Global.... what again?

[gep]

I've got two heaters on full blast, barely maintaining 17°C. Outside it feels like -17°C. Some 25 cm of snow is expected. This has been going on for a month now. Current expectations are that it will last at least another month. Hmmmm...

Poland: -31°C. Electricity, gas and water fallout because of snow/cold/etc.
Bulgaria: -33°C. Idem
Russia: -59°C

Hmmm.

State of emergency in several USA states because of snow storms. Moscow: several dozen trucks drive day and night trying to get the snow from the streets to a special snow melting plant. China: train disappears under mountain of snow. Netherlands: zoo keeps penguins inside because of cold.

Hmmmm!

What we DO NOT have: Al "I've-got-a-Nobel-Prize" Gore explaining how this all fits in the gospel of global warming, as preached by The First Unitarian Church Of How It Gets Warmer.
Al Gore...
The guy who's home uses 100 times the amount of energy of a normal (Dutch) home.
The guy who is pretty much constantly in his private jet, flying to yet another conference, no matter how far, exotic or luxuriously it is.
The guy who’s “scientific” work got the one Nobel Prize that is not related to any science in any way.

HMMMMMM!!

Oh, and the Himalayan glaciers are not to melt in 2035, but in 2350. And that figure isn’t based on any hard data.

aha…….

Last point: a few Danish scientists, who plotted the avarage earth temperature against solar activity get an almost perfect 1:1 fit, and predicted (last summer), based on very low solar activity, that the Northern Hemisphere would get an unusual cold winter.
But they are fools, of course!

Suggestions for any warm music?

all best
gep

[quasimodo]

Is your screen name "gep" because GOP was already taken?

[ramseytheii]

https://www.giss.nasa.gov/research/news/20100121/

[thalbergmad]

I am of the opinion that Global Warming is simply a Government Plan to extract more taxes.

I accept that i might be wrong.

Thal

[go12_3]

At the rate of the glaciers melting, this global warming is only occuring ever so
slowly, and  the changes can be measured after a decade in order to notice the effects
upon the earth.  Of course, when the Industrial Age came along, mankind had to maunufacture
products and therefore the pollutants affected the air and the water which in this century
we are being affected.  Today's children will have to face a different earth than what it is
at present.  I don't think people are generally concerned about the global warming.  Indeed, the climate all over the world is not as normal, but it only occurs after a decade or so.  Things have a way of being cyclic anyhow.  As for snow, where I live it would be a blessing in an area where we experience drought. 

[quasimodo]

Average temperatures observed over the years are raising, that's a hard fact. A winter that's colder on one specific year won't change it.
The other fact is that mathematical prediction models based on actual observations indicate that the trend is likely to lead us in a critical situation in terms of ecosystem within decades.
The part where debate is possible is on whether the phenomenon is man-made or just a natural occurrence in climatological cycles.
However, as far as I know, neither of both hypotheses can be proved with substantiating, scientific evidence. Therefore it seems to me that we can't rule out that it is man-made, at least partially; so the responsible way to act for the future generations, our kids and grand-kids, is to try our best to prevent chaotic occurrences.
In other words, if the climate changes are essentially natural, then we're doomed; but there's a possibility that we can do something about it, then we must do something about it.

[gep]

Is your screen name "gep" because GOP was already taken?

No. It's an oldfashioned way of pronouncing my name.

Indeed, the climate all over the world is not as normal

Define normal. Earth has had periods with tropical situations at the poles, and has been one big snowball several times.

Things have a way of being cyclic anyhow.

Indeed. Around the year 1000 people were groing grapes in Scandinavia. If the polar caps would melt completely, this would mean a return to the avarge normal when looking at Earth's history.

The other fact is that mathematical prediction models based on actual observations indicate that the trend is likely to lead us in a critical situation in terms of ecosystem within decades.

Unfortunately, what they're doing is making predictions for several centuries based on dataf from a few decades. Considering that they cannot predict the weather a week in advance, I'm a bit skeptical about prediction for the year 3,000.
More over, data are incomplete, are getting tweaked extrapolated and in some cases, as has recently been proven, changed in order to fit the model.
General tempratures on Earth have been on the rise the for some decades, but that rise has stopped for some 10 years now.
Earth climate has never been stabile, in fact it has been unusually stable the last 10,000 years or so, making the rise of human civilisation (or what passes for it) possible. At the moment, we've developed into a species that has become increasingly out of touch with the nature of Nature, and has made itself exceedingly vulnerable to whatever nature throws at us. This trend is accelerating ever faster, and is I believe a far greater threat than whatever climate change we get. But addressing that problem would mean changing our pampered way of life; far easier to put up the climate threat, blame China and India (who, quite accidentally of course, happen to become our greatest economical rivals).

but there's a possibility that we can do something about it, then we must do something about it.

Considering Man's willingness to think he can do something about things the size of (local) climates and biospheres, and what the results of that arrogance have brought,  your remark makes me shudder.....

All best,
gep

[thalbergmad]

I have heard that global warming is being caused by cow farts, so i don't think we can do a lot about that.

Thal

[quasimodo]

Indeed. Around the year 1000 people were groing grapes in Scandinavia. If the polar caps would melt completely, this would mean a return to the avarge normal when looking at Earth's history.

Actually people still grow grapes in Scandinavia... There has been known continuous grape-growing since the early 18th century in Scandinavia so the point does not seem quite relevant.

 

Unfortunately, what they're doing is making predictions for several centuries based on dataf from a few decades. Considering that they cannot predict the weather a week in advance, I'm a bit skeptical about prediction for the year 3,000.

Reliable measured data are available since 1880, that’s not “a few decades” and we’re not talking about year 3,000 here, but projections for the current century, a few decades ahead.
And you seem to confuse “climate” with “weather” which are totally different sub-disciplines in meteorology.
Researchers don’t actually make “climate prediction”. They run models that lead to various scenarios to each of which a probability is attached. The scenario that has the highest likeliness by far is that temperatures will grow steadily during this century.

General tempratures on Earth have been on the rise the for some decades, but that rise has stopped for some 10 years now.

But 2009 has been the second warmest year since the global mean temperature has been measured in 1880, despite December 2009 was particularly cool (The warmest year was in 2005). The last decade was also the warmest in 12 centuries. (Source: NASA - see Ramseytheii's link above).

And didn’t you just contradict your starting post where you seemed to imply there was no climate change at all?

Here's what we're talking about:

At times, the temperature-anomalies go down for one decade or so (which was NOT the case in the last decade), it doesn't change the long-term trend.

[quasimodo]

What we can agree upon is that Al Gore is a dick, using the issue for his self-promotion. However, an idea is not necessary wrong just because it is advocated by a dick. For all ideas out there, there is a dick (or several), especially political dicks, that are defending them.

More on dicks: https://www.dickipedia.org

[gep]

Reliable measured data are available since 1880

From calibrated measure point sequally distributed accross the globe? I doubt it...
We have truely global measurements only since we have good enough satellites, which is a couple of decades.

your starting post where you seemed to imply there was no climate change at all?

I did not, I just tried to imply that what pretty much the complete Northern Hemisphere is getting now is rather contradictory to global warming. And yes, I know that one winter does not really contradict a trend if it's there, but since pretty much each warm day is now being used to prove global warming I thought I'd use the same trick.
Fact is, that "global warming" is being increasingly hijacked by any and all possible groups to get things their way. Politicians to get extra taxes and have a reason to block the upcoming BIG industries such as China and India, “green” people and organisations to get their fundings (can you imagine Greenpeace admitting they’ve been wrong about global warming if it turns out they are wrong?). Politicians who get green voters talk green, same politicians fund scientific research and are not really interested in any research getting the undesired answers. Scientists want jobs at universities, and researching or teaching the “wrong” things doesn’t get them a job. The Dutch Meteorological Institution has gone so far now as to fire those who do not accept the global warming as it is “taught”. That’s quite Copernican!
Science has a thing called “falsification”. This means you try to disprove any idea or theory, try to find facts that do not fit in the theory. If you do, the theory must be either changed or, in severe cases, be dropped.
Example: if man is causing global warming, the lower atmosphere should heat up first, its affect causing heating in the higher atmosphere (stratosphere) later on. If the cause is cosmic (Sun etc), the heating should go the other way, i.e. down. How doe sit go? Down! In the decade 1990-2000 the Sun was very active, the exosphere and stratosphere heating up (and expanding), and indeed 1995-2005 were warm years. In 2000-2010 the Sun’s activity lowered considerably, the high atmosphere has begun to cool greatly, and, well, look outside (if you’re in the North!). This pattern does not fit the human CO2 warming!

I do not say that there is not a climate change, I say the climate has always been changing! Its just that we have become so very vulnerable to any change that it is affecting us so much! 5cm of snow, and the whole railway system went down for three days here!

I’m much more concerned by the increasing spoillage, wasting ways, aggression, intolerance, arrogance; in short: hubris that, if things go on like this for some years to come, will result in something that will pale any climate change’s results. It’s not the climate that going to be our downfall, but we ourselves. Unless, of course, we’re going, as a collective, to start to use our brains and intelligence and sense of measure and responsibility and what not. Looking at Man’s history, I’m not very optimistic, to put it mildly…

gep

[ramseytheii]

From calibrated measure point sequally distributed accross the globe? I doubt it...
We have truely global measurements only since we have good enough satellites, which is a couple of decades.
I did not, I just tried to imply that what pretty much the complete Northern Hemisphere is getting now is rather contradictory to global warming. And yes, I know that one winter does not really contradict a trend if it's there, but since pretty much each warm day is now being used to prove global warming I thought I'd use the same trick.
Fact is, that "global warming" is being increasingly hijacked by any and all possible groups to get things their way. Politicians to get extra taxes and have a reason to block the upcoming BIG industries such as China and India, “green” people and organisations to get their fundings (can you imagine Greenpeace admitting they’ve been wrong about global warming if it turns out they are wrong?). Politicians who get green voters talk green, same politicians fund scientific research and are not really interested in any research getting the undesired answers. Scientists want jobs at universities, and researching or teaching the “wrong” things doesn’t get them a job. The Dutch Meteorological Institution has gone so far now as to fire those who do not accept the global warming as it is “taught”. That’s quite Copernican!
Science has a thing called “falsification”. This means you try to disprove any idea or theory, try to find facts that do not fit in the theory. If you do, the theory must be either changed or, in severe cases, be dropped.
Example: if man is causing global warming, the lower atmosphere should heat up first, its affect causing heating in the higher atmosphere (stratosphere) later on. If the cause is cosmic (Sun etc), the heating should go the other way, i.e. down. How doe sit go? Down! In the decade 1990-2000 the Sun was very active, the exosphere and stratosphere heating up (and expanding), and indeed 1995-2005 were warm years. In 2000-2010 the Sun’s activity lowered considerably, the high atmosphere has begun to cool greatly, and, well, look outside (if you’re in the North!). This pattern does not fit the human CO2 warming!

I do not say that there is not a climate change, I say the climate has always been changing! Its just that we have become so very vulnerable to any change that it is affecting us so much! 5cm of snow, and the whole railway system went down for three days here!

I’m much more concerned by the increasing spoillage, wasting ways, aggression, intolerance, arrogance; in short: hubris that, if things go on like this for some years to come, will result in something that will pale any climate change’s results. It’s not the climate that going to be our downfall, but we ourselves. Unless, of course, we’re going, as a collective, to start to use our brains and intelligence and sense of measure and responsibility and what not. Looking at Man’s history, I’m not very optimistic, to put it mildly…

gep

https://www.giss.nasa.gov/research/news/20100121/

[prometheus]

I have heard that global warming is being caused by cow farts, so i don't think we can do a lot about that.

You can stop eating meat.


Anyway, this is silly. Yeah, it's cold right now in many places. So what? Climate change may even have caused lower temperatures. So in theory this could actually be support of what is proposed. One area may become warmer, another colder. Sun activity is in it's low point in it's 11 year cycle anyway.

Also, when energy consumption has to be decreased economies will grow less or even shrink. And that means less to tax money from. That's why governments don't want to do anything. But of course energy will become way too expensive anyway. Never can all humans on earth live like people in the west do right now. If nothing is done we will all be poor again soon.

[thalbergmad]

You can stop eating meat.

Never, I am not some lentil slurping Vegan Hippy.

Thal

[oxy60]

If the sea rises Gep will be one of the first to know. Then what will Holland do with all the river water? Correct me if I'm wrong, but I recall there is very little room for any sort of back up of water.

[richard black]

Never mind, there's some very encouraging news on the controlled nuclear fusion front so with a bit of luck we'll have all the electricity we could want in a few decades with no greenhouse gas at all. Of course we may all glow in the dark but hey, a little luminescence never hurt anyone....

[furtwaengler]

Redneck funny.

[john11inc]

You are aware that "climate change" is not actually, for some reason, Latin, and is in fact synonymous with "really hot", right?  Climate change means climate change; we're getting hotter overall.  Anyone who disagrees with that statement is a lunatic, ignorant or in denial (meaning your opinion is worth nothing).  Climate change (see how I didn't say "global warming"?) is likely the culprit, as it not only melts ice, but actually has other implications.  Woah!  What do you think of that?  Do you know what wind is?  Maybe you should look up what wind is.  It's a technical term that you're probably not familiar with, but if you look up what it means, and then think about what global warming would actually be causing to happen other than making your thermometer need a few, extra degrees on the end, assuming it existed, you'll find that it's quite consistent with these bizarre oscillations in temperature this winter.  And last winter.  I mean, a week ago it was like, 75 degrees here, now it's like 20.  Does that seem "natural" to you?  Yeah, we're setting record lows (or close to them) right now, but we're also setting record highs.  Do you realize that there are days on the calendar other than today, and that yesterday and tomorrow actually kinda matter just as much, right?  And I do mean literally yesterday and tomorrow, in some cases, where the fluctuations are just ridiculous.

But like, if wind is too complicated a concept for you and you can't figure all that out, why don't you just google... I don't know... "science of global warming" instead of "christian science of global warming".  But you might run into some other, technical terms like "rising sea levels" and "polar ice caps" and "smog" and "imminent destruction" and "only 25 years away".

Really, I think Schopenhauer is who to read on this.

[gep]

Intriguing, this.....

https://www.heliogenic.net/2010/01/26/joe-daleo-and-anthony-watts-new-report-surface-temperature-records-policy-driven-deception/

I ain't gonna say nottin....

gep

[ahinton]

That there is climate change is surely so obvious as not to require attention being drawn to it. The jury (of scientific rather than received and/or knee-jerk-orientated opinion, that is) remains well and truly out on the matter of the extent, if at all, to which human activity exacerbates it, although I think that there can be no doubt that certain human activity is responsible for adverse effects on other environmental issues. One of the many problems associated with the climate change debate is the unhelpfully opportunistic single-agenda-driven contributions of some of the holier-than-thou hair-shirt canaille whose principal aim appears to be to pin all adverse and potentially adverse effects of climate change upon the outcomes and pursuits of human greed, consumerism and the like and whose desire appears to be to advocate some kind of return to the Middle Ages; where this stance immediately falls over is in that, were climate change instead to be perceived by the majority of commentators and their listeners as "global cooling", the answer might have been to encourage not less but more burning of fossil fuels, etc., in a (nevertheless possibly equally unscientific) attempt to combat it, which would hardly align itself to the Puritanical ethos and aspirations of these folk.

There are, I think, plenty of other reasons (reductions in sea, land and air pollution being one of the more significant) amply to justify the thorough investigation and implementataion of viable means of alternative energy and, if actioned sufficiently, we will then be able to examine more meaningfully and usefully the effects, if any, on climate change in a world where fossil fuel extraction, refining, distribution and burning will have been reduced to the barest minimum; given that there is that variety of reasons to do this, let us hope that it goes ahead as widely as possible as soon as possible, for it will remove the opportunity of blame in respect of undue "carbon footprints" and leave in its wake the opportunity for the emergence of a far clearer picture of what actually causes climate change.

Eventually, of course, nuclear fusion will provide the answers to global fuel requirements better - or at least in a more comprehensive and long-term way - than all of the currently known alternative energy sources combined but, since well in excees of a quarter of a century is almost certain to have elapsed before this can really be said to have taken hold, much alternative work needs to be done on other solutions, however temporary, during this sadly lengthy interim and it is a great pity that this will be happening so very much later than should and could have been the case.

Best,

Alistair

[gep]

That there is climate change is surely so obvious as not to require attention being drawn to it.

True; but some points to consider:
1) The climate has never been stable, i.e. is constantly changing, and has in fact been unusually stable during the last 10,000 yesr or so as compared to before that. That relative stability has likely been the reason the modern human civilisation (or what is passing for it) could develop.
2) There are numerous contaminations to the "global warming" debate from all kind if poeple, organisations and institutions, be they organisations getting public funds, or governments wanting to impose "eco-taxes" and put a break on developing economic competitors such as India and China. Also, scientists who want to get funding encounter "we pay so we say". Swimming upstream doesn't pay very well...
3) Science can only be taken seriously as long as the way of investigation and reporting is "neutral", i.e. does not adhere or tries to lean to some preconceived intention. A proces of "falsification" is needed, i.e. try to find if the conclusions drawn do include all know data, and does not leave out any data that "don't fit".
4) (Western) humanity has become so arrogant and ignorant to think we can upturn so vast a system as the global climate, and actually can tweak it to pre-set wishes ("we demand the global temperature does not rise more than 2°C").
5) Understanding of the workings of the (Global) climate is, as yet, only in its very infancy. Moreover, it is a chaotic system.

Do we influence the environment? Yes, we do, and considerably so. Think of our depletion of resources without the slighets regard for the fact they may not be replenishable, or are not replenishable. Think of the pretty brainlesly use of pesticides and antibiotics. Think of our wasting ways. Think of the immense amount of garbage we produce. Think of the ever increasing population. Think of our insatiable greed. THINK, in general!

Humanity may well turn out to be no more than some sort of "plague" on the world, something the world will, if we do not change, and change quickly, will eventually rid itself of. For that change humanity must develop a sense of intelligence and responsabillity. One merely has to look at out history to get an idea of the chances of that happening...

[written in some haste, please do forgive typos and such...]

gep

[go12_3]

And just think how mindless people are when it comes to truly WANTING  to change their habits to conserve the resources.  I think the manufacturing of the massive stuff that consumers has to buy and then turns into waste.  In the 17th century, people lived simple lives and lived off the land, cooked unprocessed foods and travelled mostly on foot or by horse.  The population of course is exploding and it's doesn't seem to slow down.  Therefore, more production in the factories for houses, and daily needs such as clothing, food and material items.  So people had to have jobs and the factories was the place to earn money in order to purchase a house and material needs.  Farming is diminishing in the United States and I wonder how are we to live without the basic foods.  Well, now the factories are making us the processed foods that we just pop into our microwaves because there is so little time to cook a homemade meal.  What I just mentioned here is only the tip of the ice berg, in which by the way is diminishing also....

There is TOO much already and we need to think that LESS is MORE.  People now a days has to be entertained with music, movies and recreation which is in the mass production lines.  Anyhow, it will be interesting how this decade will turn out because I don't think nothing is
going to change how people  waste so much afterall.  We are going to live our lives  like there is no tomorrow anyhow.

[ahinton]

And just think how mindless people are when it comes to truly WANTING  to change their habits to conserve the resources.  I think the manufacturing of the massive stuff that consumers has to buy and then turns into waste.  In the 17th century, people lived simple lives and lived off the land, cooked unprocessed foods and travelled mostly on foot or by horse.  The population of course is exploding and it's doesn't seem to slow down.  Therefore, more production in the factories for houses, and daily needs such as clothing, food and material items.  So people had to have jobs and the factories was the place to earn money in order to purchase a house and material needs.  Farming is diminishing in the United States and I wonder how are we to live without the basic foods.  Well, now the factories are making us the processed foods that we just pop into our microwaves because there is so little time to cook a homemade meal.  What I just mentioned here is only the tip of the ice berg, in which by the way is diminishing also....

There is TOO much already and we need to think that LESS is MORE.  People now a days has to be entertained with music, movies and recreation which is in the mass production lines.  Anyhow, it will be interesting how this decade will turn out because I don't think nothing is
going to change how people  waste so much afterall.  We are going to live our lives  like there is no tomorrow anyhow.

I can agree with some but not all of this. People can neither live nor be expected to live 17th century lives nowadays.

There is nothing wrong in principle with being able to travel at far higher speeds than is possible on foot or horseback and this, after all, became possible in the 19th century, long before the advent of the internal combustion engine. Provided that environmental damage is not done as a consequence, it seems fine to me, so the fact that such damage is indeed caused by some kinds of faster travelling is down not to the principle of it but to the lack of forethought in terms of how it is accomplished (compare, for example, the filthy polluting diesel-fuelled trains that potter around Britain at speeds rarely reaching 200kph with the Japanese Shinkansen or the much nearer French TGV which already manage at least 300kph and the latter of which is intended soon to be much faster again - each of these are all-electric and pollute the air far less). We ought to be flying in nuclear fusion powered planes, but that's sadly still a long way off - as is supersonic flight, which we had in the latter three decades or so of the last century but which has now taken a backward step for some time since the demise of Concorde. And, by the way (and for the record), you'd not get me on the back of a horse if you paid me!

Most people did not live so long in the 17th century, just as (provided that we do not make too many grave and silly mistakes) people in the 22nd century may well be able to live many times longer than most people do now; would you really advocate not only the cessation of beneficial medical and other scientific developments that will make and have already made this possible but also their rolling back in order that humanity lives as it did in the 17th century? One reason for the world's population increase is in any case that most people do not die so soon as once they did; less rather than more births per family (at least in the "developed" world) is the norm today than was the case in the 17th century.

I'm no advocate of either processed "convenience" food (the kind of food to be consumed in a public convenience, perhaps?) or of the often unnecessarily wasteful packaging in which it is sold, but although farming has indeed diminished in some places it is increasing in others; I can certainly confirm that it is possible to purchase a far greater variety of better quality locally produced fresh food in Britain today than was the case 20-50 years ago.

We all know the "less is more" argument but it simply won't hold up against the natural human desire and determination to learn and experience more; inevitably, there will be some downsides to this but, provided again that sensible and wise controls are placed on how we develop, the positives well outweigh the negatives. In any case, as a composer, I am partly responsible for the "less isn't more" situation; just look how much more music there is nowadays compared to the amount that there was in the 17th century, during which, if you were alive, you would hear very little even of what there was! As to the sheer quantity and availability of music, bear in mind that you, as a teacher, are helping to contribute to it; the more people who learn an instrument or study singing, the more performers of music there will be (in a recent interview with the egregious Lang×2, for example, it was revealed - though with quite how much statistical accuracy I feel unqualified to judge - that some 40 million Chinese are now learning a Western musical instrument - that's equivalent to almost 2 in every 3 of the UK population as a whole). Not only do I add to this by composing it just as many tens if not hundreds of thousands of other do today, there is also the matter of the increasing demands placed upon performers and listeners by some composers; imagine what a 17th century keyboard artist would make of the études of Alkan or what a listener used to 17th century music would make of mature Wagner, or of the intricate complexities of early Schönberg - yet here I am referring not to new work but to music of a century to more than a century and a half's vintage!

Nothing stands still - why should it and why would we expect it to? - and to bring this neatly back to the topic, one might argue that, in its constant quest for change and development, humanity is just like the ever-changing climate!

Best,

Alistair

[go12_3]

What I am implying about the 17th century is how people didn't have as much resources to
go by.  They used what they had and they couldn't go to a store and buy it like we can today.  The conveniences are plentiful for us to enjoy and embrace.  I am well aware that this century will provide many challenges that as the human race would have to alter their life styles.  It was early this morning in my previous post.   
 All in all the earth that we live on is ever-changing. 

[ahinton]

What I am implying about the 17th century is how people didn't have as much resources to
go by.  They used what they had and they couldn't go to a store and buy it like we can today.

And because some of them were determined to move onwards in so very many ways, we have what we have now!

Best,

Alistair

[Bob]

I thought global warming meant the weather would become more extreme.  Colder winters, hotter summer, more unusual weather because things were a little out of whack.

[thalbergmad]

People can neither live nor be expected to live 17th century lives nowadays.

I take it you have not been to Harris.

Thal

[ahinton]

I take it you have not been to Harris.

Not for many years, admittedl, but, whilst I understand well your point and accept it as far as it goes, I was unaware that there were no such post-17th century things as cars, telephones, mobile phones, etc. thereon; furthermore (and perhaps more importantly), the proportion of the world's puopulation that inhabits that island is surely rather too small for its example to be taken other than as an exception to the norm?

Best,

Alistair

[gyzzzmo]

global warming and global 'colding' are normal, although the rate it currently happens isnt.

But frankly i dont really give a crap if there are a few more hurricanes and a bunch of people die. Its alot more important (i think) if 'some' countries temper there extreme capitalism abit and start thinking more in longer terms wich would be a possitive effect of all the fuzz about global warming.

[ahinton]

global warming and global 'colding' are normal, although the rate it currently happens isnt.

But frankly i dont really give a crap if there are a few more hurricanes and a bunch of people die. Its alot more important (i think) if 'some' countries temper there extreme capitalism abit and start thinking more in longer terms wich would be a possitive effect of all the fuzz about global warming.

The first of your statements here is pretty much correct, except that to suggest what may or may not be "normal" in terms of the rate at which climate change has occurred at any time in the earth's history without citing a timescale large enough to suggest what such "normality" might be undermines the very notion of such "normality"; in other words, what might seem "normal" or "abnormal" about rates of climate change taken over a period of a decade, a century, a millenium or 100 millennia will inevitably differ one from the other.

But what do you mean by "extreme capitalism"? I'm not sure whether or not your stance is that of a thorough-going anti-capitalist fundamentalist so will not presume what you may believe about capitalism, "extreme" or otherwise, until and unless you let us know what it is. Of course there has been insufficient appropriate forward planning - that cannot be denied - but, as all such planning involves investment of funds as well as labour resources, from what source would you anticipate such funding for investment in the future?

Best,

Alistair

[gep]

global warming and global 'colding' are normal, although the rate it currently happens isnt.

Define "normal". From ice-core drillings it is known that there can be temperature changes (up and down) as large as 5°C in as many years. recent studies have indicated an ice age may be triggered by cooling conditions over not more than a few years.
Moreover, the fast upward trend since ±1990 coincides with the increased shutting down of some 4500 (out of 6000) measurement stations all over the world, in which it are far more ofter the "cold" stations that have been closed (such as in Siberia, where stations have been decimated, and Bolivia which now has zero stations) , their measurements now being "extrapolised" from the "warm" stations". Which neatly explains why the global warming is measured from ground based stations, but not from satellites, who do not have a skewed bias... Global temperatures have been dropping since roughly 10 years now. Unless, of course, you wish to believe the contaminated figures from earth stations based in urban, industrial places.

But frankly i dont really give a crap if there are a few more hurricanes and a bunch of people die

Just as long as it doesn't hit you, right?

all best,
gep

[gyzzzmo]

The first of your statements here is pretty much correct, except that to suggest what may or may not be "normal" in terms of the rate at which climate change has occurred at any time in the earth's history without citing a timescale large enough to suggest what such "normality" might be undermines the very notion of such "normality"; in other words, what might seem "normal" or "abnormal" about rates of climate change taken over a period of a decade, a century, a millenium or 100 millennia will inevitably differ one from the other.

But what do you mean by "extreme capitalism"? I'm not sure whether or not your stance is that of a thorough-going anti-capitalist fundamentalist so will not presume what you may believe about capitalism, "extreme" or otherwise, until and unless you let us know what it is. Of course there has been insufficient appropriate forward planning - that cannot be denied - but, as all such planning involves investment of funds as well as labour resources, from what source would you anticipate such funding for investment in the future?

Best,

Alistair

With 'normal' i mean that the changing of temperature during last 2 millenea have been pretty stable. Since the industrial revolution however, theres a big spike in temperature rising, alot higher and steeper than previous ones. Coincidence maybe, but it does make sense with the greenhouse model.

And with extreme capitalism i mean capitalism in its pure form like in the USA with the (to my opinion) rediculous idea that it capitalism is the answer to everything and that the market will always fix itself.
A steady society requires a combination long term thinking, social security and improvement. Capitalism is a great tool for improvement and funding the other 2, but it shouldnt be leading those because 'profit' isnt the same as 'wisdom'.

Gyzzz

[gyzzzmo]

Just as long as it doesn't hit you, right?

all best,
gep

Yes ofcourse i dont give a crap as long as it doesnt hit me. Should i be crying then for every person on earth that gets some accident or other health problem? Sure those people in Haiti have bad luck, but should i therefor feel myself worse?