somedaybitch

There was a report on CNN/BBC on-line about an article published in today's issue of Science. Someone proposed at that climate conference (in India?) that the nations shoot into the high atmosphere (the idea I saw called for large balloons with heavy guns) sulphur dioxide in order to combat warming long enough for a more permanent solution to be found. Serious scientists were seriously considering this proposal. I guess Mt. Pinatubo's eruption in '91 threw up so many tons of sulphur dioxide that the world's temp was lowered by 9/10s of a degree for a year. t would have to be done for several years in a row as it would be rained out eventually. An Indian scientist said this could be done but many computer simulations would have to be run to make certain there would be no deleterious effects. OMG. Sign the damn Kyoto thingy and don't be sending even more stuff into the atmosphere.

Political rant, small as it was, is over.

From:

have you read the Kyoto agreement?

From:

also? did you actually click the link?

From:

Yep, I clicked the link and read the article and about 10 of the replies. I have not read the Kyoto Protocol. I know the pres feels it would hurt American industry. I have mixed feelings about it, if that will save my ass. Developing countries, especially in equatorial regions, need refrigeration and can't afford the new technologies but usually rely on freon. Who are we to say they can't use it? I don't think that's fair, even if they may not recover all of it when repairing fridges or A/C units and it escapes into the atmosphere.

I also think it's not right for us to keep our nuclear weapons and then tell other countries they can't have them. Who are we to say that?

I know about the Little Ice Age in Europe what? 10,000 years ago, before industry could have done anything to the atmosphere and eventually the earth came out of it. I know climate is dynamic, I know all that stuff, wg. I read, too. I don't go off half-cocked. I think about over-fishing and I have done research (for work) on what denuded rainforests in tropical S. America means for global climate.

Many people have a chicken little mentality; I think you can find pros and cons for both arguments that man is influencing the climate by emmissions and that of a naturally fluctuating climate.

From:

I have mixed feelings about it, if that will save my ass.

is your ass in danger? ;)

i have no dispute with the statements that Man has a negative impact on the planet. what i dispute is the statements as fact that what is happening isn't part of the planet's natural processes simply because we don't know enough about them. Clinton's advisors didn't even agree with Kyoto.

I also think it's not right for us to keep our nuclear weapons and then tell other countries they can't have them. Who are we to say that?

people that won't first strike a country we disagree with. people that haven't committed genocide. people that died to keep most of Western Europe free. people that don't publicly, genuinely advocate the murder of those not like us.

have a long, involved chat with Julie about Iran and then tell me you think that its current regime should have nukes.

From:

thevaliumsofalj.livejournal.com

have a long, involved chat with Julie about Iran and then tell me you think that its current regime should have nukes.

the simplest explanation is this - remember back in '99? right around the millenium, there was the group of seriously fundamentalist christians that went to israel, and the israelis kicked them out because they thought that the group was looneytunes and intending to try to bring about the end of the world and the second coming of Christ by starting the armageddon?? Now, imagine that group, islamic, in charge of a middle eastern totalitarian regime, with their finger on the button, and trying to bring about the return of the 12th imam.

From:

you should prolly explain what the 12th Iman is, for context.

From:

I watched Ted Koppel in Iran on Discovery Channel tonight. It was interesting. I guess by your comment, Iran wants to blast Israel into teensy tiny pieces. I have issues with the Israeli treatment of the Palestinians, too, but I don't think they (Israel) don't have a right to exist. But that's another argument. It's almost 4am here and I have PT at some ungodly hour, like 11am, and I have to drive 45 minutes to get there. I'm not really tired, though.

I have an e-mail in reply to yours, I just haven't finished it, yet.

And I think there will be problems w/ India and Pakistan and China before Iran! Zoom-----------> LOL

From:

i'd actually call us it's more immediate target. Iran and Syria as buddies makes me nervous.

And I think there will be problems w/ India and Pakistan and China before Iran!

China is currently keeping NK in check, who i actually think is more potentially problematic than Iran, so i'm not too terribly het up about China right this second.

India/Pakistan? yeah, that's a problem.

it's all bloody unstable where religion is involved, and while i chime in with the "gawd, i miss the clarity of the Cold War" meme, i wouldn't trade now for then.

Zoom-----------> LOL

heh. fly safe.

From:

Do you read Jane's? I get the free synopsis of a couple of them every week in an e-mail. To subscribe costs thousands a year, but the synopses are free. http://www.janes.com/

From:

i do. great source material. defensetech blog is good as well.

From:

"great source material"

LOL That's why I get it...and to keep informed to a degree. I figure a great story is going to come out of one of those hints from Jane's one of these days. I'll have to check out defensetech blog, too.

From:

instapundit should have a link on his blogroll if you can't find it.

From:

lvp3.livejournal.com

yeah, i saw that on the news last night (about the draft). isn't that what they said bush was going to do in the first election? huh...

From:

The thing with climate change, is that you have to literally look at the big picture. The fact that the earth is warming doesn't mean that it's warming everywhere uniformly. As weather patterns shift, some regions are going to actually cool down. That doesn't mean that warming's not real.

Do I believe that the Kyoto Protocol is the answer? I'd be very surprised if it were that easy. What I do think it's going to do is give us more data to work with. I do think that we're going to fall on our faces a few times before we get it figured out.

From:

As weather patterns shift, some regions are going to actually cool down. That doesn't mean that warming's not real.

oh i agree absolutely. but it needs to be not politicized and not hysterical and not hyperbolic.

my problem with Kyoto is that it's too extreme and it will destroy the industry of nations, and i don't mean ours. it will do serious damage to the global economy, so if people's end game is that we're parasites anyway and we deserve it, then that works. i don't happen to think that. i believe that we can both do for the environment and do for industry and economy because i believe that they aren't mutually exclusive.

From:

i believe that we can both do for the environment and do for industry and economy because i believe that they aren't mutually exclusive.

So, what do you believe our next step should be? I'm not being snarky, I really would like to hear your thoughts on the matter.

From:

the first step is to de-politicize this nonsense. using it as a hammer and wielding it about to gain points is just bullshit. it doesn't help anything and only serves to keep the populace uninformed and thus unable to form any kind of cogent opinion.

and the second thing is totally tied to the first in that scientists need to admit that they honestly don't fucking know what's actually normal for the planet versus actually caused by global warming, and then instead of looking for data to support their positions they should simply look for data and try to figure out what it's saying.

From:

I don't know that "Normal for the Planet" is a useful standard. I'm perfectly willing to admit that 'Normal' has fluxuated wildly over the coarse of geological time. I think that a better scope would be "What temperature range our current ecosystem can handle" and also "What rate of change can the ecology adapt to"

I'm also trying to figure out what the motivation would be for climate scientists to slant the data as much as you seem to imply. They drive cars and heat/cool their homes and eat at McDonalds just like the rest of us. If it were just studies funded by environmental groups, I'd be sceptical too, but it's also the big, government funded studies that are coming to the same conclusion. Mainly that a) the climate is warming and b) human activity is contributing to, if not driving this change. I've seen plenty of disagreement on how fast the change is occuring and I have yet to find a credible report that claims to know with any certainty what the local affects are going to be on most of the continental US.

I personally think that the solution is going to be a combination of increased efficiencies and new energy technology. I don't see how either of these will hurt the economy in the long run, though there will probably be some short-term pain. If we can be the ones to develop these technologies and make them practical, then we can sell them to developing countries, which would also be good for the economy.

I really can't speak to the political situation in California, because I really don't pay enough attention to have an opinion. But around here, windfarms are going up in some of the most economically depressed areas of MN and the Dakotas, there's even been a boom in Duluth (great lakes port city) because of all the windmill equipment that's being shipped in from Amsterdam. A state of affairs that I find pretty embarrassing, actually, we should be making our own.

From:

I don't know that "Normal for the Planet" is a useful standard. I'm perfectly willing to admit that 'Normal' has fluxuated wildly over the coarse of geological time. I think that a better scope would be "What temperature range our current ecosystem can handle" and also "What rate of change can the ecology adapt to"

again, i don't think we're disagreeing. but there's an ENORMOUS difference between jumping to attribute events/behaviors to the scourge that is humans and finding out if those events are naturally occurring phenomenon of the planet. jumping to conclusions ultimately serves no one and could lead to unintentional disastrous results. [see the Great Depression]

I'm also trying to figure out what the motivation would be for climate scientists to slant the data as much as you seem to imply.

when you're a hammer, everything looks like nail.

there's a difference between, to use a law enforcement analogy, finding facts that help you prove the suspect you believe did it is actually guilty and investigating the facts and seeing what conclusion those facts derive. the latter leaves you open to see what is actually there, the former is simply an echo chamber of your pre-existing belief. one is science, the other is politics.

From:

but there's an ENORMOUS difference between jumping to attribute events/behaviors to the scourge that is humans and finding out if those events are naturally occurring phenomenon of the planet.

What level of proof would you require in order for you to be convince that global warming was a human-induced phenomena? What alternate cause do you attribute it to? (I'll assume that it's not a lack of pirates :) )

when you're a hammer, everything looks like nail.
I think you are confusing climatatologists with environmentals. Climatologist do have a large list of natural causes for climate changes ranging from solar activity to changes in the ocean currents, but none of them fits what is happening now.

The overriding mandate of the career scientist is to get published. If there were a alternate theory with decent data behind it there'd be plenty of debate and papers, because debate breeds papers, which breed grant money and tenure cedentials

From:

again, i'm not disagreeing that there is a human component to global warming at all. my trouble with the issue is that we don't know enough about how the planet works to accurately attribute X condition to Y cause. and if we go off half-cocked, with insufficient and incomplete information we could very easily cause the planet damage.

I think you are confusing climatatologists with environmentals. Climatologist do have a large list of natural causes for climate changes ranging from solar activity to changes in the ocean currents, but none of them fits what is happening now.

no, i'm not. and i don't agree with your last statement. there are plenty of scientists that disagree with plenty of other scientists about the extent, nature and causes of current conditions, future conditions and even the existence of any "conditions" at all. [ie: the link that started the convo in the first place. it's supposed to be melting there, according to the doomsayers, not growing more ice]. it's the nature of science. i don't even have a problem with the fact that there's disagreement and uncertainty given that the planet is a very, very complicated thing and that's how science is.

what i have a problem with is the rush to ZOMG!CAPITALISMISEVIL!INDUSTRYISEVIL!AMERICAISTHEANTICHRIST!IMPERIALISTBASTARDSYOUREKILLINGTHEPLANET!!!!!!!!!!!

that's just silly. and extreme measures that put at serious, immediate risk the economic viability of stable nations is a cure worse than the potential disease. you think poor nations can afford, or have any interest whatsoever in, streamlined, energy efficient new and clean ways to do things? they won't have the capital outlay. green is good for business because it ultimately saves business money. that takes time, and research, and lots and lots of initial monetary outlay. Kyoto ain't the solution, and the Clinton Administration knew it. and their advisors have publicly admitted it.

The overriding mandate of the career scientist is to get published. If there were a alternate theory with decent data behind it there'd be plenty of debate and papers, because debate breeds papers, which breed grant money and tenure cedentials

it is in the right political environment. to wit; i have a good friend who's working on her phd in botany. she wanted to do research on why marijuana has the positive medical effects it does on the human brain. she can't get ANYONE to back her research because it's marijuana. and anyone that has anything remotely positive to say about marijuana must be a dopehead and/or must be a loser that supports drugs.

global warming is THE hotbed international topic, and anyone that's trying to put out something that goes against the so-called Conventional Wisdom risks getting ostracized from the academic community. that's plenty of reason not to make noise.

From:

I completely agree with you that Kyoto isn't the solution. I even agree that the US was right not to sign on. Even if the American people were fully behind the concept, it would be amazingly difficult to pull off because there are so many moving part. There is no silver bullet for this problem, no single plan is going to work for every country, every city, every industry.

What I am arguing is that Global climate change is a real, serious problem that everyone should be aware of and working towards solutions large or small. You mock Al Gore, but take the case of my own sister. I've been an environmentalist since my jr. high days, I'll discuss it with anyone who cares to listen and I don't think that I come off as a wing-nut. Yet Tori didn't take the issue personally until she saw "An inconvienient truth". She's in the market for a new car, and fuel efficiency suddenly became a priority in her shopping. She's also talking about making modifications to her house to lower it's carbon footprint. She's a single professional woman, she can afford to do these things.

If everyone takes what measures, large or small to reduce emissions they can afford, that will create it's own market, which will expand the product lines and drive down costs, which will make them accessable to people (and nations) that are less affluent. Do that, and the problems half-solved already.

I don't like the hysteria either. Some people hear the tone and it causes them to dismiss the subject matter. Unfortunately there are so many public and personal issues in an average person's life that it's hard to get his or her attention. It seems like everyone with an issue is using these tactics. Environmentalists yell that the land is going to dry up and fall into the sea, the Bush administration would like us to belive that we'll all be murdered in our beds if we don't allow warrentless wiretapping, religous conservatives claim that society as we know it will fall into a black hole if we allow gays to marry. No wonder our society is so stressed out.

I don't know that you can make a direct comparison between climatologists and your friend the botanist. For one thing there would have to be a big change in the federal laws on marajuana before anyone would be able to make use of your friend's research. The laws are short-sighted and bordering on criminal IMHO, but unless you can show me a corresponding law prohibiting climate work, I don't think the two cases are synonomus.

From: