Hell is?" "No?"
"Funding".
Who is going to manage this facility without pay?
-------------
We are most definitely not humble - we take it for granted we will be here as a nation or a civilization for ever.
-------------
To drmattprescott #5:
I agree. We need funds committed at many levels to the environment.
But - this is a reality check - how different is this to 'requesting' the transfer of wealth to the developing world? Real funds - real change.
Picture the proverbial snowball in that very hot place.
--------------
Therefore, we will have to find another way.
Blogging is a start.
Burghermeister is working "one BTU at a time."
Perhaps we will have to work largely alone, one person or family at a time.
On the last blog I presented the voting statistics for United States federal elections - very close to one-half of the registered voters vote - consistently - over some fifty years.
If I look at this as a scientist I am astounded! Such a consistent pattern begs for a solid explanation - an explanation I have never heard well explained.
It's as if you were watching a world soccer match on TV, and you noticed half the team on both sides simply refused to play - consistently, game in, game out.
I was talking to a man just today who hasn't voted for twenty years, trying to understand. He is intelligent - he sometimes drives long haul trucks, making approximately a hundred grand per year. It's not just money voting, and it's not just lack of money not voting.
It's something very important, and I think we should find out what it is.
- Manysummits - feeling the heat -
Complain about this comment
Richard Black writes: "It shouldn't come as any surprise to find the global financial situation impacting conservation groups - why should they be exempt from the general mayhem?"
not everyone feels the pinch.
"Global military expenditure in 2008 is estimated to have totalled $1464 billion. This represents an increase of 4 per cent in real terms compared to 2007, and of 45 per cent since 1999." (source http://www.sipri.org/yearbook/2009/05)
"..but it's worth having a quick think about what it might mean."
quite.
Complain about this comment
I stopped donating to WWF when they started pushing the climate charge alarmist agenda. When I stopped I told them why, and asked them to let me know when they have decided to return to being a science based, rather than religion based organisation.
Complain about this comment
Manysummits
I used to not bother voting - my opinion was (and still is) that all politicians are the same, nothing will change, and that a vote is quite simply a waste of time when there are more useful things to be doing (like trimming nasal hair, cleaning the loo, having a scratch etc).
All that voting does is make the general populace believe that they actually have some sort of power and therefore make their control by the government of the day much easier.
I also think that if nobody voted then it would be a much more powerful statement of people's displeasure with the out of touch baby boomers who run the place than if everybody voted.
I've mellowed a little nowadays and generally try to vote for the most libertarian candidate / party that I believe has a reasonable chance of being successful.
It still doesn't make a difference though.
Complain about this comment
" 10. At 01:38am on 16 Jun 2009, Boring_username wrote:
I stopped donating to WWF when they started pushing the climate charge alarmist agenda. "
So you were OK with the "extinct animals alarmist agenda" but not the "climate change will make animals extinct agenda"?
???
That's some strong and unreasoning hate you have for science there.
Do you deny that CO2 is a greenhouse gas?
Do you deny that we produce a huge amount of CO2 (comparing to the amount out there in the atmosphere)?
If you don't deny either of them, then the default position should be that AGW is quite a likely proposition and that any theory that says it isn't correct must prove itself against those.
Have you got anything? Because it's missing from any journal out there if you have...
Complain about this comment
Manysummits, the USA has the advantage of "none of the above", though I don't know whether the government is disbanded if it wins until the next election.
It's why (IMO) voting in the UK doesn't even get to 50%.
Complain about this comment
jr4412 #9 "not everyone feels the pinch"
Thanks for that link jr; I hadn't heard of them (SIPRI) before.
"SIPRI is an independent international research institute... ...and receives a substantial part of its funding through an annual grant from the Swedish Government."
( http://www.sipri.org/about )
I found political debates here concerning SIPRI's funding recently, but they seem to survive. So the military expenditure spawns even more, in the efforts to monitor it.
All the best; davblo2
Complain about this comment
I think the underlying issue is total and utter lack of interest in any issue that does not affect 'us' directly. It's easy to pretend that biodiveristy loss in India is not a direct problem and it's easy to ignore scientists because they do not control the message that gets through to the public (they'll always lose the battle with vested interests and their well financed lobby groups).
Until either the message gets through or the environmental issues become a direct threat to the western world (one they can;t mitigate easily that is), not enough will be done.
It would be great if this were seen as the opportunity that it is. China recognises the threat and is investing 30bn USD directly in 'green' projects with much more indirectly. I really believe that the 21st century will belong to those nations that base their economies on sustainable industries and own the technology. Then dinosaurs like the UK will have to play catch up.
But of course it's difficult to portray each species lost as a threat or an opportunity.
Complain about this comment
Its such a shame that all these charites have to suffer from lack of funds
Complain about this comment
To jr4412 # 9 - 'military budget':
I think, or rather feel, that the military and SWAT police teams etc are really a 'protection racket'.
Being protected - the wealthy and the middle class who vote.
And racket - because that's what it is. (see " The Corporation" by Joel Bakan, and the former commandant of the US Marines)
As a famous movie line said: "Follow the Money!"
--------------
To Boring_username #10 and 11:
Thanks for that. That's my growing impression, that it's dissatisfaction with the entire political process - the feeling that we're being taken advantage of; manipulated. People with a sense of dignity, many at least, simply opt out - like Douglas MacArthur in Korea. He said, in my opinion, don't tie my hands behind my back and ask me to do something for political reasons - and he forced his firing. I've always thought that was an entirely honorable thing to do.
Some of the most 'in touch' people I've ever met were hobos or 'bin-divers', and I mean that.
Wish you would reconsider AGW - but then, the net result of opting out here by the majority, might well be the destruction of the very political system you find so distasteful. I'm not so sure I don't have some sympathy there.
---------------
To 'yeah' #13:
Could you elaborate please?
----------------
To 'rossglory' # 15:
Long time no see!
You wrote:
"I think the underlying issue is total and utter lack of interest in any issue that does not affect 'us' directly."
In a sense I agree, of course. But I'm beginning to wonder more about the "us" part. The half who do not vote - are they not saying in effect there is no "we" (us). There's "you", who vote and think and intellectualize and are comfortable as part of this system, with a few caveats, and then there is "us", the half who don't vote, who most resemble Kevin Costner in "Dances with Wolves".
Remember when he had gone Indian, and was captured, and treated shamefully by the US military, he simply reverted to the Sioux language, and refused to have anything more to do with his captors, they being beneath his dignity.
John Cremony's "Life among the Apaches" is a true account, and he tells us repeatedly that the Apache felt this way - that while we were obviously better equipped to win a war, and rich and numerous, they were superior in every other way.
I'm not so sure but that I agree.
- Manysummits - raising Cloudrunner -
Complain about this comment
manysummits, I don't know what needs expanding.
It's kind of all there as it is.
If you want how I make that difference in "none of the above" make a difference in voting turnout being different, it goes rather like this:
Group A: Votes. They Believe the system works or are afraid the "other side" will get in or whatever they do that makes them vote.
Say 25% of the population.
Group B: Doesn't Vote. Doesn't believe the system will work but has no real beef with whoever gets in "they're all the same".
Say 50% of the population.
Group C: Loathes the system. With "none of the above" will vote for them because it SAYS what they want to say: none of the candidates are worth it and they'd rather do without than have ANY of them in charge. Without "none of the above" doesn't vote.
So, US:
50% vote, half of them for "none of the above".
UK, 25% vote. out of the 75% that don't, 1/3 of them want NONE of them in power.
Complain about this comment
@ 12 - Yeah_Whatever
Do you deny that CO2 is a greenhouse gas?
Yes, but only because the term "greenhouse gas" is scientifically incorrect (the gases do not create a "greenhouse effect" but warm the earth in a different manner to that of a greenhouse. Ignoring semantics I do not deny that CO2 is a trace greenhouse gas.
Do you deny that we produce a huge amount of CO2 (comparing to the amount out there in the atmosphere)?
Totally deny that we produce a huge amount of CO2 compared to the amount in the atmosphere. We do, however, produce some and that is increasing the amount of CO2 in the atmosphere towards more "normal" levels (the current level of CO2 is abnormally low - average levels during the timescale of multi-cellular life are between 800ppm and 1000ppm.
If you don't deny either of them, then the default position should be that AGW is quite a likely proposition and that any theory that says it isn't correct must prove itself against those.
Sorry, you are raising an argument that ignores the fact that the Earth's climate system is a very complex system. Just because CO2 increases does not mean temperature must increase (in fact the normal correlation is that temperature increases and CO2 follows due to outgassing from the seas). There are a number of processes that are not well understood at the moment that may either reinforce or negate any temperature increase due to CO2. My belief, based on the geological record and studies during my Earth Sciences degree and subsequent Masters, is that cloud effects will be found to negate almost all temperature increases due to CO2 rising. Until clouds are better understood we should not be pushing climate change as an upcoming catastrophe (as, when it isn't, science will be damaged in the public eyes) but should be spending the money currently being spent on wasteful "climate change mitigation schemes" on proper independent research.
Complain about this comment
The world's glaciers don't find it complex - most of them are melting away. But these are now pointless discussions. The evidence is empirical, and it is crystal.
The apathy, the general level of incompetence and dysfunction which are manifest practically everywhere you look, these are like those melting glaciers - empirical evidence that the western way is a spectacular failure on most every level but the technological.
For those who don't want to see, for those who can't bear to hear - best of luck to you is all I can say.
There is a certain genius behind the "Dilbert" comic, and in the "Simpsons."
Too bad we aren't paying more attention.
Maybe another 'virtual' show to titillate the masses!
-----------------
"For what shall it profit a man, if he shall gain the whole world, and lose his own soul?" (Mark: 8:36)
The Bible was written by human beings, and this quotation above is a human thought - and a good one.
Maybe we ought to worry more about being human, and less about physics.
- Manysummits -
Complain about this comment
Here is an international 'fusion' consortium feeling the funding freeze:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/8103557.stm
"The global warming is now - one needs to find a solution immediately, one cannot wait 100 years. The solution to the climate and energy problem is not Iter, (it) is not fusion."
- Professor Balibar
- Manysummits -
Complain about this comment
Manysummits
Most glaciers are not melting away - temperatures remain below freezing and have increased negligibly above the expected rate post little ice age.
The glaciers that are reducing in size are generally doing so due to changes in precipitation patterns; which can have manmade reasons behind them (ie removal of forests for plantations, damming of rivers, removal of water from rivers for irrigation) and can also be natural (increased frequency of El Ninos, PDO in warm phase etc).
As before it is those pesky clouds that are the problem and need to be understood further.
Complain about this comment
No, Boring, most glaciers ARE melting. What does a glacier need more than ANYTHING to grow? Water.
There's not a lot of water in very cold air, so it doesn't grow much. So when the air warms, as long as it is cooler than freezing point, you get more snow.
Snow which may add to the glacier.
But if the glacier is in an area that is already too near the melting point, warmer air can result in the glacier melting.
And most glaciers are melting.
And clouds are well enough understood by climatologists, just not by you.
Cloud heights make the difference between cooling and warming effects and night time cloud cannot cool the ground, since there's no sunlight to reflect back into space.
So do you have a model that says why clouds will appear more in the daytime than night and why they will appear with more regularity where their cooling effect outweighs their warming one?
No, you haven't.
You're parroting what you've been told to say.
Complain about this comment
"19. At 11:21pm on 16 Jun 2009, Boring_username wrote:
@ 12 - Yeah_Whatever
Do you deny that CO2 is a greenhouse gas?
Yes"
But no.
You're saying it doesn't mean there's a glass roof over the earth. Well guess what? That isn't what a greenhouse gas means. Read it up.
"Do you deny that we produce a huge amount of CO2 (comparing to the amount out there in the atmosphere)?
Totally deny that we produce a huge amount of CO2 compared to the amount in the atmosphere. "
So how much does the earth's atmosphere weigh? Calculate it.
Pre-industrial CO2 is 280ppm so multiply that by 0.00028.
That's the weight of the CO2 in the atmosphere.
Now we produce 17Bn tons of CO2 each year. You can get most of that figure from the oil industry (how many barrels have they sold). Over 100 years, with a steady increase from nil, that's 50x that.
Do the sums.
You'll find you're wrong.
"more "normal" levels (the current level of CO2 is abnormally low - average levels during the timescale of multi-cellular life are between 800ppm and 1000ppm."
Strange that someone who has done the maths has forgotten that there was not much oxygen-breathing life during most of that history. For most of them, Oxygen was a waste product and toxic. Forgets again, despite having done some investigation to come up with that figure, that huge parts of Europe and America were under water most of that time. Do you think that drowning people is OK as long as we get to a CO2 level that makes anaerobic bacteria happy?
Also missing out that evolution makes organisms mutate to fit their environment so the likelihood is that the massive majority of life will be made extinct by that situation if it takes less than a million years to happen.
Weird.
So much investigation all targeted to get a meme protection that AGW is wrong and even if it's happening, it's what SHOULD be happening, having dropped anything that doesn't support that meme.
And, despite the sun being cooler for most of the earth's history, the earth with all that CO2 was hotter. So if we were to go back to that scenario, the world would be much, much hotter than it was anyway.
PS I wonder if people have realised that he's insinuating we go back to the pre-dinosaur era and that one of the knee-jerk complaints about mitigating AGW is that it is just going to send us back to the stone age.
Well, the stone age was a whole lot more technological than 2 billion years ago...
I wonder if denialists will rage at Boring now for wanting us to become even LESS advanced???
Complain about this comment
"My belief, based on the geological record and studies during my Earth Sciences degree and subsequent Masters, is that cloud effects will be found to negate almost all temperature increases due to CO2 rising."
Where you studied what? Geology? Can't have been cloud physics (for reasons pointed out in #23, where cloud effects depends on where and when they appear, so you can't just say they WILL negate warming, you need to say how and why).
But keep it vague. Maybe people will believe your bit about clouds because you have "Earth Sciences" (why not call it Geology. you can't have failed if you've an 'ology...).
Complain about this comment
Re: Manysummits, about fusion, at #21
A recent issue of Nature reported on this in their issue of 28 May 2009 in two pieces: an editorial "Transparency needed" and an article "Fusion dreams delayed". Worth looking at, a sthere is some more detailed information than what appears in the BBC piece.
On the cost, the Nature editorial comments:
"Educated guesses now put the construction costs at roughly 10 billion. These guesses might be the closest that anyone will get to knowing ITER's true cost. The national agencies running the project are under no obligation to tell the central organization how much they are paying their industrial contractors for each piece of the reactor. Some countries might disclose the cost of the components they build, but others might well wish to keep their budgets secret both to protect their nation's industry and to shield themselves from potential embarrassment."
Complain about this comment
Boring_username #22: "Most glaciers are not melting away"
You should discuss that with the...
"World Glacier Monitoring Service
Under the auspices of: ICSU (FAGS), IUGG (IACS), UNEP, UNESCO, WMO"
They seem to think otherwise...
http://www.geo.unizh.ch/wgms/mbb/mbb10/sum07.html
(see figure 2)
All the best; davblo2
Complain about this comment
In my post # 20, I might have sounded a little extreme:
"The apathy, the general level of incompetence and dysfunction which are manifest practically everywhere you look, these are like those melting glaciers - empirical evidence that the western way is a spectacular failure on most every level but the technological."
George Monbiot is just as disenchanted:
Check George Monbiot latest:
http://www.monbiot.com/archives/2009/06/17/outsourcing-unrest/
The history of governments in all countries is the history of scandal, as those who rise to the top are generally the most ambitious, ruthless and unscrupulous people politics can produce."
- george monbiot
And then it gets worse! It reminds me of the revisionist histories of Ronald Wright: "Stolen Continents"; "A Short History of Progress"; and latest' "What is America."
It's our system, not a few individuals or 'bad apples'. This is crucial to realize and accept, else we will be treating symptoms.
--------------
To simon-swede #26: (fusion)
The part that concerned me most was the one hundred year estimate, which is about the time Scandinavia, and Siberia, and Canada and a few other well watered places can be expected to be hosting the remnants of the world population who will have migrated from the climate change barrens.
Long before we get there, the unravelling economic system of now will have incapacitated large sections of our economies, with unknown consequence.
I brought up 'Iter' as a demonsration in point - the first place to be cut - and times are nowhere near as tough as they will soon get. The article by Richard Black in this blog is another indication of the upcoming casualty list, as wealth scrambles to hide itself from the 'unruly masses'.
What will be Sweden's response when millions are begging to make her their new home? What will Canada's be? Siberia's?
We are not used to thinking this way - in the recent European elections, it was reported in McLeans magazine as a shift towards fascism.
I am increasingly convinced our problems are not technical - they are what Freeman Dyson describes as 'spiritual', a phrase sure to garner the support of our current crop of world leaders!
It is our world view that needs to change - a paridigm shift.
- Manysummits -
Complain about this comment
davblo2 (#27): Huh, what would THEY know, eh? They're part of the Great Conspiracy since if the glaciers melt away, they'll get more grant money to study glaciers. Or something.
Hang on, I'll come back to that....
:-P
Complain about this comment
1. At 4:06pm on 15 Jun 2009, Rustigjongens wrote:
Richard, one reason that these groups have lost revenue is the extremist elements within them
------------------------------------------------------------------------
2. At 5:11pm on 15 Jun 2009, yeah_whatever wrote:
And another reason for it is that Our Lizard Overlords are piping commands into our brains to avoid any payments on green issues so that only lizards will remain.
Well, it's about as big a problem as your one.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
Rustigjongens made a perfectly valid point, one that I agree with, as for yeah_whatevers post...Grow up, you wish to disagree with the first poster why not attempt to debate his point like an adult and less like a member of the House of Commons.
Complain about this comment
flawedlogic.
Appropriate pseudo for that post...
The appearance of "extremist elements" in the green movement has been the explanation of why "green issues are all bunk" for decades.
It is not a new phenomenon.
So how can it be the reason of the RECENT change? Hmmm?
And on the subject of "you wish to disagree" what are you doing but disagreeing with me???
Oh, and on the subject of "adult", how about not the hyperbole right at the end there?
Hmmm?
So therefore Rustigore's comment was bull. There are elements like him and yourself who hate the idea that maybe you're not the centre of creation or that maybe you shouldn't think just of yourself and your immediate family. Or maybe just hate what you describe as "dope-smoking hippies who need to get a job and cut their hair!!!". Which, oddly enough, has been the meme against "tree huggers" for as long as I can remember. And we've had several booms and busts in that time.
Thereby proving the point: if Rustigore's comment was correct, there would have been no RECENT change in funding. It would have been decades in the past.
Hence his idea is about as right as Ike's Lizard Overlords being the cause of the recent money crisis.
Complain about this comment
Two "Good" Ideas
UK maps climate change forecasts
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/8106104.stm
Mobiles boost Africa climate data
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/8105814.stm
-----------------
UK:
"The projected impacts are "worse than the government had feared," according to a source familiar with the project."
"Using a range of online tools including a "weather generator", people will be able to enter their postcodes and see projections of how conditions are likely to change within 25 sq km grid squares at different points in the future."
"Campaigners say that the UK impacts are likely to be minor compared to other parts of the world."
-------------
It occurs to me that with Africa getting new weather ststions and communications systems, the type of local forecast of global climate change which the Hadley Center is producing could be delivered worldwide - to every community on Earth - with the backing of the United Nations and the integrity of the Hadley Center.
\\\ This would be the true Mayday Declaration" we have all been waiting for. ///
- Manysummits, Calgary -
Complain about this comment
There's More! (Addendum to post #32)
UK 'must plan' for warmer future:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/8107014.stm
'Climate catastrophe getting closer':
http://www.iol.co.za/index.php?from=rss_SciTech&set_id=1&click_id=143&art_id=nw20090618164833583C972269
-----------------
To jr4412 and davblo2 - and to all:
Let's think a little - and then jump on this.
I will be emailing Environment Canada and making them aware of these links above, and asking if Canada can produce anything similar, and if not, why not, and how can we get a similar climate forecast for every sector in Canada.
Perhaps we could all do this for whatever country we live in - just send your national meteorological office the link to this blog and the post numbers with the relevant 'Hadley' links??
\\\ Manysummits ///
Complain about this comment
Re: Posts #32 and 33:
Here is a copy of the email I just sent to Environment Canada:
---------------
"The Hadley Centre in the United Kingdom is in the process of issuing 'climate forecasts' for the whole of the United Kingdom for the years 2050 and 2080.
This seems like an absolutely tremendous idea to bring home the message of climate change and its potential consequences to all the peoples of the world.
Is Environment Canada going to follow suit and issue a similar 'climate forecast' for every sector of Canada.
If not - why not? Do we have the computer models (global circulation models) to accomplish this?
I have been blogging on the BBC Environment website for many months now - I am 'manysummits'.
PS:
Here are the relevant links for your perusal and information:
Richard Black's environment column - please see posts #'s 32 and 33, and especially the following links:
UK Climate Forecast:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/8107014.stm
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/8106104.stm
Thank You,
http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/thereporters/richardblack/2009/06/conservation_groups_feel_the_s.html#comments
----------------
- Manysummits, Calgary -
Complain about this comment
manysummits #33.
"There's More! ... 'Climate catastrophe getting closer' ... Let's think a little.."
well, I've done my thinking, here's the outline:
the Wikipedia says: "It is estimated that during the 20th century between 167 and 188 million humans died as a result of war."
and
"Propaganda, which often includes information, slanted opinion and disinformation, plays a key role in maintaining unity within a warring group, and/or sowing discord among opponents. In modern warfare, soldiers and armoured fighting vehicles are used to control the land, warships the sea, and aircraft the sky. These fields have also overlapped in the forms of marines, paratroopers, naval aircraft carriers, and surface-to-air missiles, among others. Satellites in low Earth orbit have made outer space a factor in warfare as well.."
and, ironically: "..Homo sapiens Latin: 'wise man'.."
we're very good at self-delusion and self-aggrandising, and at killing, especially killing!
so, on balance, I think the "Climate catastrophe", and environmental disaster in general, cannot come fast enough. surely, Earth and the many forms of life it bears would be better off without the inhuman human. good riddance.
Complain about this comment
Manysummits #32,33,34
There is a huge problem ahead of you. Temperatures are dropping and have been for at least the last 8yrs. We listened to the folks that you mention in your posts (Hanson, Gore etc.) and they said that we would now be past the tipping point of runaway catastrophic warming. I have listed below a sample from the June 2009 official US weather station records from the NOAA web site:
I know this can be dismissed as weather but thats treading on very thin ice now as the trend continues downwards. And you wonder why folks are skeptical? Some serious communication is needed if you want to keep this scam rolling on its wheels. My apology for the long list but it made an impression on me when the records were forecasted to be off the map in the opposite direction.
I picked records for lowest max as this apparently is a good indication of the overall result. You can check out the others here: http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/oa/climate/research/records/
Total Number of Records for June 2009
New records: 593 + Tied: 214 = Total: 807
Record low max temps in 5 states 1 Jun 09
8 new records and 4 tied
(CO, ME, MI, MN, NY)
Record low max temps in 3 states 2 Jun 09
5 new records and 3 tied
(CO, MT, WY)
Record low max temps in 10 states 3 Jun 09
25 new records and 7 tied
(CA, CO, FL, HI, IN, KS, MT, NE, SD, WY)
Record low Max temps in 20 states - 4 Jun 09
22 new records and 19 tied
(AL, AR, CA, CO, CT, GA, IN, LA, MO, MS, MT,
NY, OH, OK, PA, SD, SD, TN, TX, WV)
Record low max temps in 24 states - 5 Jun 09
63 new records and 28 tied
(AL, AR, CA, CO, CT, DE, FL, GA, HI, LA,
MA, MD, MO, MS, MT, NC, NJ, NY, OH, PA,
TN, TX, VA, WV)
Record low max temps in 22 states 6 Jun 09
84 new records and 19 tied
(AL, AZ, CA, CO, GA, IA, IL, MD, MI, MN, MT,
NC, ND, NJ, NM, PA, SD, TN, VA, WI, WV, WY)
Record low max temps in 13 states - 7 Jun 09
60 new records and 10 tied
(CO, FL, IA, IL, MD, MI, MN, MT, NC, ND, NE, SD, WI)
Record low max temps in 12 states - 8 Jun 09
112 new records and 29 tied
(CO, IA, MI, MN, MT, ND, NE, NM, SD, TX, WI, WV)
Record low max temps in 15 states - 9 Jun 09
67 new records and 24 tied
(AZ, CA, CO, CT, KS, MI, MN, MO, MT, ND, NM,
SD, VT, WI, WY)
Record low max temps in 21 states - 10 Jun 09
65 new records and 36 tied
(AZ, CA, CO, CT, HI, IA, KS, MA, ME, MI, MN, MO,
MT, ND, NE, NH, NM, SD, VT, WI, WY)\
Record low max temps in 18 states - 11 Jun 09
46 new records and 11 tied
(AZ, CA, CO, CT, HI, ID, KS, ME, MI, MT, NE,
NH, NV, NY, PA, SD, TX, WY)
Record low max temps in 12 states - 12 Jun 09
17 new records and 10 tied
(AZ, CA, CO, IA, MD, MI, NE, NJ, SD, TX, UT, WY)
Record low max temps in 6 states - 13 Jun 09
9 new records and 2 tied
(AK, CA, CO, IA, MN, MO)
Record low max temps in 12 states - 14 Jun 09
8 new records and 9 tied
(AK, AL, CO, IA, IL, KS, ME, MI, MO, MS, NE, OH)
Record low max temps in 11 states - 15 Jun 09
10 new records and 3 tied
(AL, AR, AZ, CA, CO, ID, ME, MS, NH, NM, UT)
Record low max temps in 6 states - 16 Jun 09
6 new records and 3 tied
(AZ, CO, IL, MO, NY, VA)
Record low max temps in 6 states - 17 Jun 09
5 new records and 2 tied
(CO, IA, MN, NJ, PA, VA)
Complain about this comment
"There is a huge problem ahead of you. Temperatures are dropping and have been for at least the last 8yrs."
Hmm, so are all those places no longer using Air Conditioning (cf your "interesting" comment on a previous topic wrt weather station siting being the cause of warming trends)?
Complain about this comment
"the Wikipedia says: "It is estimated that during the 20th century between 167 and 188 million humans died as a result of war.""
And we created NATO to stop war.
Why? Because we don't like to know that 180 million people died.
Oh, and nice to put a century that had two world wars in it...
Complain about this comment
"so, on balance, I think the "Climate catastrophe", and environmental disaster in general, cannot come fast enough. "
Well you're part of the human race (or are you a Lizard Overlord?) so why not help solve the problem and shuffle off this mortal coil?
Or was that a load of tripe you were talking?
Complain about this comment
yeah_whatever #38.
"Oh, and nice to put a century that had two world wars in it..."
yes, and a fair number of others, Korea, Vietnam, Gulf War 1, Kosovo - take your pick;
plus there were plenty of "local" affairs.
anyway, yeah, whatever...
Complain about this comment
yeah_whatever #39.
"..help solve the problem and shuffle off this mortal coil?"
this may not be the viewpoint of an "inhuman human", but, who knows?
Complain about this comment
To timjenvey #36:
I would suggest that you print off the information, in color, from the link I will post below, and read and ponder from start to finish. Here is an excerpt:
"Calendar year 2008 was the coolest year since 2000, according to the Goddard Institute for Space Studies analysis [see ref. 1] of surface air temperature measurements. In our analysis, 2008 is the ninth warmest year in the period of instrumental measurements, which extends back to 1880 (left panel of Fig. 1). The ten warmest years all occur within the 12-year period 1997-2008. The two-standard-deviation (95% confidence) uncertainty in comparing recent years is estimated as 0.05°C [ref. 2], so we can only conclude with confidence that 2008 was somewhere within the range from 7th to 10th warmest year in the record."
http://data.giss.nasa.gov/gistemp/2008/
------------
Then, discuss with your family the possibility that the NASA people are in collusion with both the Russians and the United Kingdom's Hadley Centre just to fool you.
I can only imagine what dealing with big corporations day to day has done to you. Cynicism is not natural save in dealing with "the society of men." (Vedas - "In the society of men the best man becomes a sinner")
---------------------
To jr4412:
I just stepped out onto my balcony. Venus is hanging bright below a crescent moon, and a little higher in the sky and to the south, Jupiter is big and bold.
Climate change gives one the opportunity to choose sides. To fight for survival is what we do.
All the best,
- Manysummits -
Complain about this comment
manysummits #42.
"Climate change gives one the opportunity to choose sides."
all rhetoric, so far, on both sides. thirty years or more of growing awareness and we're still debating. excepting areas where actual commerce has been enabled by technological developments, nothing happens. if there's no profit in it, it won't get done.
"To fight for survival is what we do."
and will be doing a lot more of...
Complain about this comment
yeah_whatever #38.
oh, almost forgot..
"And we created NATO to stop war."
would that be the same NATO now busy dropping large bombs from aircraft onto villages in Afghanistan?
Complain about this comment
"would that be the same NATO now busy dropping large bombs from aircraft onto villages in Afghanistan?"
Links?
"this may not be the viewpoint of an "inhuman human", but, who knows?"
Well you're the one who wants war and death because it'll remove humanity.
Me?
"Be the change that you want to see in the world."
- Mahatma Gandhi
"The highest reward for a person's toil is not what they get for it, but what they become by it."
- John Ruskin
"What do we live for if not to make life less difficult for each other."
- George Elliot
"Along with the power of choice you received the most precious gift our creator can bestow: the spark of life. With it came the obligation to apply your own special talents, whatever they may be, to leave this world a better place than you found it."
- Og Mandino
For you, maybe this will be better:
"A positive attitude may not solve all your problems, but it will annoy enough people to make it worth the effort."
- Herm Albright
Or
"Attitudes are contagious... Is yours worth catching?"
- Unknown
And for Tim and the short-lived Chutney:
"Ignorance provides no protection from the consequences of our actions."
- From EarthDay Network
Complain about this comment
yeah_whatever #45.
"Links?"
http://www.usnews.com/articles/news/2009/06/17/civilian-casualties-could-end-airstrike-support.html
http://www.nytimes.com/2008/09/08/world/asia/08iht-afghan.1.15972217.html
http://www.rawa.org/temp/runews/2009/02/17/un-reports-40-percent-increase-in-afghan-civilian-deaths-in-2008.html
http://www.thaindian.com/newsportal/world-news/47-civilians-killed-in-us-airstrike-in-afghanistan_10070557.html
you could find many more, if you cared to.
""A positive attitude may not solve all your problems, but it will annoy enough people to make it worth the effort."
- Herm Albright"
seems I've made a good start.
Complain about this comment
yeah_whatever #45.
given your sudden enthusiasm for quotations, and since you kindly provided ones you thought "For you, maybe this will be better", I shall return the favour in kind:
A closed mind is like a closed book; just a block of wood.
-- Chinese Proverb
Complain about this comment
> ""A positive attitude may not solve all your problems, but it will annoy enough people to make it worth the effort."
- Herm Albright"
>
> seems I've made a good start.
Uh, you HAVEN'T got a positive attitude.
Unless you're using "start" in the same way as "the first step to wisdom is ignorance" in which case, you need to be reminded: there is a second step.
Complain about this comment
I asked for links that NATO were making these deaths.
Quotes from the links you gave:
"For two weeks, the U.S. military has insisted that only five to seven civilians and 30 to 35 militants were killed in what it says was a successful operation against the Taliban:"
"Insurgents were responsible for 55 percent of the deaths, but U.S., NATO and Afghan forces killed 39 percent, the report said. Of those 829 deaths by the forces, 552 were blamed on airstrikes."
So what you mean by "NATO" is "US Armed Forces", basically.
Complain about this comment
yeah_whatever #49.
"I asked for links that NATO were making these deaths."
"So what you mean by "NATO" is "US Armed Forces", basically."
stop playing, you cannot be ignorant of the fact that the USAF is part of the NATO engagement in Afghanistan.
Complain about this comment
"stop playing, you cannot be ignorant of the fact that the USAF is part of the NATO engagement in Afghanistan."
I'm not.
But the USAF will listen to the USAF chain of command. They are not NATO's army, they are the US's.
Or don't you know how such coalition forces are arranged?
Complain about this comment
"A closed mind is like a closed book; just a block of wood.
-- Chinese Proverb"
Uh, in what way is my mind closed?
You want to see death and destruction and I think you're being hypocritical. You think it's all a waste of time since nothing will change and I disagree and think we should TRY at least. And ***you*** say ***my*** mind is closed???
Sheesh, do you get an echo off your colon in there?
Complain about this comment
yeah_whatever #51.
"But the USAF will listen to the USAF chain of command. They are not NATO's army, they are the US's.
Or don't you know how such coalition forces are arranged?"
feel free to apportion blame as you see fit.
Complain about this comment
yeah_whatever #52.
yawn...
Complain about this comment
Why bother sleeping? You'll only feel tired again later.
Take a dirt nap. Hope is over-rated and the future is only going to get worse...
Complain about this comment
yeah_whatever #55.
sleep? no. ;)
yawn (usu sing)(infml derog) uninteresting or boring thing. (OED)
Complain about this comment
Well I guess I shouldn't descend to your level should I. I'll get dirty and you'll enjoy it.
Complain about this comment
This comment was removed because the moderators found it broke the House Rules.
nothing like a bit of censorship to keep the "debate" "balanced" ;-)
moderator(s), nearly five hours and I have not yet received the email which will tell me your reasons for pulling #58.
Complain about this comment
Welcome back jr !
To 'yeah' - nice quotes !
- Manysummits -
Complain about this comment
Manysummits #42
Read and pondered your link. I see temperature has risen linearly by less than 1 degree C in over more than a century. Considering it started at the end of a mini ice age I say "thank goodness". On color I guess it's your choice of 'conditional formatting' as to what you think the "right" average temperature should be.
Sorry. Cant see any effect of nasty polluting CO2. Not at all convinced.,
Thanks for trying.
Complain about this comment
Edit to #61.
Should have said linearly with a blip in the middle.
Complain about this comment
re 61, and I would have thought a big tough manager like yourself would have known at least STATISTICS.
Try fitting to that line with a statistical line.
And re 62, what if we're in the middle of a blip on the downside of the average? You can't ignore data with "it's a blip" and not consider whether your figure is a blip too.
PS the difference between a glacial and interglacial is 2-3C. Given we're in an interglacial, we should be going DOWN if anything.
Now when you go away and find out how to do maths thats beyond the junior school level, try making a fit to that data that ISN'T brain-dead.
Complain about this comment
tim, why would you try to fit a LINEAR curve when the theory that you're trying to assess is that you're getting an increasing change that isn't linear???
Would it be so you can just take your first number and your second number (selected at whatever interval gives you what you want to see, though you still haven't managed to show that there isn't warming, even so...) and just draw a line between them?
Take a curve that increases. Fit to the data with least RMS differences (least squares fit, though this should have been done in GCSE/O-level Maths at secondary school, maybe tim never went) and then find out what the fit is and where it's going.
It's called "science". Tim may want to try it some time.
Complain about this comment
moderator(s) -- still waiting for email re. removal of #58.
Complain about this comment
To timjenvey #61 &62:
You are right in seeing that temperature has risen less than a degree - it's approximately 0.7 deg C post industrial, and because of the heat which has already been tranferred into the oceans and the ice sheets, there is another 0.6 deg C to come, regardless of whether we halted all CO2 emissions tomorrow.
That adds up to 1.3 degrees C, which is less than 2 deg C, which is probably the beginning of the high danger zone. But as I am sure you are aware, CO2 emissions will not be stopping any time soon, and their growth is accelerating, and there is such a thing as tipping points, and the climate system is, from the geological record, not computer models, non-linear. The scientists who make these computer models are all aware of the aforementioned, in spades.
Look some more, ponder a lot, and best of luck.
- Manysummits, Calgary -
Complain about this comment
Manysummits #66
After a further little ponder on your statements about oceans and ice. We have been educated on this blog and been given many references which can be easily verified:
Recent data (in last 8 years at least)
1/. Ocean temperature and heat content has been flat to decreasing.
2/. Overall ice is stable to a slight increase (Antarctic increasing and Arctic decreasing).
3/. Global temperatures have cooled.
So this stored heat is a no show. Kind of puts the reverse on what youre proposing.
This is a silly game.
Complain about this comment
1/ This would be ocean SURFACE temperatures, yes? Or do you have total energy content of the ocean somewhere about your person? Now what is La Nina going to do to surface temperatures.
2/ Incorrect. Ice volumes are reducing drastically.
3/ Global temperatures have not shown any statistically significant cooling.
Same old hashed out lies from Tim.
Silly games indeed.
Complain about this comment
yeah_whatever writes:
Do you deny that CO2 is a greenhouse gas?
Do you deny that we produce a huge amount of CO2 (comparing to the amount out there in the atmosphere)?
I shall respond: Yes, CO2 is a greenhouse gas. The term "Huge" is relative and no, we do not produce a "huge" amount compared to what is out there in the atmosphere (and natural carbon sinks). Regarding the natural CO2 cycles of the atmosphere, new research has shown that of the 4% increases observed, we produce approximately 3% of that - approximately 0.12% of the total. Now, I personally take the research with a grain of salt (as I try to question everything) - but it does present a differnt light, worthy of study - as we know so little about the natural CO2 cycles and processes of the earth's atmosphere as well as sources and sinks - Much less the climate processses as a whole.
I also find the notion that CO2 is the "only first order climate driver" to be very naive and laughable - yet all the "doomsday" models are predicated upon this assumption.
Cheers.
Complain about this comment
"The term "Huge" is relative "
Yes, this is why I said:
"(comparing to the amount out there in the atmosphere)?"
You know, compare. Like "how much compared" is the same as "relative to".
"Regarding the natural CO2 cycles of the atmosphere, new research has shown that of the 4% increases observed, we produce approximately 3% of that - approximately 0.12% of the total. Now, I personally take the research with a grain of salt (as I try to question everything)"
Uh, there's your problem right at the start.
It's not a 4% increase. It used to be 280ppm. It is now about 390ppm.
280ppm * 1.04 (which is a 4% increase) is 291ppm.
If you had actually TAKEN any salt this should have led you do disbelieve it, since 291 is not 390.
Now would you like to go and do some research?
Complain about this comment
To Richard,
Thank you for bringing this issue to light; however, you have certainly played a role in making it a "one issue environmental world"...i.e. "climate change" - to the detrement of many other important environmental and conservation issues. Would you not agree that there are many important environemental issues other than "climate change"? What will you do to rectify this situation?
To yeah_whatever, who writes:
"PS the difference between a glacial and interglacial is 2-3C. Given we're in an interglacial, we should be going DOWN if anything."
Incorrect. The difference in temperature between a glacial and interglacial period is on the order of 10C, as demonstrated by the Vostok Ice Cores (as well as other proxies).
addionally, yeah_whatever wrote:
"incorrect, Ice volumes are decreasing dramatically"
Sorry, but that position is not supported by current observations. A recent survey of glaciers around the world has shown that while a number are decreasing, many others are increasing, and overall, one cannot conclude that overall ice is expanding nor retreating in any significant mannor. While I can't seem to find the link to that specific paper at the moment, the following link shows a signficant number of glaciers which are growing:
http://www.iceagenow.com/List_of_Expanding_Glaciers.htm
While, I would take their data with a grain of salt - the question is far from settled in my mind. The page also provides a significant number of links to support their position.
Again, yeah_whatever, your personal attacks (like the ones against Tim) only serve to undermine your position. Please post your CV so that we can judge whether YOU are worthy to have an opinion worth reading. It would bolster your position much more than unfounded attacks of a personal nature against other posters...
Complain about this comment
"Incorrect. The difference in temperature between a glacial and interglacial period is on the order of 10C, as demonstrated by the Vostok Ice Cores (as well as other proxies)."
Not in the recent past.
""incorrect, Ice volumes are decreasing dramatically"
Sorry, but that position is not supported by current observations."
Lets look at your current observations:
"A recent survey of glaciers around the world has shown that while a number are decreasing, many others are increasing, and overall, one cannot conclude that overall ice is expanding nor retreating in any significant mannor...
http://www.iceagenow.com/List_of_Expanding_Glaciers.htm "
Ah, yes. You need to pick up the table salt again.
Ice extent is not ice volume. Heck, it's not even ice area.
Extent is how far you can find 15% or more ice on the ocean. If you broke up all the ice and spread them apart you could increase the ice extent up to sixfold by just cracking the ice apart.
There is no more ice, but it extends further.
And if it was 5ft thick and is now 1ft thick, you can have a fourfold increase in area (which as said before, can result in an increase in extent more than that) and yet still have less ice.
Really. If you say you take things with a pinch of salt, start with the papers you've taken on board as true.
Incorrectly so.
Complain about this comment
"Please post your CV so that we can judge whether YOU are worthy to have an opinion worth reading."
Hmm. You maintain that you are as visible as necessary to be open about your real identity.
Yet we have nothing about your CV.
We have nothing about your appropriateness for sounding out the theories on climate change.
Why ask of others what you do not provide?
Complain about this comment
yeah_whatever writes (in response to my post):
Uh, there's your problem right at the start.
It's not a 4% increase. It used to be 280ppm. It is now about 390ppm.
280ppm * 1.04 (which is a 4% increase) is 291ppm.
If you had actually TAKEN any salt this should have led you do disbelieve it, since 291 is not 390.
Now would you like to go and do some research?
My Response:
Actually, research shows that, on an annual basis, natural (sources) and man-made sources contribute approximately 4% to atmospheric CO2. That is to say that natural and man-made sources pump approx 4% additional CO2 into the atmosphere. (4% of current levels). Much of this is "sequestered" by natural sinks. Of the 4% which enters the atmosphere on an annual basis, 3% of that is a result of man-made emissions. 3% of 4% is 0.12% (.03*.04 = .0012) - a statistically insignificant number...
By the way, I have done research most every day for the last 30 years. From all that research, my belief is that a) we don't have a real understanding of the (complex) mechanisms associated with natural CO2 sources and sinks. and b) Because of (a) - we certainly cannot make accurate, meaningful predictions about future rises in CO2 levels nor their effects on future climatic conditions.
Complain about this comment
Temperature differences over the last 5 million years:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Five_Myr_Climate_Change.png
And the changes that have been extant for human history as homosapiens:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Holocene_Temperature_Variations.png
Complain about this comment
This comment was removed because the moderators found it broke the House Rules.
"Actually, research shows that, on an annual basis, natural (sources) and man-made sources contribute approximately 4% to atmospheric CO2."
And what does that have to do with the price of tomatoes?
Here's a REALLY simple example of how that's completely worthless in the discussion of whether we've added significant CO2 to the earth:
In Out Total
100 100 0
100 100 0
100 100 0
100 100 0
104 100 4 - we start outputing 4% extra here.
104 100 8
104 100 12
104 100 16
104 100 20
104 100 24
104 100 28
104 100 32
104 100 36
104 100 40
104 100 44
So we add another 4% load to a system. We don't add a sink.
Notice how the overflow gets bigger.
Now if that overflow causes a 2C rise per doubling, we get
104 100 4 - we start outputing 4% extra here.
104 100 8 +2C
104 100 12
104 100 16 +4C
104 100 20
104 100 24
104 100 28
104 100 32 +6C
104 100 36
104 100 40
104 100 44
And so on.
See how this works?
Now draw a graph of the temperature increases (filling in the blanks) over time.
Now we're just adding to the resources to a zero point here, so the increase change in the real system is not this simple, but the illustration is mathematically sound.
So, what does a 4% increase have to do with the increase of CO2 from 280ppm to 390ppm? That it is 4% doesn't change the fact of us adding a lot to the atmosphere, does it. That extra 110ppm is what we put there.
What does the 4% disprove?
Nothing.
Then again, you're not skeptical, are you. You already know what answer you want and will work toward it from any point that has traction. And when it's derailed, you will move on to another one. Never changing your mind that AGW is wrong.
Complain about this comment
"By the way, I have done research most every day for the last 30 years. From all that research, my belief is that..."
If you've done research, you don't need belief. You have proof.
If you still only have belief, then you haven't researched this point at all.
Complain about this comment
@YW,
By your statement:"If you've done research, you don't need belief. You have proof."
You would imply that Research = Proof? My, my that is a very interestion supposition. One which myself, and probably most scientists and researchers, would disgree with completely. Would you care to "back it up, so to speak"?
I suppose you also imply that "since you (obviously) done your research, we should all accept your "beliefs" and you have "proof". hmmmm NOT.
Complain about this comment
#77 YW
Again, blatent mis-interpretation. Actually, it is 3% of 4% - that is, of the 4% of CO2 which enters the atmosphere each year as a result of natural and man-made processes, approximately 3% of that is a result of "man-made CO2 emissions" - thus we get 0.12% - a very small number by anyone's measure. And we are talking about 0.12% of what is entering the atmosphere, as compared to the volume of a "Trace Gas" in the atmosphere". From a statistical point of view, insignificant compared to natural fluctuations in atmospheric CO2 concentrations.
Complain about this comment
"You would imply that Research = Proof?"
So No Research = Proof to you???
"Actually, it is 3% of 4% - that is, of the 4% of CO2 "
4% of what? The weight of the entire biosphere? That's irrelevant since to release that would require the slashing ad burning of all life on this planet.
And of that which is sent into the atmosphere, 97% is taken up by the sinks. Since we cut down the sinks, there's no more place to put any more.
So your figures are meaningless.
That you can manage "research" and believe that sort of tripe shows how little *real* research you've managed to do.
Complain about this comment
@yeah_whatever
Yeah - whatever
Complain about this comment
YW Writes: (Yes, I am also amazed!):
"So No Research = Proof to you???"
Please don't put words in my mouth - I didn't say that. What I said was that Research does not equal proof.
I have stated very clearly what 4% I am talking about. No, it is not the weight of the entire biosphere.
Yet, once again, you can't fault my science, so you resort to "personal attacks" upon me. How tripe.
Complain about this comment
If this is the actual quote on question, as posted on the other blog...
http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/thereporters/richardblack/2009/06/climate_meltdown_yet_fusion_la.html#P82232007
"Full Quote from Lehr:
'Do the numbers yourself. Carbon dioxide is no more than 4 percent of the greenhouse gas envelope -with water vapor being more than 90 percent, followed by methane and sulfur and nitrous oxides. Of that 4 percent, man contributes a little more than 3 percent. Three percent of 4 percent is .12 percent, and for that we are sentencing people to numerous damaging economic impacts.'"
Then please note that the 4% mentioned is not an annual contribution to the atmospheric co2 as suggested by LarryKealey in #74 & #80...
"...that is, of the 4% of CO2 which enters the atmosphere each year as a result of natural and man-made processes"
The Lehr quote says cleary that co2 is "...no more than 4% of the greenhouse envelope". Then it goes on to say that we are adding 3% (to that 4%), presumably per year.
(ramping up to 3% over 50 years accumulative would probably match the often quoted change of 280ppm to 390ppm)
So the 0.12% is our contribution to the greenhouse envelope.
The 3% is our contribution to the co2 (in the envelope)
The co2 (4%) already there is know to be significant, and increasing is by 3% is a significant increase in a significant greenhouse gas.
(Saying it is only 0.12% of the greenhouse envelope and so insignificant is not really valid because you are comparing different greenhouse gases.)
/davblo2
Complain about this comment
""So No Research = Proof to you???"
Please don't put words in my mouth - I didn't say that. What I said was that Research does not equal proof. "
That's exactly what YOU did, Larry (one of the three Stooges, it seems).
And if Research doesn't lead to proof but you can get proof from its lack, then no research = proof.
Your research, was it for the oil industry?
Complain about this comment
View these comments in RSS