More visable evidence of climate change

Corey USA · 01-08-2007, 10:12 PM

http://www.ipsnews.net/news.asp?idnews=38735

Take note to those who say there is not climate change of warming going on. this is biology and physics 101 in the works.

Consider this a "feedback loop" as well in that the more trees eaten by beetles the warmer it is going to get in the greenhouse effect the warmer it gets the more beetles will survive the winter where they were killed off before. It is also a demonstration on why we can not rely on earth carbon sinks as a means to put responsibility on others shoulders for undoing the damage we do.

I strongly encourage response to this by those who say there is not significant change happening.

This shows that we as humans need to shift the way we think and deal with things in that we plan long term (more than one generation) and implement action for long term benefits.

This is visible proof that we need to change and can not go on as business as usual.

We are the root of the problem . lets fix it. stop blaming it on the symptoms so to speak.

This rapid change is an example why we can not sit around and see do you even realize what this means when factoring in cutting of the rain forest? combined with acidification of the ocean which is killing the smallest organism which provide the bulk of our breathable air.

When taking it all together it shows we do not have that much time to make a difference and stalling is the same as murdering your own family only it is slow and painful.

ad47uk · 02-08-2007, 9:50 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Corey USA

http://www.ipsnews.net/news.asp?idnews=38735

Take note to those who say there is not climate change of warming going on. this is biology and physics 101 in the works.

Consider this a "feedback loop" as well in that the more trees eaten by beetles the warmer it is going to get in the greenhouse effect the warmer it gets the more beetles will survive the winter where they were killed off before. It is also a demonstration on why we can not rely on earth carbon sinks as a means to put responsibility on others shoulders for undoing the damage we do.

I strongly encourage response to this by those who say there is not significant change happening.

This shows that we as humans need to shift the way we think and deal with things in that we plan long term (more than one generation) and implement action for long term benefits.

This is visible proof that we need to change and can not go on as business as usual.

We are the root of the problem . lets fix it. stop blaming it on the symptoms so to speak.

This rapid change is an example why we can not sit around and see do you even realize what this means when factoring in cutting of the rain forest? combined with acidification of the ocean which is killing the smallest organism which provide the bulk of our breathable air.

When taking it all together it shows we do not have that much time to make a difference and stalling is the same as murdering your own family only it is slow and painful.

I have never said ti si not changing, we all know the climate is changing, what I have said is I don't believe Man is the main problem, .
The climate will change, that is fact, what can we do about it, no one knows.

So what would you want me to do about it? I will go and do it now.

Nothing I can do, nothing you can do, nothing anyone can do, just live the life you want to, we only got a limited time on this earth anyway, in another 40 years time I doubt very much if I will be alive, so what is the point in worrying what happens after I am gone?

Selfish maybe, but then so is most of the world.

andykn · 02-08-2007, 10:22 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by ad47uk

I have never said ti si not changing, we all know the climate is changing, what I have said is I don't believe Man is the main problem, .
The climate will change, that is fact, what can we do about it, no one knows.

Wrong. We can all cut down on our energy and resource usage.

Quote:

Originally Posted by ad47uk

So what would you want me to do about it? I will go and do it now.

Get energy saving light bulbs and a remote control mains switch for your A/V kit and save yourself some money.

Quote:

Originally Posted by ad47uk

Nothing I can do, nothing you can do, nothing anyone can do, just live the life you want to, we only got a limited time on this earth anyway, in another 40 years time I doubt very much if I will be alive, so what is the point in worrying what happens after I am gone?

Selfish maybe, but then so is most of the world.

Depends on whether you want or have children. And it may happen sooner than 40 years - heat waves kill lots of old people, one may carry you or I off. More likely to if we do nothing.

02-08-2007, 10:31 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by andykn

heat waves kill lots of old people, one may carry you or I off. More likely to if we do nothing.

We have heatwaves all the time in all parts of the world, some years are cooler or hotter in various places but current heatwaves in various parts of the world are nothing new and have happened in the past.

blearyeyes · 02-08-2007, 11:48 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Corey USA

http://www.ipsnews.net/news.asp?idnews=38735

Take note to those who say there is not climate change of warming going on. this is biology and physics 101 in the works.

Consider this a "feedback loop" as well in that the more trees eaten by beetles the warmer it is going to get in the greenhouse effect the warmer it gets the more beetles will survive the winter where they were killed off before. It is also a demonstration on why we can not rely on earth carbon sinks as a means to put responsibility on others shoulders for undoing the damage we do.

I strongly encourage response to this by those who say there is not significant change happening.

This shows that we as humans need to shift the way we think and deal with things in that we plan long term (more than one generation) and implement action for long term benefits.

This is visible proof that we need to change and can not go on as business as usual.

We are the root of the problem . lets fix it. stop blaming it on the symptoms so to speak.

This rapid change is an example why we can not sit around and see do you even realize what this means when factoring in cutting of the rain forest? combined with acidification of the ocean which is killing the smallest organism which provide the bulk of our breathable air.

When taking it all together it shows we do not have that much time to make a difference and stalling is the same as murdering your own family only it is slow and painful.

But here's another take on your story but without the greens' hysteria!

www.watertalk.org/wawa/beetle/news.html

andykn · 02-08-2007, 12:36 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Manhattan Mike

We have heatwaves all the time in all parts of the world, some years are cooler or hotter in various places but current heatwaves in various parts of the world are nothing new and have happened in the past.

But if MMGW is true, they may happen more in the future. I'd rather not risk it.

andykn · 02-08-2007, 12:39 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by blearyeyes

But here's another take on your story but without the greens' hysteria!

www.watertalk.org/wawa/beetle/news.html

Another example of how man's interference is bad. We can only let the beetle flourish naturally if we haven't removed their natural predators and haven't altered the climate so their population explodes unnaturally.

Stephen Wilde · 02-08-2007, 2:19 PM

I recall that last winter was colder than average in Western Canada/North West USA. Alaska was especially cold.

Steve.J.Davies · 02-08-2007, 2:37 PM

Ahh - but the 'consensus' is that cold places are just experiencing 'weather' and the warm places are 'evidence' of Global Warming.

Not that consensus has anything to do with science - but what the heck.

You know how the story goes...

andykn · 02-08-2007, 9:34 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Steve.J.Davies

Not that consensus has anything to do with science - but what the heck.

Depends what consensus you're talking about. I'm talking about the consensus of the Royal Society in the UK and at least its equivalent in the US and probably the leading scientific establishments in most of the other countries of the world.

I say that has quite a lot to do with science.

Steve.J.Davies · 02-08-2007, 9:38 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by andykn

Depends what consensus you're talking about. I'm talking about the consensus of the Royal Society in the UK and at least its equivalent in the US and probably the leading scientific establishments in most of the other countries of the world.

I say that has quite a lot to do with science.

Science does not work by consensus. There is no vote on truth.

njp · 02-08-2007, 9:55 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Steve.J.Davies

Science does not work by consensus. There is no vote on truth.

Yes, but a consensus is what eventually happens in Science once the evidence becomes overwhelming. Or perhaps you accept the extraordinary vicious circularity of Brignall's Law of Consensus...

Steve.J.Davies · 03-08-2007, 12:14 AM

n,
Either your mind reading is poor or you are trying to put words in my mouth.
Consensus is immaterial - proof is what counts.

I accept that:-

Science does not work by consensus. There is no vote on truth.

I also accept that default position for a scientist is that of open minded scepticism.

On these last two points we seem destined to disagree forever. I can live with that.

njp · 03-08-2007, 12:34 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Steve.J.Davies

n,
Either your mind reading is poor or you are trying to put words in my mouth.

I haven't put any words in your mouth. I merely analysed the ones that came out of it. I pointed out that, far from being the new heresy as denialists like you believe, consensus is the state to which scientific understanding aspires.

Quote:

Consensus is immaterial - proof is what counts.

No such thing as proof in empirical science. Only supporting evidence, of which there is an vast amount demonstrating the reality of AGW. When the evidence is this good, most scientists accept it and a consensus forms.

Quote:

I also accept that default position for a scientist is that of open minded scepticism.

Why then do you reject the abundance of good science in favour of denialist tripe from the usual suspects? Is your mind so open that your brain has fallen out?

Corey USA · 03-08-2007, 4:45 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by blearyeyes

But here's another take on your story but without the greens' hysteria!

www.watertalk.org/wawa/beetle/news.html

they both say basically the same thing the key to the article that I linked is they are trying to get us to realize that trees take time to adapt what we are seeing is an explosion effect which does not give the trees enough time to recover. Another problem is the area effected all at once. It is easier for a forest to survive when it happens in patches. That is one reasons I hope a fire goes through it while there are still some live trees to resist the flames

When I googled it it was the first link that came up as an "VISIBLE EVIDENCE"

I was not looking for a green or non green take of it. I was looking for visible evidence of feedback loops and how a warmer climate from "Man's influences on its environment" is impacting our environment, and triggering feedback loops. I was also using it as an example that overall it is warmer in the northern part of the world that beetles are surviving where they should not. due to Biology and physics that can't be ignored. with the exception of those who "selective view to maintain a fantasy of reality" (I am not referring specifically to you on this last comment)

Corey USA · 03-08-2007, 4:49 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Stephen Wilde

I recall that last winter was colder than average in Western Canada/North West USA. Alaska was especially cold.

If this was true there should be no beetle problems in that they would have froze to death. physics of water is it becomes crystal beetle fluids crystallize destroying cells thus killing the beetle. the temp has to get low enough to achieve this it didn't for the most part thus the boom in beetle numbers.

Steve.J.Davies · 03-08-2007, 10:04 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by njp

No such thing as proof in empirical science. Only supporting evidence, of which there is an vast amount demonstrating the reality of AGW.

I am so glad you said this - as you well know it is only disproof that counts.
That is why consensus is immaterial to the science and that the default position of any real scientist is open minded scepticism.
You show none of these traits.

You lexical analysis is poor BTW - perhaps it is not unbiased ? ?

Still, I can live with our differences quite happily. In fact colour me glad to be different.

No one here has defined how visible evidence of climate change is categorised, observed, measured and verified. All we have seen are 'texas bullyseyes' cherrypicked at will.

andykn · 03-08-2007, 10:29 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Steve.J.Davies

I am so glad you said this - as you well know it is only disproof that counts.
That is why consensus is immaterial to the science and that the default position of any real scientist is open minded scepticism.

...until the evidence overwhelms that open minded skepticism.

Just because something hasn't been scientitfically proved doesn't mean it's not true or that we should have any significant doubt about if the evidence is overwhelming.

We should be open minded about any evidence that contradicts MMGW (and all the other opposing theories) but not about emotional opposition where no evidence (or even position) is proposed.

Most of the denialists on here emotionally grasp at every contradictory theory going and so don't have a valid consistent psotion I could agree with even if I wanted to.

I have on one hand, most of the UK's and US' top scientist saying we have looked at the evidence and agree that MMGW exists and on the other lots of contradictory theories no-one is prepared to explain or justify on here.

Steve.J.Davies · 03-08-2007, 12:29 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by andykn

...until the evidence overwhelms that open minded skepticism.

Not at all. Any scientist who allows their open minded scepticism to be overwhelmed is no longer a scientist.
Consensus is not part of science and there is no vote on truth - still.

Someone comes up with a new theory to replace an accepted one - (gravitation, quantum, whatever) shows all their data methods and it stands the tests of multiple disproofs then we are talking.
MMGW acolytes don't do this - Mann a prime example.

Alternative theories are not required - the scientific method requires disproof.

No one here has defined how visible evidence of climate change is categorised, observed, measured and verified. All we have seen are 'texas bullyseyes' cherrypicked at will.

Use of 'denialist' is of course wrong and a huge giveaway.

andykn · 03-08-2007, 12:55 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Steve.J.Davies

No one here has defined how visible evidence of climate change is categorised, observed, measured and verified. All we have seen are 'texas bullyseyes' cherrypicked at will.

But surely that is what the papers supporting the postulation are? Its not a new theory as such replacing an accepted one. Its a set of peer reveiwed papers suggesting that MMGW exists, the conclusions of which have been accepted by the majority of scientists.

There are a number of people who dispute the evidence and the conclusions for a number of contradictory reasons. It may that one of them will come to be accepted if it is correct and well presented enough - no-one on this forum has even come close to identifying anything that disproves the measurements or the concusions in my eyes.

My skeptical mind is open to such arguments, but I can't wait forever, almost literally like the anecdotal 'boiled frog'.

njp · 03-08-2007, 1:23 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Steve.J.Davies

Someone comes up with a new theory to replace an accepted one - (gravitation, quantum, whatever) shows all their data methods and it stands the tests of multiple disproofs then we are talking.

What are you talking about? No theory can withstand even a single "disproof".

Quote:

MMGW acolytes don't do this - Mann a prime example.

No, your obsession with Mann is a prime example of why you are a denialist, rather than the "open-minded sceptic" you wish everyone to believe you are. You continue to ramble on about Mann's hockey stick, despite the fact that the "debate" (such as it was) moved on long ago, and you now have at least 12 different hockey sticks to choose from.

Quote:

Alternative theories are not required - the scientific method requires disproof.

Which hasn't happened. Instead, we have a motley selection of alternative theories, frequently contradictory and in any case already falsified. But still you cling to them. It seems you must be relying on the egocentric approach: "AGW would inconvenience me, therefore it can't possibly be happening."

Quote:

Use of 'denialist' is of course wrong and a huge giveaway.

No. It's absolutely apposite.