50 Days To Save The World

[Gray-Wolf]

I have care of a child with no language and limited mobility (13yrs old), he fully exists in the 'constant now'.

I have a 7 1/2 yr old son who is bright, natural and full of questions.

Son 'in the now' is easy, 'now' generally changes so slowly that it keeps pace with his abilities to adapt to it without shock or stress.

Son 'in yer face' wants to know what's been and what is next.

How ,when 'in yer face' is a boy grown through nature ,from Frogs/Toads/Newts in the garden pond to Megalania to Spinosaurus Egypticus to Amomonites to Trilobites to Foraminiffera, do you talk about 'the advert'?

'In the now' smiles (as he does at animations and soothing tomes), 'in yer face' say's " will that happen?"

You know me.

You know my views.

My son has grown in my answers to his questions of the world he inhabits,be it rivers (their erosion,deposition,spates and droughts),critters (from single cell through the delights of boyhood dinosauria to our species today, mini beasts thru' Blue whale) to differing climates/continental arrangements (facilitating differing climates) to humanity and it's variance in wealth and wellbeing.

He's traveled the world,seen whales ,dolphins,'gators and salties, Kookaburra, and possum.

I envy him his experiences.

He's 'lived' the Attenborough-esque programmes he thrived on.

He's seen ice ages (and their critters) and witnessed those time collapse (in dramatic HD fashion) and now he wonders about 'change' in his reality and lifetime.

When he knows (at 7 1/2) that 'greenhouse conditions' have existed in his world before and that elevated CO2 is the thing that is constantly held up as the difference (from his 'living with Beasts' to his 'Walking with Dinosaurs', et al) to our climate today how do I tell him that 'this time' greenhouse gasses 'don't matter'?

That all we've grown in our 'believing' about the past is only applicable to the past and not applicable to 'here' ,'today'?

I think life is simpler living the "in the now" reality.

" In yer face" has buried pets.

Be it 'Cat kill' Moles or slaughtered Robins, 'Aged Hamsters',geriatric Gerbils so,to him 'drowning dogs' is part of life,

If sea levels rise then those Indonesian/Bangladeshian lands ,he has walked,will become sea and all those yapping dogs,he met,will face threats that are more real that cut out cartoons on T.V..

[LomondSnowstorm]

The ad is extremely patronising and illustrates totally how climate science has been, in many ways, hijacked by politicians. It really isn't about Labour or Conservatives, it's about the official debate on AGW being totally open, transparent and not subject to censorship, and at the moment there is a political consensus that the science of AGW is 'settled' in favour of it being true, that the debate is over and it's time to start hammering this message into children. While the change from fossil fuels to renewable energy may well be an honourable, urgent and neccessary aim, the arguments for it could just as easily be built on eventual fuel depletion, less foreign energy reliance etc. without having to distort or exaggerate the truth.

[DAVID SNOW]

The ad is extremely patronising and illustrates totally how climate science has been, in many ways, hijacked by politicians. It really isn't about Labour or Conservatives, it's about the official debate on AGW being totally open, transparent and not subject to censorship, and at the moment there is a political consensus that the science of AGW is 'settled' in favour of it being true, that the debate is over and it's time to start hammering this message into children. While the change from fossil fuels to renewable energy may well be an honourable, urgent and neccessary aim, the arguments for it could just as easily be built on eventual fuel depletion, less foreign energy reliance etc. without having to distort or exaggerate the truth.

Very good post

[Gray-Wolf]

for those who bemoan the 'inefficiency' of a 2c change (in the UK) to bring about Fido's end can I draw their attention north wards and ask " if a global 1c average increase has brought a 5c increase over the summer pole what will a further 2c at our latitude translate into up there?"

If folk are poo,poohing the mediocrity of change here then look to the areas we are told will be the harbingers of change and we can get back to the denial of 'human influenced change' we have become accustomed to on here (LOL).

If 2c here translates to a further 10c there then there is a lot of ice set to translate to water I feel. If a 2c rise here translates to a 2c rise there then there is still a lot of land based ice to respond to that (and lubricate the glacier bases to speed the sheets to warmer waters etc....).

Can anyone reassure me that if such change takes place that London, the Fens, the Somerset levels, Yorks flatlands, the Wirral and Cheshire plain are safe and sound? The glacial drift cliffs of the N. eastern coast or the sand flats of the fylde and north to the Lakes ,or east coast Scotland? all safe from higher waters and storm surges. Good, I'm glad I needn't worry.

[Phil UK]

So that scenario, if it were to verify, justifies the advert?

Within the context of this particular discussion, you obviously have an especially, er, enlightening view of the middle french lifestyle!

I was speaking metaphorically. And yes, I have been to France. May 1995 and the weather for 6 of the 7 days was in a word that I can't use on here but the alternative in my lexicon being "crap". But still nice to see snow capped Pyrenees even in late Spring.

But enough of my holidays.

Reading between the lines, the 'advert' depicts that man is a bully and causing all this global warming. Two things fundamentally wrong with that. The first being that it's not all man made, although we are not exactly helping, that much I 'may' agree with.

And secondly, Natural, such as the gyroscopic tilt of the Earth that happens every 30,000 odd years or so. Volcanoes? I say volcanoes as in St Helens (US, not middle England!) And the massive eruption that occured earlier this year in I think, Siberia. Now how much crap do volcanic plumes put in the air, get caught in the jetstream? In February 2008, there were some of the most visually stunning sunsets I have ever seen after a volcanic explosion. Sulphuric and other chemicals blown way up into the stratosphere/trophosphere. Deep red sky where the Sun was setting, orange, purple, blue and even green where the day/night terminator meets. I have pictures of those few nights and will post them on here if required.

And all because of air pollution. That is natural, not man-made. So, fundamentally flawed to keep blaming our generation for creating what the IPCC, DECC and current government's accuse us of doing to create our own self-made armaggedeon. (Plus it's a good excuse to raise taxes further is it not? )

Phil.

Edited October 26, 2009 by Phil UK

[noggin]

While the change from fossil fuels to renewable energy may well be an honourable, urgent and neccessary aim, the arguments for it could just as easily be built on eventual fuel depletion, less foreign energy reliance etc. without having to distort or exaggerate the truth.

Exactly. Never mind the political claptrap....let's just work on getting new and sustainable energy sources so that we have a cleaner and less polluted planet.

If as much effort and money was put into finding new and renewable energy sources as has been expended on political claptrap, then we could well nearly be there by now.

I have been saying this for years.

Sometimes, the man/woman on the street seems to have a more sensible grasp of things than those who are paid to know better. A bit like the current financial situation where, for example, the "experts" didn't see the meltdown coming, whereas very many "ordinary" people did.

I don't know...what is it all coming to, eh?

PS On re-reading this post, it comes across as a bit arrogant. That is certainly not how I intended it to be. Sorry!

Edited October 26, 2009 by noggin

[noggin]

Politics and AGW, eh?

http://youth.greenparty.ca/en/

How nice.

Not.

[Methuselah]

Not very clever is it! And, not likely to win them many friends, either!

Exactly. Never mind the political claptrap....let's just work on getting new and sustainable energy sources so that we have a cleaner and less polluted planet.

Quite right...

[Pennine Ten Foot Drifts]

Politics and AGW, eh?

http://youth.greenparty.ca/en/

How nice.

Not.

It certainly doesn't offend me, and it's aimed squarely at an audience that is unlikely to be engaged by a headline 'Mankind's activities over the past 200 years has possibly had a detrimental affect on the global environment' (it's not just about AGW, it's about the general state of the world).

To be honest there are plenty of things to get VERY annoyed about which are directly down to human behaviour anyway, and it's a general approach in politics, start off at an extreme position and the eventual outcome may be a dilluted compromise, start off in the middle and end up with nothing but platitudes and inaction.

[Gray-Wolf]

Politics and AGW, eh?

http://youth.greenparty.ca/en/

How nice.

Not.

Kinda like this then Nog's　

Philip Larkin

They fug you up, your mum and dad.

They may not mean to but they do.

They fill you up with faults they had

And add some extra, just for you

But they were fugged up in their turn

By fools in old-style hats and coats,

Who half the time were soppy stern

And half at one anothers throats.

Man hands on misery to man.

It deepens like a coastal shelf.

Get out as early as you can,

And don't have any kids yourself.

Edited October 26, 2009 by Gray-Wolf

[Guest North Sea Snow Convection]

I was speaking metaphorically. And yes, I have been to France. May 1995 and the weather for 6 of the 7 days was in a word that I can't use on here but the alternative in my lexicon being "crap". But still nice to see snow capped Pyrenees even in late Spring.

But enough of my holidays.

Reading between the lines, the 'advert' depicts that man is a bully and causing all this global warming. Two things fundamentally wrong with that. The first being that it's not all man made, although we are not exactly helping, that much I 'may' agree with.

And secondly, Natural, such as the gyroscopic tilt of the Earth that happens every 30,000 odd years or so. Volcanoes? I say volcanoes as in St Helens (US, not middle England!) And the massive eruption that occured earlier this year in I think, Siberia. Now how much crap do volcanic plumes put in the air, get caught in the jetstream? In February 2008, there were some of the most visually stunning sunsets I have ever seen after a volcanic explosion. Sulphuric and other chemicals blown way up into the stratosphere/trophosphere. Deep red sky where the Sun was setting, orange, purple, blue and even green where the day/night terminator meets. I have pictures of those few nights and will post them on here if required.

And all because of air pollution. That is natural, not man-made. So, fundamentally flawed to keep blaming our generation for creating what the IPCC, DECC and current government's accuse us of doing to create our own self-made armaggedeon. (Plus it's a good excuse to raise taxes further is it not? )

Phil.

Very good post Phil - I agree with all that

That advert by the Greens is incredibly stupid!

Edited October 26, 2009 by North Sea Snow Convection

[Gray-Wolf]

Very good post Phil - I agree with all that

So why , now that we are well past the 'optimum position' and were cooling have we ,over the pasted 100yrs, reversed the trend;

http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2009/10/091023163513.htm

above and beyond any 'natural climate driver' we have recognised over the last 200,000yrs?

[Guest North Sea Snow Convection]

http://www.australianclimatemadness.com/2009/10/comedy-headline-proof-humans-cause.html

[Methuselah]

That's a good question, G-W...Indeed, we 'should' be cooling by now, but we are not. Why? Interesting?

[Guest North Sea Snow Convection]

On a more serious note to the above link - the arctic was cooling at about 0.3C per decade in the 1950's period (and according to GISS). It carried on cooling for the next two decades.

Kind of at odds with the claim from the Buffalo Univ of 'clear evidence' for warming at a remote earth place when the arctic should be cooling because of natural processes??

Shouldn't that rather obvious little snag have been considered first?

Also, regarding the midge talk in that paper - it is well known that there was extensive DDT spraying across extensive areas of that part of the arctic in the post war 1950's period.

Edited October 26, 2009 by North Sea Snow Convection

[Admiral_Bobski]

So why , now that we are well past the 'optimum position' and were cooling have we ,over the pasted 100yrs, reversed the trend;

http://www.scienceda...91023163513.htm

above and beyond any 'natural climate driver' we have recognised over the last 200,000yrs?

So now we can use one indicator in one location as evidence can we? I find it hard to keep up with the Pro's flip-flopping - temperature trends across the continental United States are not indicative of global trends, and yet we now have conclusive proof that modern warming is unnatural from a single Arctic lake.

And what's all this about this little gem: "There are periods of time reflected in this sediment core that demonstrate that the climate was as warm as today, but that was due to natural causes, having to do with well-understood patterns of the Earth's orbit around the sun. " Suddenly we find that orbital patterns are conclusively, and entirely, responsible for past warming. And here's me thinking that the link there was somewhat fuzzy and that solar variations (be they TSI-related or orbit-related) were only part of the picture.

It's a funny old world, eh?

CB

[noggin]

Kinda like this then Nog's　

Philip Larkin

They fug you up, your mum and dad.

They may not mean to but they do.

Oh, yes, I agree with that, wholeheartedly. Speaking as a very damaged person who has taken decades to recover,I have taken lessons from my own dragged-upness and am doing all I can not to damage my own daughters. That is life.

This is politics and AGW....I do not agree with what the Canadian Greens have done. It, along with the UK advert-thing previously discussed, are more likely to engender generational warfare than a cleaner planet. What is needed is a "coming together", not a "blame game". Again, it is a waste of effort and money.

[Thundery wintry showers]

Yes, but, don't forget we have to save all the drowning puppies from that big black grown-up induced monster in the sky, chaps.

Here http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1221577/A-bedtime-story-drowning-kittens-puppies--Labours-6m-campaign-highlight-dangers-climate-change.html is a newspaper article about the impact of the advert.

Put together this advert with Gordo's spoutings and it really does look as if this AGW argument is getting desperate. This is a very good thing because hopefully soon we can start being a bit more sensible and working towards a cleaner existence on this planet, without all of the ridiculousness which, frankly, turns a lot of people off and induces others to MAKE more pollution.

I don't think it shows that the AGW argument is getting desperate, but rather that the desire for people to take action, and general resultant inaction, is getting desperate.

I may not share your stance on AGW, but I am fully in support of the view that long-term sustainability and the like should be the primary focus, rather than tackling AGW which is more like a symptom of the problem. People and industries alike may then take a bit more notice.

It certainly doesn't offend me, and it's aimed squarely at an audience that is unlikely to be engaged by a headline 'Mankind's activities over the past 200 years has possibly had a detrimental affect on the global environment' (it's not just about AGW, it's about the general state of the world).

To be honest there are plenty of things to get VERY annoyed about which are directly down to human behaviour anyway, and it's a general approach in politics, start off at an extreme position and the eventual outcome may be a dilluted compromise, start off in the middle and end up with nothing but platitudes and inaction.

Aye, and there's another related problem (which I've mentioned recently)- the most vocal people on a subject tend to be those with views towards the two extreme positions and those with "in the middle" views tend to be quiet about it, resulting in a perception that black or white is decisive and varying shades of grey equate to indecisiveness. I personally take a stand against this by often strongly expressing views that fall somewhere in the middle, but it is very difficult sometimes.

Regarding the politicians' tactic I don't think it is working here- the AGW extremism is causing the public to go to one extreme or the other (either believing everything that is said word-for-word, or resisting it and thinking that AGW is just a hoax). I often find, also, that instead of getting a diluted compromise we end up with haphazard policies that err at one extreme in some ways, and the other extreme in others. Environmental policies, unfortunately, are quite a good example- we've got lots of tokenism out there to deter car use (which is achieving litle other than to annoy people), but on the other hand air travel is continuing to expand rapidly.

[Gray-Wolf]

And what's all this about this little gem: "There are periods of time reflected in this sediment core that demonstrate that the climate was as warm as today, but that was due to natural causes, having to do with well-understood patterns of the Earth's orbit around the sun. " Suddenly we find that orbital patterns are conclusively, and entirely, responsible for past warming. And here's me thinking that the link there was somewhat fuzzy and that solar variations (be they TSI-related or orbit-related) were only part of the picture.

It's a funny old world, eh?

CB

Did we not cover the recent glacial period and the precesional forcings and that extra/less energies impact on the carbon cycle?

Were this a paper covering the Eocene climate optimum then I would be shocked to read such but seeing as we are talking the relative differences of temp from glacial through interglacial over the past 200,000yrs alone then I'm confused as to your highlighting it?

As for this 'novel 'study.

If you can find a frozen lake that has survived the past 200,000yrs of ice sheets trawling across it and then retreating without scouring it out or it melting out then let them know I'm sure that they'll be looking for funding to core those too.

As it is it is a rare 'time capsule' (daren't use 'time machine' as that would mean negating it's use by those who demand it as the only proof they'll accept as it would only pop back to one spot too!) is a unique opportunity for science to examine this stretch of our planets history in such detail.

Also, regarding the midge talk in that paper - it is well known that there was extensive DDT spraying across extensive areas of that part of the arctic in the post war 1950's period.

Apart from struggling to find any reference of such activities why would they engage in such activities in an unpopulated ,unproductive area? The recent papers on the toxic releases from Alpine glaciers, from such activities in Europe, would suggest that those chemicals ,if present, would be well preserved ,active and obvious to anyone studying the sediments studied?

I think you'll need to point me towards the info giving support for that assertion really.

I mean , man's activities having a huge detrimental impact upon a pristine Polar wilderness? no-one would believe his activities alone could cause such a thing to occur would they? LOL

Edited October 26, 2009 by Gray-Wolf

[Roger J Smith]

After we do nothing and the earth is still here fifty-one days from now, then what?

Extra time? Penalties?

[Gray-Wolf]

After we do nothing and the earth is still here fifty-one days from now, then what?

Extra time? Penalties?

Not penalties, anything but penalties!!!

Nice to see ya Roger! Hope your well and busy?

[Methuselah]

After we do nothing and the earth is still here fifty-one days from now, then what?

Extra time? Penalties?

So, Sir Alex Ferguson really is God!

[DAVID SNOW]

After we do nothing and the earth is still here fifty-one days from now, then what?

Extra time? Penalties?

Made me chuckle that.

match called off... frozen pitch

[BARRY]

After we do nothing and the earth is still here fifty-one days from now, then what?

Extra time? Penalties?

General election

[laserguy]

General election

Aren't they all as bent as each other?