Re: Warming - Cooling - Climate will change


"Jo Schaper" <jo34schaper31@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote in message
news:O8-dnbv2RaIEK9HVnZ2dnUVZ_rHinZ2d@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx

I don't believe your unsupported stat about emissions. Why?
a) You don't say emissions of what.
b) without defining what the emissions are, no one can say what effect
they are having on the atmosphere


You must understand the entirely different frame of reference
of complexity science. It begins with the output first, not
the initial conditions or input. The idea is to recognize
patterns in the output that tell us what is going on inside such
a large analytically intractable system. A system so complicated
that trying to understand it through internal component details
and relationships (arguing stats) is futile.

Just like any weather prediction, what makes anyone
think classical (component driven) science can predict
the climate thirty years from now? Pahlease!

But from an output based science, it's /as easy/ to see
and as obvious, as it is /difficult/ and complicated from
your classical view of 'show me the numbers'. Or
.....prove it! The future behavior of complex adaptive
systems cannot be proven. Just the butterfly effect
alone insures no long term predictability is possible
from a part driven or objective science.

HOWEVER...

All self-organized systems, when pushed far from
equilibrium, share very similar behavioral patterns
on the output side.

The most recognizable of all is exponential growth
http://www.ecofuture.org/pop/facts/exponential70.html

What just happened in the real estate market?
Or the Nasdaq collapse during Clinton?

The bubble bursts.

Compare the charts of the link above and here.
http://earthobservatory.nasa.gov/Study/GlobalWarmingQandA/#10


What happens after a bubble bursts?
It swings ... /dramatically in the opposite direction/.
I can't emphasize enough the chilling...literally...
frightening effects if our biosphere were to bubble
from warming too fast.

It doesn't mean a warmer future, it means an ICE AGE.
And one that comes SOON.

What matters is that the rate of change is too high, it is
unsustainable. It doesn't really matter whether this trend
is caused by humans or not.

The trend and it's effects....still exist.

And if the planet fails to recognize this simple but
universal pattern, and do something about it, we could
witness one of those 90% culls of life on earth.


But if authority is what one needs to believe, how about
NASA, not only is NASA the official US agency
responsible for climate research, it has the big money
research equipment also. But it also is currently run
by an administration clearly on the conservative side
of this issue, as opposed to the IPCC. And NASA
says....




c) Do some research on coal emissions from steam locomotives, factories
and home heating in the late 19th and early 20th Century in England and
the industrial cities of the US. Any thought given to why the Victorian
age Sherlock Holmes stories in London are always in grimly smoggy
surroundings?


You're talking apples and oranges, in terms of scale there's
no comparison between early industrial days, and today.

Look at these EPA charts, which quote the IPCC btw.
http://www.epa.gov/climatechange/science/pastcc.html#rates

That doesn't worry you? You don't see the bubble?






According to the huge IPCC international study

":During the past 50 years, the sum of solar and volcanic forcings
would likely have produced cooling."

Human activities have turned a cooling period into a warming one


According to the IPCC, the total increase since 1970, not 80, of
GHG emissions increased 39%.
http://www.ipcc.ch/pdf/assessment-report/ar4/syr/ar4_syr_spm.pdf

I find it interesting that pro-global warming people usually only cite
the IPCC. They have issued a number of reports over the years, but they
are by no means the only people investigating this field. Which year's
study are you citing?


The one that won the Nobel Prize last year~

But it's hard to call the Bush admin pro-warming. Neither
is the NASA administrator that religiously follows party line.
NASA has been heavily criticized for underplaying the
problem. But NASA is the official US govt for climate
research and has the big money equipment and big name
researchers. And here's what they say.....


"If Earth has warmed and cooled throughout history, what
makes scientists think that humans are causing global
warming now?"

"The main reason that scientists think humans caused warming
since 1950 is that none of the natural processes that influence
Earth's climate have changed enough during that time period
to explain the warming."
http://earthobservatory.nasa.gov/Study/GlobalWarmingQandA/



The question should be "what are we going to do about it?"

Adapt or die.


The third choice is, of course, to take control of our own
destiny and ...control...our biosphere. Your objective
science has left you with a sense of helplessness
wrt Nature.

That is what the human race....just last year...collectively
decided to do. Take control of global warming.
How is still being debated, but not the choice to
take control. This can be considered a dramatic turning
point in the evolution of life on earth. One might say
this decision is the first ....intelligent...decision yet
made by humanity. Controlling our environment, as
opposed to just reacting to it, is the difference between
intelligence and animals.

I can' think of a more historic, more significant or
more meaningful period to live in then the last two
years while this debate raged to it's current consensus.

Humanity just evolved from being dominated by animal
instincts, to rational thought, and we witnessed it
first hand.

Human intelligence is a step above Nature, just as God
is a step above us. For a scientist to not understand
the basic relationship between nature and intelligence
is unfortunate. Intelligence is an emergent creation.
Emergent properties guide and create their own
new rules, and have far more abilities than that
which it emerged from.



As activism goes, that's kinda like winning the Super Bowl~

The money for the Nobel's came from the inventor of dynamite. I don't
think Planet Al has done anything for real peace. Maybe the IPCC
deserves it for at least trying to do the right thing. But all I can see
is the whole debate has created more strife than good will and done
nothing towards being able to go to sleep assuming the world will still
be there in the morning.


The only thing you will accept it seems is proof, which will
only come when we wake up one morning, and the world
....we knew...no longer exists.


This planet prefers ice ages, they last a very long time, the
warm interglacials are short and sweet. But this interglacial
is different, because intelligent life is so abundant. We have
the opportunity to put an end to ice ages once and for all.

And create a new world where humanity swims in beauty.





begin 666 question.gif
M1TE&.#EA' `<`+,``#AS<T5\?%.&AF"/CVV8F'JBHHBKJY6TM**^OJ_'Q[W0
MT,K:VM?CX^3L[/+V]O___RP`````' `<```$UO#)2>MC":'4K/>($!R(`0!%
M]WF,`!#.Q 1 P*R50@\QE9R!'FYVNE4<)P`")QF<"A\70,#\G10?0I+I/*VT
MI\6JD21\D^+/(FDXAU>(Y/+3!>#BI[DG287+/PQ)!SAK)X,@22H?2"=F'E)Z
M*R8G0A.%CDP--$I'+@:50S0V$PX#`5A,1P@T!@@'`@B@J:0F`;&S'@T'`0()
MN!X+!36M"&F_#P["2<L"J!4,BA1.`;X."5(GGQ0.`=$2@:,4>">]$@L#D3Y&
3.9O+`&W'$LG+U/$5#1K&$A$`.P``
`
end

begin 666 answer.gif
M1TE&.#EA' `<`+,``/___S-&@&EWHO'S]T%2B*"IQ$Y?D<G.W=;:YJVUS)*<
MNW>$JKO!U5QKF>3F[H60LR'Y! ``````+ `````<`!P```24$,A)JY7IZ@V0
M"%PX%4$IB@1AGELB?""K+>XJ5T,PP+=5+ !>CV)@!&W#!$'20/8,"DDIE@P\
M"J3283@P-%ZPP+:G( PFT['L$#"BM3<$`4B9%G";0:-QKI>B$P\&&G($"#A3
M!GT()0\5#@H!!H<3# (J4P$$#@.84%@P`GTL#)B9!AE##C\""P5J0[&RL[2U
&MK<B$0`[
`
end

.