7 Responses to AGW Bombshell? from WUWT

1. hirundine608 says:

   January 7, 2013 at 03:03

   That’s a lot of information and difficult for a lay-person to understand. Personally I do not care if the world is heating or not? What I care about is why the rapid polar melt and pollution by industry, is affecting the globe and the creatures that live on it. Why we are warned not to eat more than 2 cans of tuna a week, because of mercury/lead in the fish? Why the wild salmon stocks are dwindling from the levels, seen a hundred years ago? The plastic floating islands and overall man-made debris now found washed onto the beaches. The rising sea-levels, that are of concern to so many low-lying dwellings, of ordinary people. On and on. Are only symtoms of a society, gone mad with hedonism.

   My personal opinion about the rapid polar melt, increased volcanic and earthquake activity. The increase in storm levels and general temperature anomalies. The movement of earth’s physical pole and so on. My feelings about all of that, probably do not count? To even a hill of beans.

   Compare to that the industrialists who see the globe. As an infinite resource to grab for themselves and screw all the other people and creatures. That depend on them for their own living. That they are dominant in society. Does not make it anymore right.

   In the twilight of my working days. I have little power to do any more, than speak up. My personal belief is that as the solar system crosses the galactic rift. The reason for most of the extremes, previously outlined. That once the system passes the rift and our solar system begins to return to more normal condition. [BTW, IMO it would likely require little, to plunge Earth back into an ice-age?]

   Still after all that. This planet will still have pollution of all sorts, to deal with. Notwithstanding all of the radio-active wastes. Now stored, in barrels, around the world; to have to face. The list of problems will likely be larger than the benefits?

   That if the notion of reducing anthropogenic impact, on global warming, is a scam? – It would not be a big surprise? Yet when one adds up all the other scams perpetrated on the world’s tax-payers and society. There would be a list as long as your arm. If this is a scam? It almost pales in comparison, to the others.

   Thanks for the link to the site “watts up”. That it does make, to me, many good points. But I doubt it will ever find the 2.3 trillion dollars “lost” by pentagon?

   Reply
   • Ken McMurtrie says:

     January 13, 2013 at 11:27

     Hi Jamie, caught up with this one at last.
     BTW your comments very much appreciated, they contribute meaningfully to this blog, thank you!

     Your “What I care about is why the rapid polar melt and pollution by industry”
     Is there a rapid polar melt? Maybe this subject requires further investigation?

     At the risk of talking at cross-purposes –
     I would refer you to my recent post which reblogged WUWT post “Antarctic warming courtesy of Mr. Fix-it”
     This extract counters the media published claims of rapid melting due to temperature: “The manufactured “record reveals a linear increase in annual temperature between 1958 and 2010 by 2.4±1.2 °C.” That’s a 50% margin of error on the reconstruction that supposedly corrected the recording errors.
     I haven’t purchased access to the paper (nor do I intend to); however, the freely available supplementary information includes a graph of their reconstructed temperature record for Byrd Station. It looks very similar to the NASA-GISS graph that doesn’t show any significant recent warming trend.”

     Regards, Ken.

     Reply
     • hirundine608 says:

       January 13, 2013 at 12:09

       HI Ken,
       Since I live in Canada, while I have not actually seen for myself. We have plenty of newspaper articles, over the last few years, concerning how fast the North Polar region is loosing ice. The now open NW passage in summer. The expectation that oil tankers will start using it. The military build-up by canadian military. To “protect”? The oil reserves beneath Arctic shelf, the lack of habitat for polar bears and caribou. The ice pack this summer shrank to it’s smallest level ever. I just googled and picked the first page that looked like it was comparatively un-biased? http://www.independent.co.uk/environment/climate-change/climate-change-melting-polar-regions-faster-than-ever-before-6259145.html

       My own belief has to do, with our solar system crossing the galactic rift. For the next seven years. At the end? As you have been pointing out, the climactic changes seem to have more to do with the cosmos in general, than more local? Who knows, we could quite easily be plunged back into another ice age? Other planets in the system are also showing unusual changes to their previous normality. Change of pole for Neptune and Uranus?

       This link seems to have a grasp? http://divinecosmos.com/contact-us/privacy-policy/102?task=view

       Since I am not a scientist, not even close. But I do have an interest in the world we live in and expect there are more things under sky. Than I could possibly understand. That politicians and some people see the tax-payer. as a cow to be milked. Is not new.
     • Ken McMurtrie says:

       January 13, 2013 at 12:59

       Thanks Jamie. Many possible contributing factors, as you say.
       Even our axis tilt altering a degree might create a significant change, and such a (larger) change has been claimed by a Native American. Will chase up the reference.
       “looked like it was comparatively un-biased? http://www.independent.co.uk/environment/climate-change/climate-change-melting-polar-regions-faster-than-ever-before-6259145.html” Your faith in “unbiased”, even “comparative” is challenged by the reference to “climate-change-melting” is it not? 🙂
     • hirundine608 says:

       January 13, 2013 at 13:21

       Hi Ken,

       We can really only believe what we see and touch, etc. For example. I once did not believe in Sasquatch or Bigfoot. Until one day from my own deck, I saw a group of five. Which blew my perception of reality out of the water.

       There is a number of images in Google. That show rapidly disappearing caps.

       https://www.google.ca/search?q=melting+of+ice+in+polar+region&hl=en&tbo=u&tbm=isch&source=univ&sa=X&ei=xQLyUOiJBIH7igKxyICIDQ&ved=0CGcQsAQ&biw=1625&bih=855

       Cheers Jamie
       —————————————————
2. NAC eye drops says:

   January 12, 2013 at 18:50

   It’s true that the rich world has emitted the majority of the CO2 historically, though looking at current trends that may change surprisingly soon. Rich nations account for a rapidly diminishing minority of current emissions. This is true even if you account for imported and exported goods: the developing world took over in terms of total footprint in 2009 and the gap is growing. Hence, I suspect that the rich world’s share of historical emissions will fall significantly below half within this decade.But that doesn’t let the rich world off the hook – not one bit. For one thing, historical emissions figures don’t mean much unless you consider the proportion of the world population which emitted them and has benefited from them. If you divide historical emissions by current population, the data looks radically different. From 1850–2008, for example, the UK emitted around 1127 tonnes of CO2 for each current inhabitant . For China, the figure is just 85. So it’s perfectly obvious that the rich world has a responsibility to show leadership by going much further than it currently has, even before you consider factors such as capacity and the broader historical context.Ultimately, though, if we want to avoid disastrous climate change, we need to agree an all-time global carbon budget compatible with our 2C target. The current process has missed out this all-important step and negotiators are therefore arguing about how to divvy up an ever-growing pie rather than the ever-shrinking one that the evidence demands. This is profoundly worrying because it shows that our leaders are in denial about the scale of the risks and the scale of what’s required.

   Reply
   • Ken McMurtrie says:

     January 13, 2013 at 11:00

     Your comment has been “rescued” from the spam filter because it seems to be a relevant opinion, even if somewhat contrary to what this blog argues.
     Your advertising web page reference has for obvious reasons, been deleted. This is not a commercial website. Further comments should be under a name, not a product.
     Further, I need to take you to task over your opening statement – “It’s true that the rich world has emitted the majority of the CO2 historically,” – you surely mean the majority of the increased CO2 due to fossil fuel burning – do you not?

     Reply