Oh, everything's just dandy ...

POSTED BY: rue
UPDATED: Sunday, June 17, 2007 17:12
VIEWED: 13760
PAGE 1 of 2

1 2 NEXT PAGE LAST PAGE

RUE

Wednesday, May 2, 2007 2:46 AM

Arctic ice cap melting 30 years ahead of forecast
This means the ocean at the top of the world could be free or nearly free of summer ice by 2020
http://news.yahoo.com/s/nm/20070501/sc_nm/globalwarming_ice_dc;_ylt=Am
0bxrOd4Uyjn2t1ILYg7fHMWM0F

USDA: Tree beetle may spread across U.S.
"Get what you can now, because the bugs, they be comin"
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/emerald_ash_borer;_ylt=AusQif44GZ_W3kP.Q648
UGvMWM0F

Deserted beehives, starving young stun scientists
Another 30 hives were "disappearing, dwindling or whatever you want to call it," and their bees were "full of a fungus nobody's ever seen before."
http://news.yahoo.com/s/usatoday/desertedbeehivesstarvingyoungstunscie
ntists;_ylt=Alw43aAUuPBrOfiLf72qF4Fhr7sF

SIGNYM

Wednesday, May 2, 2007 3:35 AM

Thanks Rue.

Can I bury my head back in the sand now?

---------------------------------
Always look upstream.

GEEZER

Wednesday, May 2, 2007 12:33 PM

Honey bees are not native to the Americas, having come over with other European invaders during the Columbian Exchange in the first couple of hundred years after Columbus 'discovered' America.

"Keep the Shiny side up"

SIGNYM

Wednesday, May 2, 2007 1:34 PM

Yeah, and apples, apricots, almonds... and most of the other fruits, nuts, and vegetables that we enjoy and which depend on honeybee pollination aren't either.

So thanks Geezer for that bit of useless trivia.

---------------------------------
Always look upstream.

GEEZER

Wednesday, May 2, 2007 4:13 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by SignyM:
Yeah, and apples, apricots, almonds... and most of the other fruits, nuts, and vegetables that we enjoy and which depend on honeybee pollination aren't either.

So thanks Geezer for that bit of useless trivia.

I thought you'd be glad that one of humanity's artificial changes to the world's environment was being reversed.

"Keep the Shiny side up"

KANEMAN

Wednesday, May 2, 2007 4:31 PM

I don't think we should have ice in the late summer - just sounds weird.

I don't like bees or vegetables - I won't lose sleep over the death of honeybees.

We already have to many trees as it is, just look around- they are everywhere, I don't even think we have ash trees round these parts, however, I would suggest planting cherry trees when the ash ones die....they are prettier. Then we should thank the beetle for improving our streets.......

RUE

Wednesday, May 2, 2007 4:31 PM

Geezer,

Why is it you habitually pick fights over nothing?

MALBADINLATIN

Wednesday, May 2, 2007 5:02 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by SignyM:
Yeah, and apples, apricots, almonds... and most of the other fruits, nuts, and vegetables that we enjoy and which depend on honeybee pollination aren't either.

darned imigrants, we should put up a fence to keep those fruits, vegetables, and insects out of the country. Think of all the jobs that apples have stolen from native crops anyway. And don't get me started on those disloyal bees, they're probably all hanging out with Osama!!!

"The world is still turning and you're on it....count yourself lucky" My Dad, 2007.

FUTUREMRSFILLION

Wednesday, May 2, 2007 5:14 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by rue:
Geezer,

Why is it you habitually pick fights over nothing?

Because you take the bait everytime.

---- plus ca change, plus c'est la meme chose

Bestower of Titles, Designer of Tshirts, Maker of Mottos, Keeper of the Pyre, Owner of a too big Turnippy smelling coat with MR scratched in the neck (thanks FollowMal!)

I am on The List. We are The Forsaken and we aim to burn!
"We don't fear the reaper"

FORSAKEN original

GEEZER

Wednesday, May 2, 2007 5:14 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by rue:
Geezer,

Why is it you habitually pick fights over nothing?

How pick a fight? Many of the plants and animals we Americans rely on for food are not native to the Americas, were brought here by humans, and radically changed the environment, sometimes causing species decline or extinction. Sometimes the reason wasn't even economic. Starlings are here because someone wanted to have all the birds mentioned in Shakespere's plays flying around in America.

"Keep the Shiny side up"

RUE

Wednesday, May 2, 2007 5:42 PM

Geezer,

What makes you think that was my point? And what makes you think my point has a 'side' ? BIG picture. You're missing the big picture. What's causing CCD? What else is it affecting? Why does it seem there are more disintegrating systems now ? Where will it lead ?

My post wasn't about any point, or any answers, It was about the questions.

GEEZER

Thursday, May 3, 2007 1:55 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by rue:
Geezer,

What makes you think that was my point? And what makes you think my point has a 'side'? BIG picture. You're missing the big picture. What's causing CCD?

Not taking sides. Species declines and extinctions happen all the time, due to many factors. Maybe this is time for honeybees and ash trees to decline for a while.

Quote:
Why does it seem there are more disintegrating systems now?

Maybe we just observe the changes better? I'd have to see some data about the rates of system failure. Probably has a lot to do with 6 billion plus people running around, and the fact that plants, animals, diseases, etc. can hitchhike around the world easier than pre-civilization.

Quote:
Where will it lead?

To change.

"Keep the Shiny side up"

RUE

Thursday, May 3, 2007 2:17 AM

Massive loss of bees would lead to 70 - 90% crop failures.
Massive loss of Arctic ice would lead to loss of albedo, and extinction of entire species.
Massive loss of ash trees (along with oaks, due to phytophthora) would lead to massive loss of forests.

In the long, long, long run none of this matters- the sun will either blow up and go dark, or just go dark.

But I worry about the next generation - specifically my family, and how they will cope. The brave new world looks to be a harsh one for all but the wealthiest.

GEEZER

Thursday, May 3, 2007 12:59 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by rue:
Massive loss of bees would lead to 70 - 90% crop failures.
Massive loss of Arctic ice would lead to loss of albedo, and extinction of entire species.
Massive loss of ash trees (along with oaks, due to phytophthora) would lead to massive loss of forests.

In the long, long, long run none of this matters- the sun will either blow up and go dark, or just go dark.

But I worry about the next generation - specifically my family, and how they will cope. The brave new world looks to be a harsh one for all but the wealthiest.

-Potato blight would leave Ireland an abandoned wasteland.
-Phylloxera infestation would end winemaking in Europe.
-Boll weevils would wipe out the most lucrative agricultural crop of the American South.
-Pine Bark beetles would destroy all the commercial pine forests.
-The Dust Bowl would be a desert forever.

Not saying that your concerns aren't valid, but such stuff has been going on since forever. Not saying not to prepare for or try to mitigate them, either. But change is change, not 'The End of The World'.

"Keep the Shiny side up"

RUE

Thursday, May 3, 2007 4:34 PM

There is a small opening between 'the sky is falling' and ' who cares'. I'd like to think that's my place.

There are so many threats to the US ecosystem just in terms of invaders - gypsy moths kept in check by dint of ongoing programs, and recently hemlock wooly adelgid, caulerpa - the aquatic green blanket of death - hopefully eradicted but ready to return, zebra mussels, kudzu and its northern equivalent loostrife and western equivalent European cheatgrass, leafy spurge ... and now threats to bees, to ash tress and oaks.

And the global threat of climate change and all that means.

There was a notion I came up with that since pests are pests partly b/c they thrive and are hard to eradicate, we humans are in the business of creating a globe populated by pests. And we are creating global warming.

Attention should be paid. And that is specifically what I'm NOT seeing.

SIGNYM

Thursday, May 3, 2007 6:53 PM

There was an article in Scientific American that exactly addressed the notion of a "world of pests". Basically what it came down to is that ecologists predict a very shortened list of extremely hardy species populating the globe.

And Geezer, a "metric" indicating that our experience is out of the historic norm is the number of species extinctions, which is currently is rivaling the mass extinctions of the past.

---------------------------------
Always look upstream.

MALBADINLATIN

Thursday, May 3, 2007 7:20 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by rue:
There was a notion I came up with that since pests are pests partly b/c they thrive and are hard to eradicate, we humans are in the business of creating a globe populated by pests. And we are creating global warming.

Attention should be paid. And that is specifically what I'm NOT seeing.

I think I agree more with the above underlined sentence than anything I've seen writ here on RWED to date.

To restate the obvious, it seems like the automobile industry, the oil industry, and Republicans just discount the environmental threats we face because they're on the wrong side of Repub Vs. Dem political issues, without embracing the notion that lots of things are possible, and that "attention should be payed".

The average "climate change isn't real" proponent will look at say...100 pages of a study by dozens of PhD's saying that there IS a problem, then pick up a 20 page color prochure, with pictures put out by a think tank thats paid by the oil industry association, and run down the streets proclaiming "the sky is NOT falling, see I told you democrats so!". Their next stop will be the sand box at the local park because that where people like that keep thier heads.

I better stop before I get ruffled

GEEZER

Thursday, May 3, 2007 7:56 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by rue:
There are so many threats to the US ecosystem just in terms of invaders... and now threats to bees, to ash tress and oaks.

Actually, bees are invaders too. brought over by European settlers for their honey, since pollination was not yet understood.

Quote:
Attention should be paid. And that is specifically what I'm NOT seeing.

Attention is being paid. Apiarists are paying attention to the bees, arborists to the ash trees, entymologists to gypsy moths, Kudzu control programs have been ongoing since prior to WWII, any number of projects in western states are working to control invasive plant species, controls are implemented over water ballast dumping to reduce the spread of zebra mussels. Also, cronic wasting disease in increasing in the wild ruminant population and game and fish agencies are working to control it, and they're also trying to control whirling disease, which affects rainbow trout.

If everybody tries to make every issue the first priority, nothing gets done. If each problem has a community of interest which has a vested interest - commercial, ethical, esthetic - in developing a solution, things tend to work better.

If every such issue in the world is important to you, and you have the time and resources to worry about all of them, that's great. For those of us who choose to focus on particular areas of interest, I tend to think that's fine as well. There are plenty of people to go around.

"Keep the Shiny side up"

MALBADINLATIN

Thursday, May 3, 2007 9:48 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by Geezer:
Attention is being paid. Apiarists are paying attention to the bees

In this particular case...The apicultural staff at UC Davis here in northern California has gone to the local press to complain about the complete lack of funding to address this issue. UCD is one of the top ag colleges in the world. If anyone here in the US would be able to get to the bottom of the issue it would be them. And our state government can't squeeze out a few $100,000 for professors to study an issue that COULD have catastrophic consequences to our food supply.

And you can't change that by gettn' all bendy.

GEEZER

Friday, May 4, 2007 12:35 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by MalBadInLatin:
In this particular case...The apicultural staff at UC Davis here in northern California has gone to the local press to complain about the complete lack of funding to address this issue. UCD is one of the top ag colleges in the world. If anyone here in the US would be able to get to the bottom of the issue it would be them. And our state government can't squeeze out a few $100,000 for professors to study an issue that COULD have catastrophic consequences to our food supply.

From the article Rue cited:

"The USDA spends about $9 million a year on bee research, Hackett says, about half of it focused on breeding bees resistant to mites. California is undertaking a five-year, $5 million project to examine insecticides, hive care and transport as well, he says."

So someone is getting money to work on bees, just not UC Davis. Google 'bee research ccd' and you'll get plenty of hits (149,000), including a USDA study group, a comment by Sen Clinton, and a Congressional Research Service report to Congress. Try 'emerald ash borer' and get 299,000 hits. People are working on this stuff, even if it's not your local university.

"Keep the Shiny side up"

MALBADINLATIN

Friday, May 4, 2007 3:01 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by Geezer:

From the article Rue cited:

"The USDA spends about $9 million a year on bee research, Hackett says, about half of it focused on breeding bees resistant to mites. California is undertaking a five-year, $5 million project to examine insecticides, hive care and transport as well, he says."

So someone is getting money to work on bees, just not UC Davis. Google 'bee research ccd' and you'll get plenty of hits (149,000), including a USDA study group, a comment by Sen Clinton, and a Congressional Research Service report to Congress. Try 'emerald ash borer' and get 299,000 hits. People are working on this stuff, even if it's not your local university.

That's kind of why I started the UCD statement with "In this particular case", that meant the case of UCD and only UCD. I didn't mean to imply that UCD is our only salvation, or rather...the bee's only salvation

And you can't change that by gettn' all bendy.

RUE

Friday, May 4, 2007 4:25 PM

In the 'bee' instance the varroa mite and Africanized bees were the topic du jour. And they are both still pressing problems. BUT ----- this is a new and drastic problem of unknown cause and unknown fix.

Geezer, what are you proposing? That research on a pre-existing problem is sufficient in the face of this new problem? That money should be withdrawn from old research and applied to new research so the mite issue can go unchecked? Or what?

As to the emerald ash borer:

"The outbreak covers over 2000 square miles (518 000 hectares). In southwest Michigan, 49.1 percent of the trees surveyed, and an estimated 5.2 million ash trees, are dead or declining. In Michigan, only ash has been attacked - in Asia, elm, walnut and chestnut may be attacked. Information on biology, detection and control of emerald ash borer is limited to less than a paragraph in the Chinese literature."

This is one of those time-critical problems. It takes - oh, 20 - 30 years to replace mature ash trees. If the borer isn't stopped soon, the landscape will be changed for a long, long time - perhaps permanently, as appears to be the case for the American chestnut and American elm. When you can find a link that says 'problem solved !' rather than '"people" are working on it', then I'd say you've shown a sufficient response, and sufficient funding ...

As to arctic ice melting - I'm guessing within our lifetimes - we'll be around to see what comes of it. Wanna' bet that it's a problem? I'll put $750,000 on that. (Easiest money I'll ever make. )

GEEZER

Friday, May 4, 2007 5:22 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by rue:
Geezer, what are you proposing? That research on a pre-existing problem is sufficient in the face of this new problem? That money should be withdrawn from old research and applied to new research so the mite issue can go unchecked? Or what?

Read the article you posted, please.

A colony collapse disorder working group based at Pennsylvania State University has become a central clearinghouse for all the suspected causes, which include:
•An overload of parasites, such as bloodsucking varroa mites, that have ravaged bees. The parasites reportedly spread to Hawaii only last week.
•Pesticide contamination. Hotly debated suspicion centers on whether "neonicotinoid" insecticides interfere with the foraging behavior of bees, leading them to abandon their hives.
•Fungal diseases such as Nosema ceranae, which is blamed for big bee losses in Spain. It was spotted by University of California-San Francisco researchers who were examining sample dead bees last week.
•The rigors of traveling in trucks from crop to crop.

Then note what I mentioned USDA and California are working on.

The USDA spends about $9 million a year on bee research, Hackett says, about half of it focused on breeding bees resistant to mites. California is undertaking a five-year, $5 million project to examine insecticides, hive care and transport as well, he says.

What makes you think no one is working on this when the article you cite says that they are?

Quote:
As to the emerald ash borer:
When you can find a link that says 'problem solved !' rather than '"people" are working on it', then I'd say you've shown a sufficient response, and sufficient funding ...

Yep. You're right. Lets pull all the money from CCD research and spend it on emerald ash borers.

Quote:
As to arctic ice melting - I'm guessing within our lifetimes - we'll be around to see what comes of it.

Yep. You're right. We should take that emerald ash borer money and spend it on saving the arctic ice.

Starting to get the point? We can't put everything at number one on the priority list. There's only so much resources out there to spend, and it's better to allocate them with a little care rather than just throwing them at the crisis de jour. All this stuff is important, but it can't all be the most important. If everybody works to give you a 'problem solved' on ash borers, who solves CCD before the bees are gone?

"Keep the Shiny side up"

RUE

Friday, May 4, 2007 6:06 PM

"We can't put everything at number one on the priority list. There's only so much resources out there to spend."

Half a trillion on Iraq so far. There seems to be plenty of money for that.

"a five-year, $5 million project" on bees - that, let's see - multiply by 100 ... 0.1% of the money spent on Iraq. It's a matter of priorities, you see. Insure the food supply - carry on the same old same old in Iraq. It's so hard to decide.

KHYRON

Friday, May 4, 2007 6:22 PM

While the amount of available funding relative to the Iraq war cost is of course a good point, something that's a lot closer to home and many people don't know about is that $1 billion will probably be spent on the 2008 presidential elections... I wonder how many real problems in the US go underfunded while the country spents the GDP of a small nation on electing its next president.

By the way, (5 million / 500 billion)*100 = 0.001%.

"The best argument against democracy is a five minute conversation with the average voter."

RUE

Friday, May 4, 2007 6:39 PM

"By the way, (5 million / 500 billion)*100 = 0.001%."

I'll take your word for it, and chalk it up to doing it in my head. And, by the Law of Conservation of Decimal Places, someone just got a factor of 100 multiplied somewhere. I hope it was someone and someplace nice - like some poor working stiff getting a really nice paycheck !

GEEZER

Friday, May 4, 2007 7:04 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by rue:
"We can't put everything at number one on the priority list. There's only so much resources out there to spend."

Half a trillion on Iraq so far. There seems to be plenty of money for that.

"a five-year, $5 million project" on bees - that, let's see - multiply by 100 ... 0.1% of the money spent on Iraq. It's a matter of priorities, you see. Insure the food supply - carry on the same old same old in Iraq. It's so hard to decide.

You mean you wouldn't rather take it from the obscene profits the heartless capitalists have ripped from the pockets of the poor downtrodden workers? Prioritize, Rue.

Got any evidence that the money available for CCD research isn't isn't sufficient to do what needs to be done right now? Often too much money thrown at a problem too early leads to duplication of effort and burns down funds which would be more useful later. Could it be that the experts in bees and their care actually know more about how to handle this than you do?

"Keep the Shiny side up"

RUE

Friday, May 4, 2007 7:10 PM

Got any evidence that research requests haven't been turned down for lack of funds? Got any evidence that "too much" research "too soon" is bad? Got anything other than speculation? Anything to add besides innuendo?

I didn't think so.

KHYRON

Friday, May 4, 2007 7:18 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by MalBadInLatin:
In this particular case...The apicultural staff at UC Davis here in northern California has gone to the local press to complain about the complete lack of funding to address this issue.

"The best argument against democracy is a five minute conversation with the average voter."

GEEZER

Friday, May 4, 2007 7:44 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by rue:
Got any evidence that research requests haven't been turned down for lack of funds? Got any evidence that "too much" research "too soon" is bad? Got anything other than speculation? Anything to add besides innuendo?

I didn't think so.

You're the one griping about nothing being done, and providing nothing but innuendo. If you got proof, show it.

"Keep the Shiny side up"

GEEZER

Friday, May 4, 2007 7:49 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by Khyron:
Quote:
Originally posted by MalBadInLatin:
In this particular case...The apicultural staff at UC Davis here in northern California has gone to the local press to complain about the complete lack of funding to address this issue.

So UC Davis isn't getting any funding to address the CCD issue. Hey, I'm not getting any funding to address this issue either! I suspect that a lot of colleges aren't. Others are. Should every college with an agriculture department get a grant to study CCD?

"Keep the Shiny side up"

KHYRON

Friday, May 4, 2007 8:02 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by Geezer:
So UC Davis isn't getting any funding to address the CCD issue. Hey, I'm not getting any funding to address this issue either!

Yeah, but my guess is that they actually applied for it.

Quote:
I suspect that a lot of colleges aren't. Others are. Should every college with an agriculture department get a grant to study CCD?

i) If they apply for it, then yes they should (these days that seems to happen with climate change studies, should happen with other environmental crises as well).
ii) According to Malbadinlatin, UCD has a particularly good agriculture department. If true, they should certainly get funding to study the issue if they want it.

Btw, I agree with your point that there's only a finite amount of money available to study all the things that need to be studied, I just think that i) there should be more money available to do such things, especially after seeing how much money is being squandered on Iraq and presidential elections, and ii) one should fund the best university departments if they want to do research on a particular issue.

"The best argument against democracy is a five minute conversation with the average voter."

RUE

Friday, May 4, 2007 8:37 PM

UCD is THE premiere agricultural research university in California. As to California's agricultural status: "California is the largest producer of agricultural products and the top exporting State." You'd think if anyone was to get funding on a problem that threatens California's entire agricultural economy, it would be UCD.

http://www.fas.usda.gov/info/factsheets/WTO/states/ca.pdf

MARINA

Friday, May 4, 2007 8:51 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by Geezer:
Honey bees are not native to the Americas, etc.

Bees are dying in huge numbers in Europe too...

Don't make faces.

http://amaranton.wordpress.com

GEEZER

Friday, May 4, 2007 11:15 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by rue:
UCD is THE premiere agricultural research university in California. As to California's agricultural status: "California is the largest producer of agricultural products and the top exporting State." You'd think if anyone was to get funding on a problem that threatens California's entire agricultural economy, it would be UCD.

Hmmm. SO why wouldn't UC Davis get a grant to study CCD? It could be behind-the scenes machinations of the Bee Trust, attempting to corner the market on bees. That's probably it.

Or, wild suggestion here, it could be that other agencies or institutions have more expertise and experience working with this particular problem, or ones similar in the past. Say Penn State, which has been with the USDA's CCD Study Group from the get-go, and is a major part of the Mid-Atlantic Apiculture Research and Extension Consortium.

Even less likely, since California's CCD program is just getting started, maybe they're still considering proposals and will get to UC Davis once they start funding research. Without knowing when Davis originally applied - and to who - and when California money is available, it's hard to say. But Hell. Let's jump to conclusions.

"Keep the Shiny side up"

GEEZER

Friday, May 4, 2007 11:16 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by marina:
Bees are dying in huge numbers in Europe too...

One would hope that the Europeans are also researching this problem.

"Keep the Shiny side up"

MALBADINLATIN

Saturday, May 5, 2007 9:00 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by Geezer:
Or, wild suggestion here, it could be that other agencies or institutions have more expertise and experience working with this particular problem, or ones similar in the past. Say Penn State, which has been with the USDA's CCD Study Group from the get-go, and is a major part of the Mid-Atlantic Apiculture Research and Extension Consortium.

It appears that CCD started in the mid atlantic states. So it should come as no surprise that Penn and MAAREC would be amonst the first to address the problem. However, the internet is repleat with articles featuring UCD Apiculturist Eric Mussen being consulted on many of the studies all over the US. He is thought of as one of the top bee researcher's in the country. I'm starting to feel the undercurrent of a west coast vs. east coast pissing match starting here. So if I may jump to a conclusion, it's not expertise that determines who gets money, it's geography, for the moment at least. I may be wrong and will promptly admit it if I am.

Quote:
Even less likely, since California's CCD program is just getting started, maybe they're still considering proposals and will get to UC Davis once they start funding research. Without knowing when Davis originally applied - and to who - and when California money is available, it's hard to say. But Hell. Let's jump to conclusions.

From what I've found by speaking with a friend who works at UCD, They did have 3 full time professors in that dept, which means each prof gets a certain number of assistants, budget, etc....Some how it's been cut back to just one prof. And thats what the tv spot was all about, basically it was a..."we have the finest minds, a big problem, and only one prof to get started on it" story. People are being quiet about who is holding back funding. Which allows me to jump to one more conclusion...it's a UCD internal matter and nobody wants to make permanent enemies by blabbing. Of course I may be wrong and will promptly admit it if I am.

And you can't change that by gettn' all bendy.

AURAPTOR

Saturday, May 5, 2007 9:50 PM

Arctic ice cap melting 30 years ahead of forecast

Best not blame the forcasters for making a bad guess, huh?

Naw. It MUST be a catastrophe in the making, right? That sells more newspapers anyways.

People love a happy ending. So every episode, I will explain once again that I don't like people. And then Mal will shoot someone. Someone we like. And their puppy. - Joss

" They don't like it when you shoot at 'em. I worked that out myself. "

KHYRON

Saturday, May 5, 2007 11:38 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by AURaptor:
Arctic ice cap melting 30 years ahead of forecast

Best not blame the forcasters for making a bad guess, huh?

Naw. It MUST be a catastrophe in the making, right? That sells more newspapers anyways.

While I share your cynicism towards the media for leaning towards sensationalism instead of balanced perspective (including global warming), maybe you can explain your logic to me: the forecasters made a "bad guess", so we should be blaming them rather than looking at the catastophe in the making... but at the same time there isn't actually a catastrophe in the making, that's just the media wanting to sell more newspapers.

In other words, either the Arctic ice cap is melting 30 years ahead of the forecasts and the media should rather focus on blaming the forecasters instead of reporting on the issue, or the forecasters got it right, but the Arctic ice cap ignores them and melts faster than they predicted, but that should be ignored and any reports on it are just designed to sell more newspapers.

"The best argument against democracy is a five minute conversation with the average voter."

AURAPTOR

Sunday, May 6, 2007 1:44 AM

Kyron - to be brief, I don't buy the man made [s]global warming[/s] / Climate change nonsense. There IS no man made catatrophe in the making. I fear Yellowstone Park errupting or a giant meteor smacking into our planet FAR more than global warming.

People love a happy ending. So every episode, I will explain once again that I don't like people. And then Mal will shoot someone. Someone we like. And their puppy. - Joss

" They don't like it when you shoot at 'em. I worked that out myself. "

GEEZER

Sunday, May 6, 2007 1:48 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by MalBadInLatin:
It appears that CCD started in the mid atlantic states. So it should come as no surprise that Penn and MAAREC would be amonst the first to address the problem. However, the internet is repleat with articles featuring UCD Apiculturist Eric Mussen being consulted on many of the studies all over the US. He is thought of as one of the top bee researcher's in the country. I'm starting to feel the undercurrent of a west coast vs. east coast pissing match starting here. So if I may jump to a conclusion, it's not expertise that determines who gets money, it's geography, for the moment at least. I may be wrong and will promptly admit it if I am.

So at this point the folks on the east coast who were the first to deal with CCD are consulting with the expert at UC Davis. Doesn't seem like a bad idea.

Quote:
From what I've found by speaking with a friend who works at UCD, They did have 3 full time professors in that dept, which means each prof gets a certain number of assistants, budget, etc....Some how it's been cut back to just one prof. And thats what the tv spot was all about, basically it was a..."we have the finest minds, a big problem, and only one prof to get started on it" story. People are being quiet about who is holding back funding. Which allows me to jump to one more conclusion...it's a UCD internal matter and nobody wants to make permanent enemies by blabbing. Of course I may be wrong and will promptly admit it if I am.

If the situation continues to get worse who's to say that some won't provide more bucks for UC Davis?

Note: Any errors in spelling or logic are due to mint julips consumed during the Kentucky Derby.

"Keep the Shiny side up"

RUE

Sunday, May 6, 2007 5:58 AM

There were reports 4-5 years ago of wild bee colonies collapsing in Minnesota. The estimates were 90% mortality across the state and spreading into other states. It wouldn't be too large a leap in logic to think that this 'sudden new' catastrophe is simply that what was going on in the wild has crossed over into commercial colonies and is now getting the attention it originally deserved.

AURAPTOR

Sunday, May 6, 2007 10:30 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by rue:
There were reports 4-5 years ago of wild bee colonies collapsing in Minnesota. The estimates were 90% mortality across the stae and spreading into other states. It wouldn't be too large a leap in logic to think that this 'sudden new' catastrophe is simply that what was going on in the wild has crossed over into commercial colonies and is now getting the attention it originally deserved.

Commercial bee colonies in N.Carolina are doing just fine. But your post fails to connect how this is a) a man made catastrophe or b) how it has anything to do w/ global warming....if it does at all.

People love a happy ending. So every episode, I will explain once again that I don't like people. And then Mal will shoot someone. Someone we like. And their puppy. - Joss

" They don't like it when you shoot at 'em. I worked that out myself. "

RUE

Sunday, May 6, 2007 6:13 PM

It doesn't have to be a man-made catastrophe or have anything to do with global warming. Just that it is a sufficient threat in a cluster of threats all with varying levels of uncertainty and lack of sufficent response.

MALBADINLATIN

Monday, May 7, 2007 8:18 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by AURaptor:

Commercial bee colonies in N.Carolina are doing just fine. But your post fails to connect how this is a) a man made catastrophe or b) how it has anything to do w/ global warming....if it does at all.

Like anyone actualy proves anything here in RWED. Any person in here, liberal or conservative, can easily hunt down a set of links to present as thier evidence to "prove" thier case....plenty! of convincing official looking links! Ahhhhhh pretty.

What people should be asking themselves right now is...Am I searching for the truth to the questions in this thread, or am I more concerned with finding answers that validate my political stance on the issues. I still don't know why I expect anything less than "Nope! there ain't no such thang as global warmin'" rhetoric from conservatives.

And you can't change that by gettn' all bendy.

RUE

Tuesday, May 8, 2007 7:14 PM

For the record, for the first time ever, the fire season never ended in California. It just rolled from one year - through spring, summer, fall, and winter, into spring.

Meanwhile "Wildfires Burn in Dry Fla., Ga., Minn." http://www.nytimes.com/aponline/us/AP-Wildfires.html?_r=1&oref=slogin because it was a dry winter and a dry spring http://drought.unl.edu/dm/monitor.html .

GEEZER

Wednesday, May 9, 2007 12:08 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by rue:
For the record, for the first time ever, the fire season never ended in California. It just rolled from one year - through spring, summer, fall, and winter, into spring.

Sort of been expecting that. More and more people there, and people cause most "wildfires" through arson, carelessness, sparking of downed power lines, etc. Also, when you keep putting out the small fires all you're doing is preserving fuel for the big ones. But since people insist on building their homes on the most fire-prone areas, you keep putting out the small fires. Sooner or later, something's gotta give.

"Keep the Shiny side up"

RUE

Wednesday, May 9, 2007 3:58 PM

It has to do with the driest winter on record. Fire season is determined by moisture levels in vegetation, temperature, humidity, and wind. Houses, people, and fire suppression - not so much.

BIGDAMNNOBODY

Wednesday, May 9, 2007 5:06 PM

Quote:
The 2006 autumn ended with very dry, and in some cases record drought conditions, throughout portions of B.C., notably the Peace River basin, the upper Fraser and Nechako, and the mid-Fraser and Thompson-Nicola areas. Those conditions changed dramatically in late October, when the first in a series of intense Pacific frontal systems moved onshore, bringing widespread, heavy precipitation onto the north coast and into northern B.C.. Following that, November and December produced a succession of intense frontal storms arising off the Pacific. These storm systems resulted in periods of flooding throughout the south coast and Vancouver Island, and resulted in most B.C. snowpacks being well above normal for January 1st.

http://www.env.gov.bc.ca/wsd/public_safety/drought_info/index.html

Posting to stir stuff up.

GEEZER

Wednesday, May 9, 2007 7:51 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by rue:
It has to do with the driest winter on record.

Yep. Breaking the previous 1923-24 record by 0.08".
Note also that 2004-2005 was the second wettest winter for LA since record-keeping started in 1877.

http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/oa/climate/research/2005/california-storms200
5.html

"Keep the Shiny side up"

GEEZER

Wednesday, May 9, 2007 7:57 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by MalBadInLatin:
I still don't know why I expect anything less than "Nope! there ain't no such thang as global warmin'" rhetoric from conservatives.

Don't forget the "This flood/drought/storm/calm/fire/bug-dieoff/moss-increase/bad-year-for-my-tomatoes/rain-on-my-just-washed-car was caused by global warming, and proves we have to shut down everything right now!" rhetoric as well.

"Keep the Shiny side up"

RUE

Wednesday, May 9, 2007 8:10 PM

Record rains, record droughts, severe droughts followed by extreme rain - these all fit the model of global warming which says the US west and southwest will get drier and hotter on average, but extremes of weather will become more common all over.

GEEZER

Wednesday, May 9, 2007 10:19 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by rue:
Record rains, record droughts, severe droughts followed by extreme rain - these all fit the model of global warming which says the US west and southwest will get drier and hotter on average, but extremes of weather will become more common all over.

Possible, but the IPCC model also calls for more moisture in the eastern US, where the big fires in South Georgia are still buring due to lack of rain. Saying any single event is due to global warming ignores all the other factors which come into play. The Georgia fires were started by downed power lines. The new Griffith Park fire was down to careless smoking - people involved directly or indirectly.

Edited to add: Here's a link to rainfall totals for LA back to 1877. Note that the greatest yearly difference was between 1883-4 and 1884-5.
http://www.laalmanac.com/weather/we13.htm

"Keep the Shiny side up"

RIVER6213

Wednesday, May 9, 2007 10:23 PM

This is the sort of gloom and doom that brightens my day.

-River

RUE

Wednesday, May 9, 2007 11:58 PM

Could you tell by the title of the thread? (A take off on Hiram Gummer's "Well that's just dandy.")

MALBADINLATIN

Thursday, May 10, 2007 3:31 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by Geezer:
"This flood/drought/storm/calm/fire/bug-dieoff/moss-increase/bad-year-for-my-tomatoes/rain-on-my-just-washed-car was caused by global warming, and proves we have to shut down everything right now!"

That's funny Geezer. Last year was in fact a terrible year for tomatos. Also, I couldn't dissagree with you more. But that IS funny

And you can't change that by gettn' all bendy.

KANEMAN

Friday, May 11, 2007 2:53 PM

"Extreme human sensitivity to stings resulting in serious or fatal reactions is confirmed almost entirely to cases involving bees, wasps, hornets, bumble bees and ants (Order Hymenoptera). Each year 90 to 100 deaths from sting reactions are reported, but many more deaths may be occurring, mistakenly diagnosed as heart attacks, sunstrokes or attributed to other causes. More people die each year from the effects of insect venom than from spider or snake bites."

Who needs these little pesky critters?

"The first year of insect sting shots costs about $1,000 for a single venom. Subsequent years, when shots are given less often, run about $500 each."

Fucking pretty bad for the economy too. Can anyone say Dichloro-Diphenyl-Trichloroethane

"Only a small proportion of the 129 men's remains were ever found, and many excursions into the Arctic today still come across an occasional human bone or Franklin relic." - Death in the Arctic

Do we really need all that murderous ice?

RUE

Friday, May 11, 2007 3:59 PM

Oh, and this ...
"WASHINGTON - Future eastern United States summers look much hotter than originally predicted with daily highs about 10 degrees warmer than in recent years by the mid-2080s, a new NASA study says.

Previous and widely used global warming computer estimates predict too many rainy days, the study says. Because drier weather is hotter, they underestimate how warm it will be east of the Mississippi River, said atmospheric scientists Barry Lynn and Leonard Druyan of Columbia University and NASA's Goddard Institute for Space Studies."

Quote:
Originally posted by Geezer:
Possible, but the IPCC model also calls for more moisture in the eastern US

KANEMAN

Friday, May 11, 2007 4:04 PM

"Previous and widely used global warming computer estimates predict too many rainy days, the study says. '

The models are flawed. What ever prediction they SPIT out is meaningless..............

SIGNYM

Friday, May 11, 2007 8:20 PM

Quote:
Could you tell by the title of the thread? (A take off on Hiram Gummer's "Well that's just dandy.")

Wasn't that Burt Gummer?

---------------------------------
Always look upstream.

RUE

Friday, May 11, 2007 11:59 PM

I thought it was Burt but when I googled it, it came up Hiram. Maybe they both said it?

GEEZER

Saturday, May 12, 2007 12:28 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by rue:
Oh, and this ...
"WASHINGTON - Future eastern United States summers look much hotter than originally predicted with daily highs about 10 degrees warmer than in recent years by the mid-2080s, a new NASA study says.

Previous and widely used global warming computer estimates predict too many rainy days, the study says. Because drier weather is hotter, they underestimate how warm it will be east of the Mississippi River, said atmospheric scientists Barry Lynn and Leonard Druyan of Columbia University and NASA's Goddard Institute for Space Studies."

Ah, yes. Dueling Climate Modelers.

"The study got mixed reviews from other climate scientists, in part because the eastern United States has recently been wetter and cooler than forecast...
A top U.S. climate modeler, Jerry Mahlman, criticized the study as not matching models up correctly and "just sort of whistling in the dark a little bit."
But Andrew Weaver of the University of Victoria, editor of the journal Climate but not of this study, praised the paper, saying "it makes perfect sense."

http://www.wtop.com/?nid=220&sid=1137925

I guess that's what's so cool for the global warming issue folks. No matter what happens, you can find a climate model which predicts it.

"Keep the Shiny side up"

RUE

Saturday, May 12, 2007 1:06 AM

Bottom line - the earth is going to be much warmer. Though you apparently don't accept that scientific result. You'd rather stick with your personal vodoo thoughts.

6IXSTRINGJACK

Saturday, May 12, 2007 9:17 AM

So let me get this straight......

1. The Beatles will come here and destroy our trees, presumably to make new guitars for Paul. Fortunatly for us, two down, two to go.
2. Icecaps will melt, flooding the streets with water drowning the non-eco-disaster-believers, also killing the Beatles that killed our trees as an added bonus. Prices of a mint condition LP of "The White Album" Skyrocket.
3. People will make rafts out of the dead floating trees and eventually construct floating cities out of all of the driftwood. Making everyday for everyone still alive a vacation to Venice.
4. There will be no pesky bees around to ruin our fun in the sun.

I'm thinking that unknown fungus was from Mars. NASA brought it back with them. They can lie to us all they want about an "unknown" fungus, but I read "Andromeda Strain". I know what's up.

EDIT: I actually love the Beatles. I'm rooting for them.

"A government is a body of people, usually notably ungoverned." http://www.myspace.com/6ixstringjack

GEEZER

Saturday, May 12, 2007 2:09 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by rue:
Bottom line - the earth is going to be much warmer. Though you apparently don't accept that scientific result. You'd rather stick with your personal vodoo thoughts.

No. I'm just not buying the whole package, including all the options.

-Global warming seems pretty much established through observation.
-Human contributions through agriculture and technology seem pretty well established, although how much is still in question.
-Predictions of future rates of global warming seem to vary widely.
-Predictions of global impacts, such as sea level changes, also vary quite a bit.
-Modeling of regional changes is still subject to quite a lot of disagreement between modelers.
-Claiming that any one local event is directly caused by global warming is, at best, speculation.
-Claiming that every local event is directly caused by global warming is nothing but fear-mongering.

I'm afraid that the missionary zeal to spread the word about global warming sometimes leads to the worst excesses of missionaries, wherein they blame every bad thing on the devil and one's lack of faith.

"Keep the Shiny side up"

FINN MAC CUMHAL

Saturday, May 12, 2007 3:00 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by rue:
Bottom line - the earth is going to be much warmer. Though you apparently don't accept that scientific result. You'd rather stick with your personal vodoo thoughts.

Not many people deny the “scientific result” that the earth seems to be warming. What we deny, I think, is the apocalyptic visions of religious fanaticism. If you want to convince people that the environment is worth improving, then stop with the end-of-the-world crap, because that’s not science – it’s religion.

Nihil est incertius vulgo, nihil obscurius voluntate hominum, nihil fallacius ratione tota comitiorum.

Nothing is more unpredictable than the mob, nothing more obscure than public opinion, nothing more deceptive than the whole political system.

-- Cicero

KANEMAN

Sunday, May 13, 2007 6:04 PM

Also, many do not believe man is the cause of GW.

MALBADINLATIN

Monday, May 14, 2007 3:09 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by 6ixStringJack:
So let me get this straight......
1. The Beatles will come here and destroy our trees, presumably to make new guitars for Paul. Fortunatly for us, two down, two to go.
2. Icecaps will melt, flooding the streets with water drowning the non-eco-disaster-believers, also killing the Beatles that killed our trees as an added bonus. Prices of a mint condition LP of "The White Album" Skyrocket.
3. People will make rafts out of the dead floating trees and eventually construct floating cities out of all of the driftwood. Making everyday for everyone still alive a vacation to Venice.

Guitars?...My White Albums will appreciate?...Venice-Like floating cities?...I love Italian food AND Italian women...Count me in!!!!... will I still have to work?...Hold tight where you are...I am headin' up to the pole with my bic lighter, help this process get under way!

And you can't change that by gettn' all bendy.

KHYRON

Tuesday, May 15, 2007 1:49 PM

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/6655449.stm

Questions are a burden to others. Answers are prison for oneself.

GEEZER

Tuesday, May 15, 2007 5:01 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by Khyron:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/6655449.stm
.

Linked from that: http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/6115644.stm

Quote:
Framing climate change as an issue which evokes fear and personal stress becomes a self-fulfilling prophecy. By "sexing it up" we exacerbate, through psychological amplifiers, the very risks we are trying to ward off.

The careless (or conspiratorial?) translation of concern about Saddam Hussein's putative military threat into the case for WMD has had major geopolitical repercussions.

We need to make sure the agents and agencies in our society which would seek to amplify climate change risks do not lead us down a similar counter-productive pathway.

"Keep the Shiny side up"

RUE

Wednesday, May 16, 2007 7:44 AM

Quote:
Geezer: "I'm afraid that the missionary zeal to spread the word about global warming sometimes leads to the worst excesses of missionaries, wherein they blame every bad thing on the devil and one's lack of faith."

Finn:
"What we deny, I think, is the apocalyptic visions of religious fanaticism. If you want to convince people that the environment is worth improving, then stop with the end-of-the-world crap, because that’s not science – it’s religion."

Now this is interesting. I read 'Toonhall - I mean Townhall - and they recently sent me an email telling me I just had to get the book 'The Politically Incorrect Guide to Global Warming (and Environmentalism)'. Which I did forthwith and read, 'cause I was wondering what passes for thought among the right-wing-nuts. I regret to report it was a complete and unredeemed waste of time and money. But anyway, the very first chapter made made a big deal about how it wasn't science, it was a religion.

Please tell me you didn't read that dreck and spit it back at me.
-----------------------

Now, on to an actual discussion. Boys, when you get me better science that tells me global warming is all-natural and minimal I'll accept it. That's because I follow the data. That's called science. And the best science available at the moment says global warming is nearly all man-made and will result in disruption of our lives and the live of generations to come. It's you who refuse to follow the data where it leads, into where it conflicts with your personal dogmas. That's called religion.

GEEZER

Wednesday, May 16, 2007 1:25 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by rue:
...when you get me better science that tells me global warming is all-natural and minimal I'll accept it.

Why should I do that? I said:
-Global warming seems pretty much established through observation.
-Human contributions through agriculture and technology seem pretty well established, although how much is still in question.
-Predictions of future rates of global warming seem to vary widely.
Hardly 'all-natural and minimal'.

Quote:
And the best science available at the moment says global warming is nearly all man-made and will result in disruption of our lives and the lives of generations to come.

Changes in climate have always disrupted people's lives. People have had to move, or adapt, due to climate change since pre-history. What's different this time is that we know it's coming, in some form, and we think we can mitigate it. Whether mitigation can be made to work remains to be seen. I'd like to see more work on adaptation, in case, say, China and India won't go along with reducing greenhouse gasses.

Quote:
It's you who refuse to follow the data where it leads...

I follow the data where it leads. When it gets ambiguious, I stop and look for more data.

What I don't do is pick from the pile of contradictory data the finding which has the worst outcome, and then extrapolate from that the most dire conclusions, and then state them as absolute fact. Because that's not science. I refer you to the series of BBC articles Khyron and I mention above.

"Keep the Shiny side up"

RUE

Wednesday, May 16, 2007 3:38 PM

One by one:

C: Global warming seems pretty much established through observation.

C: Human contributions through agriculture and technology seem pretty well established, although how much is still in question.
R: The estimates vary between 95 and 97%.

C: Predictions of future rates of global warming seem to vary widely.
R: The estimates vary between 4C and 10C. By any measure, that's a lot warmer.

C: Changes in climate have always disrupted people's lives.
R: But when these changes are self-induced they are completely avoidable.

C: we think we can mitigate it
R: Scientists are saying we (humans) can eliminate the problem using currently available technology. Why live with a problem you can fix ?

C: What I don't do is pick from the pile of contradictory data the finding which has the worst outcome.
R: Neither do it. You apparently haven't been closely following the research. Science follows the best available data, as do I.

KANEMAN

Wednesday, May 16, 2007 3:49 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by rue:
One by one:

C: Global warming seems pretty much established through observation.

C: Human contributions through agriculture and technology seem pretty well established, although how much is still in question.
R: The estimates vary between 95 and 97%.

C: Predictions of future rates of global warming seem to vary widely.
R: The estimates vary between 4C and 10C. By any measure, that's a lot warmer.

C: Changes in climate have always disrupted people's lives.
R: But when these changes are self-induced they are completely avoidable.

C: we think we can mitigate it
R: Scientists are saying we (humans) can eliminate the problem using currently available technology. Why live with a problem you can fix ?

C: What I don't do is pick from the pile of contradictory data the finding which has the worst outcome.
R: Neither do it. You apparently haven't been closely following the research. Science follows the best available data, as do I.

C?

I call bull shit. Global warming and cooling is natural...........

SIGNYM

Wednesday, May 16, 2007 4:02 PM

Geezer: In another thread on the same topic you challenged others to come up with action items and then promptly dismissed them as being ineffective. For example, requiring higher fuel efficiency in cars or using wind energy. I expect that if someone were to propose a more drastic/ one-size-fits-all solution, such as a steep "carbon tax", you'd say it was too costly! You seem to think that this is a problem for which nothing should be done.

The possibilities in current technology are incremental and depend on many approaches being used: higher fuel efficiency AND more efficent power transmission AND implementation of solar/ wind power AND energy conservation. None of these approaches are painfully expensive, impossible, or lead to a lower standard of living. So why would you be so resistant to all changes that would lead to improvement?

---------------------------------
Always look upstream.

SIGNYM

Wednesday, May 16, 2007 4:03 PM

Quote:
I call bull shit. Global warming and cooling is natural...........

Yeah, just like cancer, aflatoxin and uranium.

And we do something about them, don't we?

---------------------------------
Always look upstream.

RUE

Friday, May 18, 2007 12:38 AM

Geezer - does Kaneman answer for you?

I was wondering if you had a response:

XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX

One by one:

C: Global warming seems pretty much established through observation.

C: Human contributions through agriculture and technology seem pretty well established, although how much is still in question.
R: The estimates vary between 95 and 97%.

C: Predictions of future rates of global warming seem to vary widely.
R: The estimates vary between 4C and 10C. By any measure, that's a lot warmer.

C: Changes in climate have always disrupted people's lives.
R: But when these changes are self-induced they are completely avoidable.

C: we think we can mitigate it
R: Scientists are saying we (humans) can eliminate the problem using currently available technology. Why live with a problem you can fix ?

C: What I don't do is pick from the pile of contradictory data the finding which has the worst outcome.
R: Neither do it. You apparently haven't been closely following the research. Science follows the best available data, as do I.

SIGNYM

Friday, May 18, 2007 1:39 PM

Head-in-sand posture seems to be the favored stance. But at leaast they're already in position for kissing their #sses goodbye.

Paying attention to facts? Not so much.

---------------------------------
Always look upstream.

KHYRON

Friday, May 18, 2007 2:02 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by rue:
C: Human contributions through agriculture and technology seem pretty well established, although how much is still in question.
R: The estimates vary between 95 and 97%.

Have you got back-up for these numbers?

But it made me think a bit. A lot of methane is created by cattle and I saw somewhere that this has a larger effect on GW than the use of fossil fuels. While I can understand (and welcome) the current emphasis on renewable energy sources to cut back CO2 emissions, wouldn't a more effective way of lowering GHG emissions be to promote vegetarianism, or at least get people to cut back on meat?

My guess is it would be futile to even try it, because that would involve people making significant lifestyle changes. Ignoring the blatant sensationalism and apocalyptic predictions designed to make headlines (which sicken me and are the reasons why I side with Geezer and Finn in these threads), it seems like too much of this debate is centred on "Oh, we humans are terrible, let's bitch about the government/industry not doing enough, and about those people who don't think we're all going to die because of this", and not on "What can we as individuals do to help reduce this, and how much would it cost us personally?". The only times I saw this happen was when the media showcases some whacked out treehuggers whose attempted carbon-neutral lifestyle makes people go "THAT'S what I need to live like to be good to the environment!? No way, not worth it!".

Bill Maher asked a good question recently. If global warming could be solved by people simply not using their remote control anymore, would they stop using them?

Questions are a burden to others. Answers are prison for oneself.

GEEZER

Friday, May 18, 2007 4:15 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by rue:
C: Human contributions through agriculture and technology seem pretty well established, although how much is still in question.
R: The estimates vary between 95 and 97%.

As noted before, cites would help. For example, is this a 95 to 97% chance that human contributions affect climate change, or is it that 95 to 97% of climate change is due to human contributions?

Quote:
C: Predictions of future rates of global warming seem to vary widely.
R: The estimates vary between 4C and 10C. By any measure, that's a lot warmer.

IPCC 2007 shows a 2.4C - 6.4C range of increase between the 20 year average ending 1999 and the ten year average ending 2099, assuming their worst case scenario. Sea level increases for the same period and scenario would be 0.26 - 0.59 meters. Best case is 1.1C - 2.9C and 0.18M - 0.38M.
http://www.ipcc.ch/SPM2feb07.pdf

Quote:
C: Changes in climate have always disrupted people's lives.
R: But when these changes are self-induced they are completely avoidable.
C: we think we can mitigate it
R: Scientists are saying we (humans) can eliminate the problem using currently available technology. Why live with a problem you can fix ?

Cool. No need for panicky Chicken Little rushing about, then.

Actually, I am not too confident that the world is going to get on board that easily, especially the developing countries where fossil fuels are the only choice for energy, and agriculture has to expand. That's why I'm more interested in adaptation than mitigation. Unfortunately, stuff like rebuilding parts of New Orleans that are on the flood plain doesn't make it look like adaptation is gonna be easy to sell.

Quote:
Science follows the best available data, as do I.

Links, please.

To start with, some scientific evidence that the recent fires in Southern California are the direct result of climate change, and not just the same fires that they've been having around LA since folks have been there. Not conjecture, not jumping from Point A to Point D without logical middle steps.

"Keep the Shiny side up"

SIGNYM

Friday, May 18, 2007 5:16 PM

Geezer- I think you have the notion that WE can adapt while the rest of the world goes down the tubes. But so many effects will be worldwide (lost species, crops and trees; disease; political and economic instability; water shortages) that I think like it or not, we're in this together. I just can't imagine us floating while everyone else sinks.

It's not that I'm saying we shouldn't adapt. I think there are some vital and necessary things to do right now, within our own borders, to brace ourselves for the consequences of global warming. And BTW I'm curious what your list of adaptation would look like. But we can do both. It shouldn't be one or the other.

---------------------------------
Always look upstream.

SIGNYM

Friday, May 18, 2007 6:43 PM

bump

---------------------------------
Always look upstream.

RUE

Saturday, May 19, 2007 1:14 AM

95 - 97% change is from CO2
Unfortunately not everything is out there able to be linked. This link comes closest: http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2006/09/060914095559.htm

"Earth's surface temperature could rise by 4.5 C (8.1 F) if carbon dioxide levels double over pre-industrial levels, but higher warming cannot be ruled out."

"Actually, I am not too confident that the world is going to get on board that easily, especially the developing countries ... That's why I'm more interested in adaptation than mitigation."
As SignyM said, it's possible and preferable to do both.

SIGNYM

Saturday, May 19, 2007 11:33 AM

It seems that Geezer doesn't exactly have a plan for adaptation either. Like I said: Head in sand. It's just one motion away from kissing your ^ss goodbye.

---------------------------------
Always look upstream.

GEEZER

Saturday, May 19, 2007 5:10 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by SignyM:
Geezer- I think you have the notion that WE can adapt while the rest of the world goes down the tubes.

Not really. I suspect that North America and Western Europe will have a harder time adapting, since we haven't actually suffered any nationwide disasters in a while.

Quote:
But so many effects will be worldwide ... that I think like it or not, we're in this together. I just can't imagine us floating while everyone else sinks.

Given the attitude of China, India and the developing world, I don't expect them to feel this way. I also note that even the folks who signed on to the Kyoto Accords mostly haven't met their goals. I expect that regardless of what the Western world does, there's gonna be global warming.

Quote:
It's not that I'm saying we shouldn't adapt. I think there are some vital and necessary things to do right now, within our own borders, to brace ourselves for the consequences of global warming. And BTW I'm curious what your list of adaptation would look like. But we can do both. It shouldn't be one or the other.

Adaptation? I'll get to that later. Pizza's here.

"Keep the Shiny side up"

SIGNYM

Saturday, May 19, 2007 5:48 PM

Quote:
But so many effects will be worldwide ... that I think like it or not, we're in this together. I just can't imagine us floating while everyone else sinks.-Signy

Given the attitude of China, India and the developing world, I don't expect them to feel this way. I also note that even the folks who signed on to the Kyoto Accords mostly haven't met their goals. I expect that regardless of what the Western world does, there's gonna be global warming.- Geezer

You misunderstand me. I'm not saying that we're all going to suddenly realize that we're facing the worst crisis ever and join hands in a burst of sanity and brotherly love. What I'm saying is whether we "feel" it or not we ARE in this together. ALL of us: China, India, Bangladesh, Russia, Europe, Australia... And the USA might be like the one swimmer in a pool of drowning people. The political and economic instability will make it unlikely that we will be allowed to tackle our problems more-or-less unmolested by outside forces.

---------------------------------
Always look upstream.

GEEZER

Sunday, May 20, 2007 2:31 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by SignyM:
You misunderstand me. I'm not saying that we're all going to suddenly realize that we're facing the worst crisis ever and join hands in a burst of sanity and brotherly love. What I'm saying is whether we "feel" it or not we ARE in this together. ALL of us: China, India, Bangladesh, Russia, Europe, Australia... And the USA might be like the one swimmer in a pool of drowning people. The political and economic instability will make it unlikely that we will be allowed to tackle our problems more-or-less unmolested by outside forces.

Couple of points before beddie-bye time.

1. Based on the IPCC 2007 estimates, global temperature will, worst case, increase 0.04C per year. That's 4 hundredths of a degree C per year. So if it's 'the worst crisis ever' it'll be a slow one, not like, say, WWII, where 72 million died in six or seven years. This may allow governments to realize that they need to do something before things get too bad.

2. Up until, say, the early 20th century, most folk didn't expect things to stay the same forever. They had to deal with changes in climate, government, economy, etc. as a normal part of life. Expecting everything to stay constant is pretty much a product of western civilization in the last half of the 20th century. it may be a mistaken concept.

Later.

"Keep the Shiny side up"

SIGNYM

Sunday, May 20, 2007 2:18 PM

You know Geezer, your sanguine concept of what's not going to happen is already cotnradicted by the fact that New Zealand has made special provisions for immigrating Pacific Islanders. WHY are they immigrating to New Zealand, one might ask? BECAUSE THEIR ISLANDS ARE ALREADY UNDERWATER.
----------------------------

So, adaptation....

Rising sea level to +20 ft
Stop building in low-lying areas prone to floods. That includes, small islands off the east coast and FLA. (They destabilze the dunes which protect coastline from hurricane damage), low-lying costal areas (anything with an elevation less than 30 ft above high tide)

Protect already built-up areas with dikes and big friggin pumps, and move sensitive structures (as much as possible)
Use dolosse or riprap, or create sandbar islands in sensitive areas

The one good things about rising sea levels? Drowned structures make great artificial reefs!

More summer storms of 100-year and 500-year intensity
Stop building on 100-year flood plains
Build structures on 500-year flood plains able to withstand 10 feet of flooding
Restructure rivers to retain and slow as much flow as possible by creating spillover areas, widening river beds etc
Protect against erision by proper farm amanagement and erosion-control techniques.

Less snowpack, drought
Water conservation, including no-till farming and using reclaimed water for non-consumption purposes

Species loss
Create north-south corridors for ecosystems to migrate northward, including Plains
Interplant heat-resistant trees in northerly areas

Electrical power shortages
Electrical energy conservation (efficient light sources such as LEDs, energy efficient building design)
Grid maintenance and investment
Distributed solar energy or backup energy source (eg microturbines)

That's just off the top of my head.

---------------------------------
Always look upstream.

KHYRON

Sunday, May 20, 2007 3:35 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by SignyM:
BECAUSE THEIR ISLANDS ARE ALREADY UNDERWATER.

What are you talking about!?

Questions are a burden to others. Answers are prison for oneself.

SIGNYM

Sunday, May 20, 2007 4:19 PM

www.nwf.org/internationalwildlife/article.cfm?articleId=15&issueId=3

---------------------------------
Always look upstream.

GEEZER

Sunday, May 20, 2007 9:43 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by SignyM:
You know Geezer, your sanguine concept of what's not going to happen is already cotnradicted by the fact that New Zealand has made special provisions for immigrating Pacific Islanders. WHY are they immigrating to New Zealand, one might ask? BECAUSE THEIR ISLANDS ARE ALREADY UNDERWATER.

Hardly an unusual situation, and certainly not a worldwide crisis. Did you know that once-populated islands in Chesapeake Bay disappeared last century? It's called erosion, and, based on the NWF article you post, seems to be most of what's happening in the Pacific. An island with a high point 3 feet above mean sea level is only gonna last for so long before it wears away, even if made of coral. Talk to the people who live on the Outer Banks on the Atlantic coast of the US. Anywhere you got coastline things are gonna move.

Also note that no one has drowned or been swept away. They got plenty of time to move house. I had to do that once, when my apartment building was being torn down for re-development.

Still working on my adaptation plans.

"Keep the Shiny side up"

RUE

Tuesday, May 22, 2007 6:50 PM

By Peter N. Spotts, Staff writer of The Christian Science Monitor
Tue May 22, 4:00 AM ET

Global emissions of carbon dioxide are growing at a faster clip than the highest rates used in recent key UN reports.

CO2 emissions from cars, factories, and power plants grew at an annual rate of 1.1 percent during the 1990s, according to the Global Carbon Project, which is a data clearinghouse set up in 2001 as a cooperative effort among UN-related groups and other scientific organizations. But from 2000 to 2004, CO2 emissions rates almost tripled to 3 percent a year – higher than any rate used in emissions scenarios for the reports by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC).

SIGNYM

Tuesday, May 22, 2007 7:29 PM

Sometimes I just want to put my head thru a wall...

Quote:
OSLO (Reuters) - Human activities are wiping out three animal or plant species every hour and the world must do more to slow the worst spate of extinctions since the dinosaurs by 2010, the United Nations said on Tuesday.

www.reuters.com/article/environmentNews/idUSL2253331920070522?src=0522
07_1516_DOUBLEFEATURE_

Quote:
GENEVA (Reuters) - One in six European land mammals faces the threat of extinction, mainly through habitat loss and deforestation, a leading conservation group said on Tuesday. For marine mammals, the figure is higher at nearly one in four, but even this could be an underestimate

www.reuters.com/article/environmentNews/idUSL2247132720070522?src=0522
07_1516_DOUBLEFEATURE_SYDNEY

Quote:
(Reuters) - Global warming is occurring faster than predicted because rapid economic growth has resulted in higher than expected greenhouse gas emissions since 2000, said an Australian report on Tuesday.

www.reuters.com/article/environmentNews/idUSSYD16214720070522?src=0522
07_1516_DOUBLEFEATURE_

Note that these reports are coming from different agencies.

---------------------------------
Always look upstream.

RUE

Tuesday, May 22, 2007 11:10 PM

Oh, don't you know Siggy ... it's a plot to establish world control over your every move.

GEEZER

Wednesday, May 23, 2007 2:28 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by rue:
By Peter N. Spotts, Staff writer of The Christian Science Monitor
Tue May 22, 4:00 AM ET

Global emissions of carbon dioxide are growing at a faster clip than the highest rates used in recent key UN reports.

CO2 emissions from cars, factories, and power plants grew at an annual rate of 1.1 percent during the 1990s, according to the Global Carbon Project, which is a data clearinghouse set up in 2001 as a cooperative effort among UN-related groups and other scientific organizations. But from 2000 to 2004, CO2 emissions rates almost tripled to 3 percent a year – higher than any rate used in emissions scenarios for the reports by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC).

C'mon, Rue, either post the entire article or a link. You left out some stuff.

Quote:
The Global Carbon Project's calculations should be viewed with caution, says Michael Oppenheimer, a climate-policy specialist at Princeton University in New Jersey. Economies have been recovering from a recession at the turn of the millennium. And a spike in natural-gas prices – of uncertain duration – has given coal a second wind in developed countries. These short-term factors have probably contributed to the growth in emissions rates, he says.

Yet longer-term forces may be at play to sustain the high emissions rates. For instance, "There is concern among many experts that factors such as China's continued, very rapid coal-based growth may not be a blip that would turn around," he says.

http://www.csmonitor.com/2007/0522/p01s03-wogi.html

Also interesting that China, India, the former Soviet Union, and the rest of the developing world have increased carbon emmisions to the point where they produce more than the U.S., EU, Japan, and the rest of the developed world.

"Keep the Shiny side up"

GEEZER

Wednesday, May 23, 2007 2:48 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by SignyM:
Sometimes I just want to put my head thru a wall... OSLO (Reuters) - Human activities are wiping out three animal or plant species every hour and the world must do more to slow the worst spate of extinctions since the dinosaurs by 2010, the United Nations said on Tuesday.

But, from the same article:

Quote:
A "Red List" of endangered species, however, lists only 784 species driven to extinction since 1500 -- ranging from the dodo bird of Mauritius to the golden toad of Costa Rica.

Craig Hilton-Taylor, manager of the list compiled by the World Conservation Union grouping 83 governments as well as scientists and environmental organizations, said the hugely varying figures might both be right, in their way.

"The U.N. figures are based on loss of habitats, estimates of how many species lived there and so will have been lost," he told Reuters. "Ours are more empirical -- those species we knew were there but cannot find."

Quote:
GENEVA (Reuters) - One in six European land mammals faces the threat of extinction, mainly through habitat loss and deforestation, a leading conservation group said on Tuesday. For marine mammals, the figure is higher at nearly one in four, but even this could be an underestimate

From the same article:

Quote:
In a report for the European Union, the IUCN said the Balkans and particularly Bulgaria and Romania are the most affected by declining land mammals, principally because they are also home to the greatest number of species... Habitat loss and degradation, including deforestation or wetland drainage, posed the main threats to terrestrial mammals, followed by pollution and over-harvesting, the report said.

The countries of the former Soviet Union have never been all that environmentally friendly. Industrial pollution there is going to take a long time to repair, and there's no money to do it. Marx strikes again.

Quote:
(Reuters) - Global warming is occurring faster than predicted because rapid economic growth has resulted in higher than expected greenhouse gas emissions since 2000, said an Australian report on Tuesday.

Note that these reports are coming from different agencies.

The first and third ones are both based on the report of the CSIRO's Global Carbon Project.

"Keep the Shiny side up"

RUE

Friday, June 1, 2007 3:08 AM

"The United States will work with other nations to establish a new framework on greenhouse gas emissions for when the Kyoto Protocol expires in 2012," Bush said in a speech laying out his agenda for the June 6-8 G8 summit in Germany.

RUE

Friday, June 1, 2007 3:12 AM

Geezer -

"C'mon, Rue, either post the entire article or a link. You left out some stuff."

For obscure stuff I find extended verbatim quotes are much better than links. Links disappear with time, but google is your friend with a good quote. You didn't have any problem, did you. See, it works, just like I knew it would.

I intend to get back to you when I have the time, and it ain't going to be pretty.

ANTIMASON

Friday, June 1, 2007 5:46 AM

Rue im curious, what do you personally see happening 10 to 20 years out? i see that you support the man-made warming theory, so what do you believe should be done to prevent, or minimize the effects?

i genuinely want to hear a rational explanation from the other side, because i am of the opinion that its (atLeast)'mostly' a natural cycle, being overly hyped into an extreme political agenda. there was one point when i agreed with Al Gore, but ive since heard some persuasive arguments to refute the MMGW theory. among my reasons, i have to wonder(really as a Creationist), that if the earths ecosystem is truly so fragile(which it appears to be), then how can we believe that all life evolved at any time independently apart from these dependent co-habitual cycles? if a few degree variations and what not effect ecosystems so drastically, then it seems like a huge inconsistency in that argument for me. im inclined to believe other things are happening

also, hypothetically, this change in climate may benefit certain regions of the world, if at a disadvantage to others. who are WE(the western industrialized nations), to decide what climate is ideal for the world? where does the UN, or any other establishment get the authority to enforce global laws essentially prohibiting energy use? this seems like a clever veil to disguise social engineering.

ANTIMASON

Friday, June 1, 2007 5:53 AM

also, the argument that CO2 does not drive temperature, rather temperature drives CO2, seems pretty compelling and well supported. that would essentially contradict the premise of man made warming. what is the opposing view on that?

1 2 NEXT PAGE LAST PAGE