grayfingers
Cave Dweller
Member since November 2007
Posts: 4,575
|
Post by grayfingers on Apr 21, 2013 10:19:06 GMT -5
hahahaha, naw, I am more occupied with figuring out how to blame Global Cooling on the Lefties . . . Well think of something good, I'm running to the store real quick, will be back for more soon:). Okay, Helen I made this just now just for you. (Just funnin')
|
|
|
Post by helens on Apr 21, 2013 10:43:27 GMT -5
No Helen, I think that climate change being real and natural is the point. Of course the climate changes. How could anyone dispute that? The wackos that think it is man made and reversible are the ones trying to lay claim to it. The sun is heating this planet and it goes through cycles short and long and very long... and probably even longer. We haven't been studying it long enough to know more. The concept that humans can change that is the epitome of egotistical thought. Are you suggesting that because insurance companies are profiting from the mania this is proof that man made global climate change is true? Please. I know you are much smarter than that. I am with Mel. I'll take a little more warmth so as to avoid another glaciation. Do you read the links I include? I'm smart enough to read what I'm arguing with, and if you want to argue, you should read what you are arguing with too. To say that insurance companies are PROFITING from global warming, when they have been paying out 10x annually what they were paying on average in the 80s doesn't prove anything to you, in ADDITION to what 97% of scientists say? Scientists mind you, not financial people, not religious people, and not political people. Can any of you post an article from a SCIENTIFIC publication, not a publication that is associated with politics, has any political bias, or has posted political articles in the past, that illustrates your point? As for Global Cooling, given that Global Warming is man's impact on changing the climate, it's the same thing. Whether it's cooling or warming, man is having an impact on the climate, because if it's 'natural', we wouldn't have data from everywhere that it's CHANGING faster as man leaves a bigger footprint.
|
|
grayfingers
Cave Dweller
Member since November 2007
Posts: 4,575
|
Post by grayfingers on Apr 21, 2013 10:51:50 GMT -5
Science or Science Fiction? Professionals’ Discursive Construction of Climate Change oss.sagepub.com/content/33/11/1477.full Lianne M. Lefsrud University of Alberta, Canada Renate E. Meyer Vienna University of Economics and Business, Austria and Copenhagen Business School, Denmark Lianne M. Lefsrud, Alberta School of Business, University of Alberta, Edmonton T6G 2R6, Canada Email: lefsrud@ualberta.ca Next Section Abstract This paper examines the framings and identity work associated with professionals’ discursive construction of climate change science, their legitimation of themselves as experts on ‘the truth’, and their attitudes towards regulatory measures. Drawing from survey responses of 1077 professional engineers and geoscientists, we reconstruct their framings of the issue and knowledge claims to position themselves within their organizational and their professional institutions. In understanding the struggle over what constitutes and legitimizes expertise, we make apparent the heterogeneity of claims, legitimation strategies, and use of emotionality and metaphor. By linking notions of the science or science fiction of climate change to the assessment of the adequacy of global and local policies and of potential organizational responses, we contribute to the understanding of ‘defensive institutional work’ by professionals within petroleum companies, related industries, government regulators, and their professional association.
|
|
|
Post by helens on Apr 21, 2013 10:54:04 GMT -5
|
|
|
Post by helens on Apr 21, 2013 10:59:13 GMT -5
And here's WHY it's gotten cooler from Global Warming (comparing it to a TV show so it's more exciting to read): www.motherjones.com/environment/2013/04/game-thrones-climate-change-winterAs the Arctic grows warmer, and does so at a much more rapid clip than the mid-latitudes, this lessens the relative temperature difference between areas to the north and south of the jet stream. And that slows it down: The jet stream is literally like a river of air, which flows "downhill" from regions of denser, warmer air to regions of less dense, colder air. But if there's less of a temperature gradient from north and south, the jet stream won't flow as rapidly.
When that happens, Francis says, things get "stuck." "When the jet stream is weaker, it is more easily thwarted from its path," she says. "And it tends to meander more." This can leave in place, for longer, a given set of weather conditions—whether unusually snowy or, alternatively, unusually warm.
Indeed, Francis explains that the mechanism is the same one as what we saw last year in the United States, when things seemed abnormally warm, rather than abnormally cold. "You can look back to last year, and remember that we were basking in record breaking heat," she notes. "But it's the same reason." Once again, the jet stream was "stuck"—only, last year, that left the highs and lows in different places.
Of course, the jet stream isn't the only factor helping to deliver more intense winters. There's also more water vapor in the atmosphere as it heats, and that means that when you have a snowstorm, it can dump more precipitation. So if you have wintry weather patterns stuck in a given place, and more water vapor in the atmosphere—well. Winter is coming, says the forecast.
|
|
|
Post by helens on Apr 21, 2013 11:01:32 GMT -5
From Yale University: e360.yale.edu/feature/linking_weird_weather_to_rapid_warming_of_the_arctic/2501/Linking Weird Weather to Rapid Warming of the Arctic The loss of Arctic summer sea ice and the rapid warming of the Far North are altering the jet stream over North America, Europe, and Russia. Scientists are now just beginning to understand how these profound shifts may be increasing the likelihood of more persistent and extreme weather. by jennifer francis
Does it seem as though your weather has become increasingly “stuck” lately? Day after day of cold, rain, heat, or blue skies may not be a figment of your imagination. While various oceanic and atmospheric patterns such as El Niño, La Niña, and the North Atlantic Oscillation have been blamed for the spate of unusual weather recently, there’s now a new culprit in the wind: Arctic amplification. Directly related to sea-ice loss and earlier snowmelt in the Far North, it is affecting the jet stream around the Northern Hemisphere, with potentially far-reaching effects on the weather.
Arctic amplification describes the tendency for high Northern latitudes to experience enhanced warming or cooling relative to the rest of the Northern Hemisphere. This heightened sensitivity is linked to the presence of snow and sea ice, and the feedback loops that they trigger. For example, as sea ice retreats, sunshine that would have been reflected back to space by the bright ice is instead absorbed by the ocean, which heats up, melting even more ice. As the world has warmed since the fossil-fuel revolution after World War II, Arctic temperatures have increased at more than twice the global rate. A dramatic indicator of this warming is the loss of Arctic sea ice in summer, which has declined by 40 percent in just the past three decades. The area of lost ice is about 1.3 million square miles, or roughly 42 percent of the area of the Lower 48 United States. Global Warming = Global Cooling = dramatic climate change JUST LIKE National Geographic and Discovery Channel already told you if you bothered to read it.
|
|
|
Post by helens on Apr 21, 2013 11:03:10 GMT -5
|
|
|
Post by helens on Apr 21, 2013 11:04:28 GMT -5
|
|
|
Post by helens on Apr 21, 2013 11:06:06 GMT -5
|
|
|
Post by helens on Apr 21, 2013 11:06:51 GMT -5
Just for Bill:
|
|
|
Post by helens on Apr 21, 2013 11:17:06 GMT -5
VERY good Bill. From YOUR linked article: Framing the climate change debate and constructing expertise In our field of study, we note that there is a distinction between experts who express concern about the rapidly changing climate and those who deny that there is a problem related to climate change. The ensuing debate is often caricatured as a war between two sides – ‘you either believe in climate change or you don’t’ – especially in North America. We find that virtually all respondents (99.4%) agree that the climate is changing. When you link an article, you should at least skim the entire article to make sure that it supports YOUR premise and not mine:).
|
|
grayfingers
Cave Dweller
Member since November 2007
Posts: 4,575
|
Post by grayfingers on Apr 21, 2013 11:24:37 GMT -5
Tsk tsk . . . Helen, you are grasping at straws once again. The debate is not over the fact that there is climate change, of course the climate is changing.
|
|
|
Post by helens on Apr 21, 2013 11:27:49 GMT -5
My above exerpt is a bit vague, hoping YOU READ YOUR OWN LINK.
In case it's too much reading (even tho I read every word), you can skip to the last section, "Discussion and Conclusion"... and while couched very scientifically, it's clear the article is EXTREMELY biased about the stupidity of self-interested scientists and professionals who work for the oil companies, and are searching for a way to slam home that this self interest can kill us all.
Read your article. You posted it. Read it.
|
|
|
Post by helens on Apr 21, 2013 11:29:10 GMT -5
Gosh that's lazy, Bill ... here's the first paragraph of the conclusion: Discussion and Conclusion
Climate change could irreversibly affect future generations and, as such, is one of the most urgent issues facing organizations (Hoffman, 2007; Porter & Reinhardt, 2007). It is being hotly debated in the public and among scientists and economists, yet few articles study global warming or climate change from an organizational and management research perspective (Ansari, Gray, & Wijen, 2011; Goodall, 2008). Most research has focused on the contestation of GHG governance and management (Engels, 2006; Levy & Egan, 2003; Mackenzie, 2009; Okereke, 2007; Wittneben, 2008), while underestimating the still ongoing debate among experts over core assumptions. Although there seems to be consensus that anthropogenic climate change presents a profound global challenge, policy makers and companies have opposed the regulations of GHG emissions. As Levy and colleagues (e.g., Levy & Kolk, 2002; Levy & Rothenberg, 2002) argue, business responses particularly in North America have been substantively ineffective, barely exceeding reputational and brand management issues. For obvious reasons, fossil fuel industries’ stakes in this struggle are high and, not surprisingly, they are at the forefront of the opposition to carbon regulation (Wittneben, Okereke, Banerjee, & Levy, 2009).
|
|
Sabre52
Cave Dweller
Me and my gal, Rosie
Member since August 2005
Posts: 20,487
|
Post by Sabre52 on Apr 21, 2013 18:37:39 GMT -5
So the scientists say global warming =global cooling= dramatic climate change. Therefore global cooling=global warming=dramatic climate change. Therefore its getting hotter but an ice age is coming. Or conversely, an ice age is coming but we'd better get out our sunscreen, bathing suits and camels cause it's gonna get hot. My head is spinning *L* All things being equal (pun) sounds like so much mumbo jumbo to me.
Weather by the OH Susannah song writer:
It rained all day the night I left The weather it was dry It was so hot I froze to death Susannah don't you cry. *L*
....Mel
|
|
|
Post by helens on Apr 21, 2013 19:33:06 GMT -5
LMAO! I do get a bit overly focused, but Mel, just read my posts... point is, that man has been causing extreme climate changes, and the explanations for them are in the previous posts. The causes, the effects, the potential outcome.
Probably the most interesting thing I read about it was in a 'comment' on one of the articles. Some guy challenged the article by 'proving' that scientists didn't know what they were talking about, because they could not give a precise date for when global calamity might occur, what the 'tipping point' actually was, to the day (or at least the year).
The amazingly good argument is that once you are diagnosed with cancer, if you do not get treated, you will die. No one can tell you to the day, let alone the hour or minute you will die, but if you do not treat your cancer, you will die.
Your body will put up a huge fight, the earth will try to survive... but in the end, its life will be shortened, or at least its ability to sustain OUR lives will be shortened, just like it was for the dinosaurs. The earth has cancer, and we are it, or at least our pollution is it. Do we care?
|
|
Sabre52
Cave Dweller
Me and my gal, Rosie
Member since August 2005
Posts: 20,487
|
Post by Sabre52 on Apr 21, 2013 19:53:30 GMT -5
Do we care? Interesting question. Speaking as a biologist, Nah, don't care. Mankind is a plague upon the Earth. We've long ago exceeded the planet's carrying capacity for humans which means simply, our every activity is degrading our planet's environment and making other species extinct. As you've said, it merely comes down to how much damage we do before the environment becomes too unfriendly and mankind's population curve drops off. No great loss to the planet. In biological terms, a good species adapts to it's environment and does nothing damage it. A species that must alter it's environment to the extent of causing damage, in order to survive, and consume monstrous amounts of resources to continue it's existence is a loser, short term species anyway. Scorpions and cockroaches will be dancing on our graves millions of years after we're gone. Humans, all the types dead and gone in a couple of million years. Scorpions, 400 million plus and unchanged, with no environmental damage. They laugh their little arthropod laughs at the short timers who were supposed to have been so smart .....Mel
|
|
|
Post by helens on Apr 21, 2013 19:59:24 GMT -5
That's an incredibly sociopathic view point Mel! We are all going to die. That's a given. But those of us who have kids have something called hope. Whether we personally survive or not, we hope that our children, or at least our species does. It's the point of sacrifice, courage, and dedication.
If we have to give something small up today, so our kids can have a future tomorrow, is that too much to ask? To deny the problem is to ignore solutions to the problem. So first, you have to admit you have a problem. We have a problem. You can see the problem, you just said so.
So we should do nothing?
|
|
grayfingers
Cave Dweller
Member since November 2007
Posts: 4,575
|
Post by grayfingers on Apr 21, 2013 20:43:26 GMT -5
Mel is right, of course. Anyone who has seen a population of anything outgrow it's sustainability knows that a calamity soon follows. 'Soon' in our case will be (IMO) not that long from now, as soon as the population gets a few billion greater, either starvation/water wars or a virus will decimate our hoards. So, Party on, (responsibly, of course)
|
|
bushmanbilly
Cave Dweller
Member since October 2008
Posts: 4,719
|
Post by bushmanbilly on Apr 21, 2013 21:30:14 GMT -5
;D
|
|