Copenhagen Conference - Dec. 7-18, 2009

Originally posted by watcher73
I love when threads start off biased.

How so? I've already explained the difference between science and scientists.

No doubt, there are 'scientists' who are willing to tell you that the world s flat as a dinner plate, hollow or made up of chocolate fudge.

On the other hand, those opinions fail to account for observable evidence, which is, imo. science

Do you mean the science that the hacked scientists e-mails now prove was fudged?

I'm of the opinion that proponents of BOTH sides of the issue are capable of stupidity. Scientists fudging facts to fit an agenda is no surprise to me. This is why I'm not focussed on the hacked emails.

I just want to focus on what truly is happening. Is that so strange?

Or do you mean the science that shows climate change happening 800 years before co2 rose?

All science (observed facts) regarding the issues covered in the Copenhagen Conference, whether they are charts reaching past the last Ice Age, the preceding ones and on into the age of the dinosaurs is fair game.

Ice cores have been studied and produce accurate indicators of what has been happening for tens of thousands of years. Certainly, there will be those who fudge the data to promote an agenda, but they are a minority, imo.

If we are to dismiss all of science since the beginnings of the Age of Reason because some activists with green brains tweaked data, then we might as well go back to the Dark Ages, hide our heads in the sand and avoid experts in anything. After all, they might have an agenda.

Now it seems someone in the IPCC wants to cut canada out of the Commonwealth!

This has been brought forward just before the 53 Commonwealth countries send representatives to a meeting in Trinadad.

"Countries that fail to help (tackle global warming) should be suspended from membership, as are those that breach human rights," says Clare Short, the former International Development Secretary according to the Guardian.

"If the Commonwealth is serious about holding its members to account, then threatening the lives of millions of people in developing countries should lead to the suspension of Canada's membership immediately," says Saleemul Huq, a lead author for the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change according to the newspaper.

en.cop15.dk...

But, but... Sweater Steve said he'd go to Copenhagen...

I'm getting the feeling the world is in a Mixmaster which is just starting to chop up a few fruits. Switching to high in a week.


[edit on 27/11/09 by masqua]

reply to post by masqua


ha ha - yep, just go to Copenhagen and everything will be fine )

reply to post by AUM68


It seems to be the case, AUM...

The British Royals now make their pitch for the Copenhagen Conference:

The Queen urged 53 Commonwealth countries gathered for a summit in Trinidad to forge a common stand on fighting climate change ahead of a world gathering on the matter next month.

Her comments came as key players from outside the Commonwealth membership showed up at this Port of Spain meeting to press for momentum on tackling global warming in the lead-up to a global summit in Copenhagen next month.

www.theglobeandmail.com...

Not really surprising, considering the lengthy campaign Prince Charles has led regarding environmental issues.

I wonder if Sweater Steve will be in Trinidad? Last I heard, he was jetting off to China.

Confusing facts - satellite pics vs. rotten ice.

It goes to show that there's nothing quite like being there, compared to taking snapshots from orbit.

"In 2008 and 2009 satellite data showed a growth in Arctic sea ice extension leaving some to reckon global warming was reversing," states a summary of the research. "Contrary to what satellites recently suggested, we are actually speeding up the loss of the remaining, healthy, multi-year sea ice."


The replacement of older, thicker ice with weak first-year ice has been noted by the U.S. National Snow and Ice Data Center, one of the leading trackers of the annual ebb and flow of Arctic ice cover. The Colorado-based centre was instrumental in alerting the world in 2007 to the unprecedented meltdown in Arctic sea ice, from 14 million square kilometres that winter to about 4.3 million square kilometres by September 2007.

[...]

The study also coincides with rising concern about Canada's long-term environmental strategy — including mitigation of climate change impacts in the North — ahead of the international Copenhagen conference aimed at curbing global carbon emissions.

www.ottawacitizen.com...< br />

The possible use of a Northwest Passage is soon to be a reality according to this expedition.

Imagine the Canadian Coast Guard research vessel Amundsen breaking through 8 meter thick ice (that's about 24 feet). That would be quite a ride.

Tim Flannery is the chairman of the Copenhagen Conference Council.

Here, he discusses the hacked email issue:



The second vid in this two part series, is focussed more on the deals being formulated prior to the conference:

The Woods Hole Research Center in Massachusets is a credible source of information (imho). Here is what they say about CO2:

The annual rate of increase in carbon dioxide emissions from fossil fuels has more than tripled in this decade, compared to the 1990s, reports an international consortium of scientists, who paint a bleak picture of the Earth’s future unless “CO2 emissions [are] drastically reduced.”

These CO2 emissions increased at a rate of 3.4% per year from 2000 to 2008, in contrast to 1% each year in the previous decade, scientists from the Global Carbon Project report in the current issue of Nature Geoscience. The team comprises some 30 researchers from around the world, including Richard A. Houghton, senior scientist and acting director of the Woods Hole Research Center and Scott C. Doney, senior scientist at the Woods Hole Oceanographic Institution.

www.whrc.org...

This information will have an effect on the discussions at COP15:

Negotiations at COP-15 in Copenhagen next month will take up this issue in earnest.

If there is any reason that the WHRC should be ignored for falsifying information, then please add it to this thread.

The staff bio's:

Their mission statement:

The Woods Hole Research Center is an independent, nonprofit institute focused on environmental science, education, and public policy.

We seek to conserve and sustain the planet’s vegetation, soils, water, and climate by clarifying and communicating their interacting functions in support of human well-being and by promoting practical approaches to their management in the human interest.

The Center has projects in the Amazon, the Arctic, Africa, Russia, Alaska, Canada, New England, and the Mid-Atlantic — as well as integrative efforts at continental to global scale — working in collaboration with partners ranging from local NGOs, research centers, and enterprises to national governments and the United Nations.

www.whrc.org...

This should prove to be really interesting and probably very funny in very unintended way

our very own ultra right wing politician is tqaking time out of european politics to take on the climate change fascists

news.bbc.co.uk...

Nick Griffin, leader of the BNP, has always been controversial, denying the holocaust etc, & then recinding that on TV recently

His research notes on the run up to this conference should ve very entertaining

reply to post by osc121



Interesting indeed

A wonderful addition:

In a speech to the European Parliament last week Mr Griffin claimed those who warned of climate change were "anti-western intellectual cranks" and described climate change as "a secular religious hysteria".

A BNP spokesman said his appearance in Copenhagen would be a "big opportunity" for the party because "people assume we are only a one-trick pony only interested in race and immigration".

news.bbc.co.uk...

Race... well, I've something to say on that issue..

But, sticking with the topic at hand:

Climate Change Secretary Ed Miliband said Mr Griffin's views were "irresponsible and wrong", adding: "He will not be part of the formal Copenhagen negotiations and rightly he will not be listened to by anyone with any credibility who is part of these negotiations."

In my humble opinion, that's too bad. I believe anyone who has something to say should be heard, as long as they back it up with credible science (facts).

but isn't it the "duty" of this current government to smear and ridicule anyone who has a different view?

we live under a regime that will not allow us a say on who runs the country, never mind a option whether we want to pay for a green agenda, errr sorry i mean climate change rip off taxation

Sorry I'm late to the party.

reply to post by masqua

I'd LOVE it if it were all to be proven a hoax. I'd rest easier knowing my kids and their kids will have a good life. Hell, I hope the next seven generations will have a good life.

As do I masqua. But I seriously doubt that will happen.

This conference is nothing more than a confirmation of success on an agenda. I would bet good money (as many in power already have) that nothing of new scientific significance will come out of it. This is political, as opposed to scientific. To phrase this in terns used earlier in the thread:

Science = the quest for knowledge (facts).

Politics = the quest for power over others.

Science needs no conferences. Scientists world over have the ability to review work done by others at their convenience, and typically communicate with each other regularly. Just as you and I can communicate here, even though separated by thousands of miles and vast expanses of ocean, how much more so can scientists communicate?

Politics does need conferences. Not to allow politicians to communicate (Al Gore "invented" the Internet after all ), but to communicate with the very people they intend to control. History has shown that while control by force is possible, it is much easier and efficient to control through dependence, and dependence relies on fear. In that sense, this is no different than a Broadway play, orchestrated and advertised for our benefit. It is no different than a political advertisement during an election, carefully crafted and presented to make the most of connotation and presentation so we may be swayed to agree with and applaud those who would have us follow them.

I can tell you what I expect to come out of this conference:

• More doomsday scenarios describing how future generations as well as our own are in dire need of the actions already on an obvious agenda:
  • Cap & Trade regulations to increase the cost of energy (and make those already wealthy wealthier)
    
  • Restrictions on electrical energy usage via a 'smart grid'
    
  • Reductions in the amount of energy we will be allowed to use for traveling
  
  
• Scorn at those countries which have done well and have a higher standard of living
  
  
• Sympathy for third-world countries, even those who are such due to aggressive and inhumane societal attitudes
  
  
• A firm expectation of moving toward a more level standard of living between the two, which of course means penalization of the more advanced countries as opposed to improvement of the more impoverished.
  
  
• More scientists speaking opinions rather than facts in order to bolster the political opinions being presented.
  
  
• Consensus among those present that they and their opinions are the singular method that will 'save' us, the unwashed masses.

I can also tell you what won't come out of the conference:

• Any mention of the 'Climategate' leaks.
  
  
• Any mention of thermal properties of any material except CO2. That means:
  • No mention of urban heat island effects.
    
  • No mention of thermal sensor misplacement.
    
  • No mention of the adjustments made to thermal sensor information
    
  • No mention of volcanic activity under the Arctic.
    
  • No mention of the lack of coastal real estate losses due to the so-called sea level rises
    
  • No mention of the fact that the last decade has still, despite the 'adjustments' made to the data, been a decade with no appreciable temperature change, either positive or negative
  
  
• Any mention of CO2 sequestration technology (available now, except that no funding for production is available)
  
  
• Any mention of using flora to offset CO2 production
  
  
• Any mention of scientific disagreement (which does exist)
  
  
• Any mention of previous models being off in their predictions
  
  
• Any mention of sunspot activity
  
  
• Any mention of the economic consequences of Cap & Trade on the average person
  
  
• Discussion of where the energy needed to replace fossil fuels is going to come from
  
  
• Any mention of where all this extra money gleaned from Cap & Trade is going

Copenhagan, to put it bluntly, is a rush to cement regulation. Global Warming has an expiration date, and it is rapidly approaching as evidence of aq reversal in the recent warming trend is beginning to show. Such evidence can only be covered up for so long (although I do have to complement TPTB on their ability to maintain such cover until the last moment). Now it is make or break for energy taxation/regulation based on CO2 as the veil grows thin. This conference will no doubt be rife with scare tactics that will make SyFy's TV show look tame by comparison.

So be of good cheer, masqua. The planet will not melt. All they want is your money, and your obedience.

Well, they do want your air conditioner...

TheRedneck

Originally posted by TheRedneck
Sorry I'm late to the party.

No apology rqd.

This conference is nothing more than a confirmation of success on an agenda. I would bet good money (as many in power already have) that nothing of new scientific significance will come out of it. This is political, as opposed to scientific. To phrase this in terns used earlier in the thread:

Science = the quest for knowledge (facts).

Politics = the quest for power over others.

Science needs no conferences. Scientists world over have the ability to review work done by others at their convenience, and typically communicate with each other regularly. Just as you and I can communicate here, even though separated by thousands of miles and vast expanses of ocean, how much more so can scientists communicate?

I disagree. Scientists have conferences all the time. Here's a current list of just a few:

www.ices.dk...
www.aaas.org...
www.grc.org...
solas2009.confmanager.com...
www.lpi.usra.edu...
www.allconferences.com...


On top of that, they also 'meet online', as you suggest:

www.websci09.org...

Politics does need conferences.

Science and politics are intricately intertwined. If the actions of one country impacts the health and welfare of another, then the governments of the two will use the facts (science) surrounding the untenable situation to come to an agreement on how to tackle the problem. For instance, if the water in Lake Superior is drained off to accomodate irrigation further south and it is in excess of the amounts which rivers/precipitation add to Lake Superior, then there will be a discussion between the USA and Canada, via politicians, to attempt to keep things balanced. What will be brought to bear in such discussions are the facts and measurements supplied by scientists.
On the points in your post, here's my take:

• If there is ANY threat to future generations, I'd prefer that it is clearly identified. 'Agendas', based on falsified information, should be found out and bashed into a fine powder. I want facts, not agendas. If the facts point to AGW, then we should act on that. If the facts point to0 something other than AGW, but future generations are still at risk according to the facts, then we need to act on that too. I will NOT risk the health of MY children, nor my grandchildren or any future generations because of my inaction today.
  
  
• Having been an active participant in the production of electricity for more than 30 years, it has been obvious that the 'grid' is continually at risk and needs better systems of production and distribution. On this subject, we coud have a huge discussion, but suffice it to say that a toasted raccoon can shut down huge portions of the grid in a milisecond, as has been illustrated a number of times over the past half century. (think ice storms) What we need are systems whch are more localized and can quickly isolate incidents and bypass them. We should no longer have to put up with the entire eastern seaboard ging dark because swtching gear gets burnt out in one place. Also, the production of electricity needs to come from a varied group of sources rather than massive stations. Having one behemoth station responsible for a huge segment of the grid is much less reliable than 10 smaller stations servicing the same area. Wind power and fields of solar panels are not a reasonable alternative, imo, but nevertheless are an indication that there are alternatives available. Don't even get me going on dams... silting, etc., is a major problem and one only has to look at the Three Gorges project in China to see difficulties with the practice.
  
  
• If there is going to be a restriction on travelling/transportation, it mostly will be the cost of a gallon of gasoline and the taxes added to them. There's plenty of political and corporate influence going into that as well as personal cap and trade. The automotive industry is moving ahead with hybrid vehicles... maybe, rather that worrying over emissions, we should concern ourselves with recharging stations and improving the electrical grids.
  
  
• The scorn, if warranted, will have to be borne. If not, then it should be challenged. If a Canadian mining company, active in a South American rain forest, clearcuts 1000 square miles to remove copper through open pit mining, then perhaps discussion is required.
  
  
• The disparity between developed and developing countries is rapidly closing. The most promising economies are no longer in the west, but in central Asia (India) and the far east (China). Standards of living have been falling in most of the western world while India and China, for instance, are rising quickly. It's happening already and has been for some time now. The west is already paying the penalty.
  
  
• On 'scientists' and 'opinions', that is what my intent with this thread is all about. Seperating the wheat from the chaff.
  
  
• Unwashed masses?
  I'm sorry, but that kind of thinking can be just as easily applied to the leaders of the worlds religions.

(To the second set of points stating what won't come out of the conference, all I can say is we'll have to wait and see.)

Copenhagan, to put it bluntly, is a rush to cement regulation. Global Warming has an expiration date, and it is rapidly approaching as evidence of aq reversal in the recent warming trend is beginning to show.

Please, show me the data, not from some antiGW blogster, but from a credible source.

Such evidence can only be covered up for so long (although I do have to complement TPTB on their ability to maintain such cover until the last moment).

An 'Inconvenient Assumption'?

Now it is make or break for energy taxation/regulation based on CO2 as the veil grows thin. This conference will no doubt be rife with scare tactics that will make SyFy's TV show look tame by comparison.

Please refer to the Woods Hole article posted above. Do you anticipate they are fudging facts to support the 'lies'?

So be of good cheer, masqua. The planet will not melt.

Please, don't patronize this old fart. I've been around more than one block in my life and the turnip truck I fell off of has long ago gone to the scrapyard.

No, the planet will not melt

I'm more concerned, as I've said a few times now, about rising sea levels, food production and storm damage from anomolous weather events.

All they want is your money, and your obedience.

So, what's different today? Hasn't it always been that way?

Well, they do want your air conditioner...

Living in Canada, i don't need one... YET.

format edit

[edit on 29/11/09 by masqua]

Originally posted by TheRedneck
I can also tell you what won't come out of the conference:

• Any mention of the 'Climategate' leaks.
  

On second thought, I will challenge the above.

In the second post of this thread is a statement ON the COP15 website where the hacked emails are discussed.

Secondly, the chairman of the COP15 Council, Tim Flannery, also discusses the issue in a two part video displayed in a post on this page.

I'm sure it WILL be an issue. Nothing gets scientists more upset than some of their own fudging the numbers to fit an agenda.

I'd suggest only a small percentage of scientists would stoop to it and, most of those, only do it for the money. It's happened before in the case of Big Tobacco and more recently, in the fight Big Oil is putting up.

Originally posted by TheRedneck

No mention of volcanic activity under the Arctic.

There's plenty of evidence online that there IS. The Gakkel Ridge seems to be active enough.

posted: 27 June 2008

New evidence deep beneath the Arctic ice suggests a series of underwater volcanoes have erupted in violent explosions in the past decade.

Hidden 2.5 miles (4,000 meters) beneath the Arctic surface, the volcanoes are up to a mile (2,000 meters) in diameter and a few hundred yards tall. They formed along the Gakkel Ridge, a lengthy crack in the ocean crust where two rocky plates are spreading apart, pulling new melted rock to the surface.

www.livescience.com...

With news this week that polar ice is melting dramatically, underwater Arctic pyrotechnics might seem like a logical smoking gun. Scientists don't see any significant connection, however.

"We don't believe the volcanoes had much effect on the overlying ice," Reeves-Sohn told LiveScience, "but they seem to have had a major impact on the overlying water column."

Related:

www.sciencedaily.com...
www.whoi.edu...

The question would be how much effect that the acivity in the 1100miles of this ridge really has on the total arctic ice cap.

As you can see by this map:

[atsimg]http://files.abovetopsecret.com/images/member/38c0f5ec3d57.jpg[/atsimg]

...it is quite a piece from both the NE & NW 'passages'.

Also, how does this account for the receding glaciers on Greenland itself?

It'll be interesting to see if this is brought up during the conference.

reply to post by masqua

Scientists have conferences all the time.

Yes, they do. I didn't say otherwise; I stated that they don't need such.

The conferences you mention do nothing except promote PR relations from the scientific community. Discoveries are not made sitting around talking, but rather by independent research, which is then vetted by other scientists recreating that research.

I understand the difference may be seen as semantics by some, but I believe it is important. Without conferences, science would simply be less available to the public eye but would continue unimpeded. Without conferences, politics would have a much harder time convincing the people that their way is the best one (or of coordinating efforts on global issues).

Science and politics are intricately intertwined.

And IMO they should not be. Science concerns knowledge; politics concerns control. When the two intertwine, you have control through knowledge.

That doesn't sound so bad, but when you realize the depths some politicians will stoop to in order to further an agenda, then you realize the possibility of having control through corrupted/inaccurate knowledge. In simpler terms, control through ignorance via control of knowledge.

That scares the pants off me.

If the actions of one country impacts the health and welfare of another, then the governments of the two will use the facts (science) surrounding the untenable situation to come to an agreement on how to tackle the problem. For instance, if the water in Lake Superior is drained off to accomodate irrigation further south and it is in excess of the amounts which rivers/precipitation add to Lake Superior, then there will be a discussion between the USA and Canada, via politicians, to attempt to keep things balanced. What will be brought to bear in such discussions are the facts and measurements supplied by scientists.

How easy would it be, should science and politics to be intertwined as you say (and as I agree in the case of AGW) for those facts concerning how much water is appropriate to be twisted and distorted? If the amount is shown as being lower than that which is true, then the country with the water could perhaps strike an agreement to increase the water flow only if they are paid for the problems which will (not) be created. It the figures are too high, then the country needing water will be able to drain the lake anyway. There is too much at stake for the scientists to become involved in politics.

I'm sure you see my point. and at this point we actually have serious allegations that a similar thing is happening right now with the very reason for the Copenhagen conference.

If there is ANY threat to future generations, I'd prefer that it is clearly identified. 'Agendas', based on falsified information, should be found out and bashed into a fine powder. I want facts, not agendas.

Agreed completely. But how exactly do we know what the actual science is showing before the adjustments? Simple logic will show that there are many reasonable causes of temperature fluctuations that do not include CO2, yet what is the commonly assumed reason? CO2.

Having been an active participant in the production of electricity for more than 30 years, it has been obvious that the 'grid' is continually at risk and needs better systems of production and distribution.

Again, agreed. If not for the agenda I believe is occurring in the area of climate right now and the implications a 'smart grid' carries with it (see California wants to control home thermostats published by the New York Times on January 1, 2008), I would be less antagonistic about such an approach. But considering the events of today and the public misperceptions of the sciences involved, sorry, I tend to weigh on the side of caution. And of a conspiratorial angle, of course.

If there is going to be a restriction on travelling/transportation, it mostly will be the cost of a gallon of gasoline and the taxes added to them.

And that cost will affect the prices and availability of everything you or I purchase. Shipping costs are always included in the final cost of products, and there is typically a tremendous amount of that shipping involved. From the shipping of raw materials, to the shipping of components to factories for assembly, to the shipping between factory and warehouse, warehouse and retail, and finally from retail warehouses to the stores themselves, those energy taxes will add up to make living much more expensive than it is today.

And hybrid vehicles cannot propel 40 tons, at least not at this time.

If a Canadian mining company, active in a South American rain forest, clearcuts 1000 square miles to remove copper through open pit mining, then perhaps discussion is required.

Yes, it would be required IMO. But I am waiting to see if any agreements coming out of this conference are focused on deforestation or on CO2. Until I am shown otherwise, I will put my money on CO2.

Cap & Trade, the primary focus of environmentalists at this time, does not include deforestation (although I would say it should). Any attempt to include offsets based on stewardship of forested areas is being met with heated opposition from environmentalists and politicians.

The disparity between developed and developing countries is rapidly closing. The most promising economies are no longer in the west, but in central Asia (India) and the far east (China).

Is it not strange that those two countries you mention were specifically excluded from the original Kyoto Treaty?

Please, show me the data, not from some antiGW blogster, but from a credible source.

Hmmm, well the obvious question is "What source do you consider as 'credible'?", but in the interest of expediency how do you feel about UAH? Is a major research University on par with the likes of UCLA or MIT good enough?



And from this examination of their data, here is an interesting tidbit:

There are now 30 years of satellite data on global temperature. The graph below shows the University of Alabama Huntsville Microwave Sounding Unit (UAH MSU) results for the period 1978 to 2008.

(You'll notice there is no overall change since the 1998 anomaly.)

Please, don't patronize this old fart. I've been around more than one block in my life and the turnip truck I fell off of has long ago gone to the scrapyard.

No patronization intended. Just think of it as a like response to warnings of catastrophic 'xxx-feet' sea level rises.

This does point out a few things that have not fallen in line with AGW predictions however:

• Hurricane severity and frequency was predicted to increase drastically after Katrina. Both the intensity and frequency have, if anything, decreased.
  
  
• There has been no appreciable sea level increase. There have been concerns raised over isolated areas of coastal flooding, but exactly how is it that sea level can rise in one area and not rise globally? For there to be a sea level rise, it would have to be on a global scale, and so far I don't think Gulfport real estate has been changing 'near-coast' condos to 'seaside'.
  
  
• If warming temperatures affected food production, it would increase the growing season, not shorten it.

So, what's different today? Hasn't it always been that way?

Yes, government greed has always been there. Is that any reason to support it?

TheRedneck

Edit to add: I will respond to your other posts when I get back from church.


[edit on 11/29/2009 by TheRedneck]

Originally posted by TheRedneck

The conferences you mention do nothing except promote PR relations from the scientific community. Discoveries are not made sitting around talking, but rather by independent research, which is then vetted by other scientists recreating that research.

No, they're not made by people sitting around talking and trading opinions. Conferences are done so that information may be shared by a large group of scientists at the same time and in one place. The internet might be a wonderful method of sharing information, but it's not much good at comparing and collating information. These gatherings go back 300 years and began with the Age of Reason with the likes of Isaac Newton, John Locke, Voltaire working together through meetings of the Royal Society.

That's a lot of standard methodology to sweep away with the casual remark that they needn't meet to discuss and share work. I say it still works better than using the web

I understand the difference may be seen as semantics by some, but I believe it is important. Without conferences, science would simply be less available to the public eye but would continue unimpeded. Without conferences, politics would have a much harder time convincing the people that their way is the best one (or of coordinating efforts on global issues).

Regarding Science and politics:

...when you realize the depths some politicians will stoop to in order to further an agenda, then you realize the possibility of having control through corrupted/inaccurate knowledge. In simpler terms, control through ignorance via control of knowledge.

That scares the pants off me.

What better way to control "corrupted knowledge" than by the meeting of scientists to debate that information. Shutting them away from each other scares me even more.

There is too much at stake for the scientists to become involved in politics.

How, pray tell, are politicians to know anything to do with issues affecting the environment if they don't rely on observations in the field? A similar situation would be politicians controlling a battle from halfway around the world without requiring info from the soldiers in the field. Hopeless.

...do we know what the actual science is showing before the adjustments? Simple logic will show that there are many reasonable causes of temperature fluctuations that do not include CO2, yet what is the commonly assumed reason? CO2.

Assumptions are the bane of human endeavor and they are the cause of much misery. Eugenics was assumed to be a good intelligent move... look how that wound up.

One of the most important facets of applying science to social engineering (which, btw, the COP15 is all about) is the wise choice of what is sensible, logical and, above all, ethical. It's not easy. In fact, it's a deadly serious business.

In Copenhagen, we will have the meeting of science and politics. Hugely scary, indeed. That's why we need to get to the bottom of what facts we can rely on and which are 'corrupted by agenda' so that the public becomes aware of the truth and the lies. WE, the public, are the only ones with the power to turn this around if it goes sour. It is also up to us to push for changes that are needed.

I tend to weigh on the side of caution. And of a conspiratorial angle, of course.

Commendable. So do I. Where I live is 'beachin'. The provincial/federal governments here have recently allowed intensive hog farming of the 'factory' kind and now hundreds of thousands of pigs are raised all around me. The manure from those farms is sprayed on the land in liquid form. The beach isn't such a wonderful place now because so much has leeched through the topsoil and into Lake Huron. Not even talking about the smell. Pee-ewe.

People here are upset, they like swimming, tourist dollars, laying on pristine sands, etc. We miss it. Sending letters to politicians, or the local papers and a myriad of other methods to try and stop this development got no-one anywhere until the SWINE flu hit.

That got a reaction. Now those factory farms are in trouble even with the governments throwing money at them. Nothing like people power, especially when they're scared.

And that cost will affect the prices and availability of everything you or I purchase. Shipping costs are always included in the final cost of products, and there is typically a tremendous amount of that shipping involved. From the shipping of raw materials, to the shipping of components to factories for assembly, to the shipping between factory and warehouse, warehouse and retail, and finally from retail warehouses to the stores themselves, those energy taxes will add up to make living much more expensive than it is today.

And hybrid vehicles cannot propel 40 tons, at least not at this time.

No wonder there's a renewed interest in freight trains and rail lines.

Yes, it would be required IMO. But I am waiting to see if any agreements coming out of this conference are focused on deforestation or on CO2. Until I am shown otherwise, I will put my money on CO2.

Me too. reforestration takes a long time, Trees of useful size don't pop into existence in 20 years. we're not even in a position to stop deforestration, let alone plant enough to reverse the trend. America gets huge props for their efforts. They've done really well in that regard. World leaders, imo.

Cap & Trade, the primary focus of environmentalists at this time, does not include deforestation (although I would say it should). Any attempt to include offsets based on stewardship of forested areas is being met with heated opposition from environmentalists and politicians.

Sadly so.

I'll address the rest of your post at a later date.


[edit on 29/11/09 by masqua]

reply to post by masqua

On second thought, I will challenge the above.

In the second post of this thread is a statement ON the COP15 website where the hacked emails are discussed.

Ah, but the conference isn't started yet.

I should have worded that a but differently: Any mention of the 'Climategate' emails except to trivialize their importance would have been more accurate.

The question would be how much effect that the acivity in the 1100miles of this ridge really has on the total arctic ice cap.

My position is that I would expect it to have quite a bit. If one wishes to melt ice, which would be faster: to warm the air above it, or to warm the water below it?

Obviously, the latter would be much more efficient. Elementary thermodynamics agrees with this real-world observation. The specific heat of water (measure of energy needed to raise the temperature) is much higher than that of air; indeed, to actually melt ice requires an input of energy not only enough to raise its temperature above the melting point, but to overcome the latent heat of fusion of the ice. Air temperature increases of a few degrees simply cannot account for the melting that has been occurring, and that assumes there is an increase in average temperatures(which there has not been appreciably in the last decade).

...it is quite a piece from both the NE & NW 'passages'.

Three words: oceanic current convection. Heat will create its own current due to differences in the density between warm and cold water, and the rotation of the planet will cause those currents to shift as well.

Also, how does this account for the receding glaciers on Greenland itself?

Water warms land; land warms ice. Land masses contain quite a bit of water in the soil, and this helps spread the heat throughout the land mass to some degree.

To be honest, I would expect this to mean that oceanic ice would be experiencing a faster melt rate than the glacial ice. I haven't researched this particular aspect of the phenomena.

It'll be interesting to see if this is brought up during the conference.

Yes, yes it will.

But I expect it will not receive more than a quick mention at best.

TheRedneck

Originally posted by TheRedneck
Elementary thermodynamics agrees with this real-world observation. The specific heat of water (measure of energy needed to raise the temperature) is much higher than that of air; indeed, to actually melt ice requires an input of energy not only enough to raise its temperature above the melting point, but to overcome the latent heat of fusion of the ice. Air temperature increases of a few degrees simply cannot account for the melting that has been occurring, and that assumes there is an increase in average temperatures(which there has not been appreciably in the last decade).

Very technical explanation, I admit. The vents are off to one side of the ice cap, though. Obviously it would not be melting evenly throughout the acrtic. As well, the ridge extends from the NE tip of Greenland and away towards Russia like an arrow.

[atsimg]http://files.abovetopsecret.com/images/member/38c0f5ec3d57.jpg[/atsimg]


How could it be, then, that the glaciers are melting all over the Greenland landmass as well as in Canada and Russia? What is the state of glaciers in Alaska? Are they receding as well? If they are, then it sure isn't the Gakkel Ridge. It doesn't account for glacial melt in the Rocky Mountains either.

No... There's something else going on. It can't all be explained through volcanism.


What do those 'others' have to say about it?

Do explosive volcanic eruptions on the seafloor of the Arctic Ocean contribute to the melting of the Arctic ice cap?

No, not at all. The Arctic Ocean is a huge reservoir of water that can readily absorb and disperse the heat and volatile gases from the volcanic eruptions at the seafloor

[...]

During many Arctic expeditions, scientists have studied the movement of water, heat, and chemicals in the depths of the Arctic Ocean . They have found that heat and other emissions from the Arctic seafloor do not rise much higher than 500 to 1000 meters up from the ocean bottom. The volcanoes under the Arctic sea ice are 3,000 to 4,000 meters (approximately 2.5 miles) below.

www.whoi.edu...

Seems like the Woods Hole Oceanic Institution disagrees with you. Maybe they're fudging the information, but I doubt it. If you can find a site, as credible as Woods Hole, which has information contrary to what they say, I'll change my mind. I CAN be convinced, but not by unsubstantiated opinion alone.

(to readers in general)

Speaking of opinons, I'm really not seeing much in the way of proof against the science I've laid out so far. Opinions by the bucketload, but no science. Is it that absolutely NO science can be trusted as one post in this thread has stated it?

[edit on 29/11/09 by masqua]

reply to post by masqua

There's something else going on. It can't all be explained through volcanism.

I tend to agree, but the simple fact is that volcanism explains more than CO2 does. I could go through the calculations, but I doubt that would do any good:

If you can find a site, as credible as Woods Hole, which has information contrary to what they say, I'll change my mind.

Woods Hole, as prestigious as it may be, is still stating an opinion. The difference between Woods Hole and the average guy walking down the street is that Woods Hole is (supposedly) well-enough informed to make more reasonably accurate opinions.

But Woods Hole is not the sole repository of physics knowledge.

OK, they state that the warming stops 500-1000 meters from the sea bottom. I would like to know how that is possible? What law of physics states that heat energy ceases to exist after a certain distance? Or what physical law states that warm water does not have less buoyancy than colder water and therefore stops rising to the surface after a certain distance?

The truth is that this is not what they are saying. They are saying that the heat dissipates over time as it rises, which would be correct. But that does not mean there is no temperature increase in higher water levels. It simply means that the amount of increase decreases due to dispersion. The only way one area of water can cool is for the heat energy to be lost to another section. Even a small increase in the temperature of water can melt ice, and thus the small difference that does make it to the surface could account for some melting.

CO2 on the other hand, cannot produce that kind of heat energy, In the first place, the specific heat is too low; it would take a very large atmospheric temperature increase to account for the melting, and this large difference would be but has not been observed. Water, on the other hand, would only need a slight temperature difference to contain the same amount of energy. Secondly, heat tends to rise due to the buoyancy difference between it and cooler areas. Atmospheric heat naturally rises away from any surface ice, while warm water would rise toward the ice.

So yes, I will agree that it doesn't sound as though volcanic activity is the single source of ice melts, especially in other areas, But neither is CO2, which is essentially my point. Given the two possibilities, CO2 in the atmosphere cannot possibly be causing the same amount of localized melting (and all the ice on the globe is not melting, so this is localized) as volcanic activity is capable of.

You can call this opinion all you want masqua; when it all boils down, so is any source you or I submit. The only difference is the physics behind that opinion, and I believe I have explained the physics behind mine.

TheRedneck

Theese last couple of days we have heard in danish radio, that Copenhagen will try to make COP15 CO2 neutral - so when the world leaders (and all the other) arrives in Denmark, there will be no Limosines, and there will be no bottled water (we have some of the cleanest water in the world )

Right now on our online newspaper Information (100.000 readers - the biggest newspaper have 400.000 readers) there is an announcement ON TOP of the headlines saying:

Climate researchers last call
"The harsh truth is that climate change is underestimated and that everything runs faster than predicted, said 26 leading climate scientists in the new report to UN Climate Summit"

This Above headline links to an article - and the article is all in all about that COP15's goal wont even be enough (if we consider for a moment, that it is all man made and we actually can do something about it).

I dont know for how long Information keeps this "Above - Headline" but check it out, and follow the link to the article - use Google Translator, and it all makes sence

(Headline in danish: "Klimaforskeres sidste opråb"
www.information.dk...