Delicious
Digg
StumbleUpon
Newsvine
Facebook
Google
Yahoo
TechnoratiWASHINGTON - A new scientific study adds evidence that temperatures in the Northern Hemisphere fluctuated a bit over time, but that the sharp increase during the past few decades is bigger than anything in at least 1,300 years.
![[An undated handout photo from the Center for Northern Studies shows the Ward Hunt Ice Shelf disintegrating. (REUTERS/Denis Sarrazin/Center for Northern Studies/Handout)]](http://www.commondreams.org/files/article_images/globalwarming0913.jpg "globalwarming0913.jpg")
The report was published Tuesday in
the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences. Its conclusion is
that temperature increased and decreased a little over the centuries,
but the fluctuations were small enough that the line was roughly flat,
like the shaft of a horizontal hockey stick. Then, from about 1980 to
now, temperature increased sharply, more than any increase before -
like the blade of the hockey stick.
For the past 10 years, climate-change skeptics have been calling the hockey stick bogus. Now the scientists who studied the climate record and produced the original hockey-stick graph have done a new study using more data from more sources - and they got the same pattern.
The new study "establishes further evidence that the recent warming isn't just part of a typical cycle," said climatologist Michael Mann, director of the Earth System Science Center at Pennsylvania State University.
"Of course, this alone doesn't establish the cause of that warming - that it must be due to human influences," Mann said. That's left to other scientific studies of the climate.
Forces of nature - changes in the output of the sun's energy and volcanic eruptions - and random variation explain the changes in climate before industrial times, Mann said. But only if human factors are taken into account - particularly the production of long-lasting, heat-trapping gases from burning fossil fuels - can scientists explain the unusually high recent temperature increase, he said.
Mann's group's study collected additional data for the centuries before the mid-19th century, when scientists began recording temperatures.
Their previous study depended on tree rings, and some critics said it was not a reliable way to reconstruct past climate over a long period. Mann said that while it's not always true that tree rings aren't reliable, his team decided to conduct a new study that didn't depend on them.
They took data from other natural sources of clues about past climate - corals, ice cores and lake and cave sediments.
"We found we got more or less the same answer," Mann said. The recent temperature increase is an anomaly over 1,300 years without using tree rings, and for 1,700 years if the tree-ring data are used, the study found.
Scientists have observed a warming of about 0.8 degrees Celsius during the past century. Mann said there was a burst of about 0.3 degrees from about 1900 to 1950. Then, in the 1950s to 1970s, temperatures were flat or showed a slight cooling, because heavy particle pollution, which has a cooling effect, masked the heating effect of greenhouse gases, Mann said.
Another, larger increase of temperature has been recorded in the past 30 years, he said, due largely to the increase of greenhouse gases. Particle pollution was reduced as a result of clean-air laws in the U.S. and other countries.
77 Comments so far
Show AllIt never happened ~Namaste~. We will always be friends.
It is well proven that in a closed biological system (such as earth) excessive waste products will do you in. Green plants are the chief cleansing agent. They must be in a high proportion of plants to animals. Every kid with a natural balanced aquarium knows that.
I agree with wcdevins and others who have said that we do not have time to quibble over how much global warming caused by human activity. There is already enough evidence to illustrate that our wastes are harmful and that we are the tipping factor.
There is sufficient warning to propel us to cut down on burning carbon (gas, oil, coal), reduce waste emissions, plant more trees and encourage contraception. Like Hillbillybob, each of us can do a little. On the larger scale, we could immediately make a difference by reducing all non-peaceful, non-humanistic uses of energy and by clamoring for clean renewable energy from wind, solar, tidal, geothermal.
Joe
Joe -- I agree with everything in your post with the exception of the word "quibble". I believe it is very important philosophically to understand what humans are capable of doing and to fashion a world view that entails living sustainably based firmly in that world view.
Despite its practical invisibility under the glitter of corporate culture, our actions develop from our world views, so the *basis* of our thinking is very important.
There's a 50 year delay in effects of Global Warning ..
which begins with industtrial "revolution" --
This is Capitalism's suicidal notions in play --
This is patriarchy's war on nature - "manifest Destiny" in play --
Suicidal concepts for all life on planet --
"According to all myth, the female - not the male -- gives life"
I agree capitalism (really more accurately corporatism) is destroying the planet.
OTH when you say "According to all myth, the female - not the male -- gives life" I'd say tell that to Sarah Palin when you she cruelly shoots a wolf with a shotgun from an airplane. Identity politics is incredibly unhelpful at this point we are all in the together and some of our best friends are men like Chomsky, and Zinn and some of worst enemies are women like Marget Thatcher, Janet Reno, Madeline Albright, and Sarah Palin.
I kindly suggest you find another signature because I am going to call you on the untruthfulness of that every time I see it...
KEM: I'm glad I could summon you back from the ethers! Shades of King Arthur calling for Merlin!
ENLIVEN: Love the 1:50 AM posting, however, there ARE physical laws around matter. If I am driving at 60 MPH, short of angelic intervention, if I go off the road I will still be traveling at that speed until the momentum wears out OR an object stops me at full impact. Earth is marvelous and will reinvent herself, and some people emulate the best aspects of their Divine heritage to also enact amazing things... BUT, the impacts of global warming are going to be VERY painful. Look at the 2 million lives just disrupted into Texas or a week prior, in Louisiana? How about the floods around the midwest a few weeks prior, or the fires in California, even to my personal favorite spot--Big Sur? I recall when such events, like a major tornado outbreak, were such rarities that LIFE MAGAZINE would make them a cover story. Seemed these things happened about once a decade, now we have several EACH year.
MIMICCS: I LIKE your "out of the box" reasoning on things like the Federal Reserve. Sometimes your willingness to go against the grain makes perfect sense and you indeed do SEE THROUGH illusions. Your "new global order" material sometimes runs too close to the ravings of David Icke, although there are certainly ELEMENTS of truth in that thesis. When it comes to global warming, either you do not LOVE the earth as a living being and therefore can be so callous in your dismissal of the ravages against her, the paroxysms of overkill that are EVERYwhere in evidence; or maybe you could care less about the people, all those coastal types who say live in low lying areas like Bangladesh. You're basically saying we should all stay still, it's all perfectly safe, pay no attention to the ILLUSION of global warming, just go on doing what you're doing, it's a conspiracy theory brought forth by those who could make a buck by selling the green super market bag. PULEASE......... here's where YOU are acting like one of those Southern Baptist preachers who culls the Bible for ONLY THAT which coincides with his own preconceived conclusions.
Maybe you should just BE with nature for a few days and put aside your prejudicial "logic" and listen to HER. She is bleeding and aching... her children (all the species) are being massacred at an UNPRECEDENTED rate... programs on National Geographic and other Nature shows have chronicled the collapse of local ecosystems when just ONE MEMBER dies. Imagine what the full repurcussions will be when species after species are NOW being decimated in an unapologetic HOLOCAUST against the natural world. Your perspective on this is about as morally solid as Bush telling people to go shopping after 911.
We all have a blindspot... yours is evident with respect to climate change.
You ask a very important question about the weather, and impacts to humankind, which are analogous to momentum that has built up.
Perhaps, we've just grown so used to gov't lies & conspiracies with _9_!_!_ and Iraq, etc … to look up and think _a.g.a.i.n_ about _H.A.A.R.P_?
Science has now been so twisted around the axel of marching CorpoRAPE AMERICAN greed and authoritarian control, that I reasonably suspect that the tricksters are playing GOD with our weather.
Perhaps the latest series of "Global Weather" change ARE caused by HUMANS -- but not so directly by consumption and release of CO2 -- but through carefully controlled cycled bursts of radio frequency energy beamed into our vulnerable atmosphere ?
We know that the military has LONG been interested in any weapon of extreme energy -- and the weather is certainly a good example. Consider being able to convert "mere" temperature changes in volumes of air and water -- into thunder storms -- each with energy of several nuclear bombs.
I really doubt that Hansen and others will be effective in modeling such unnatural phenomenon -- but those same scientists must make use of the RAW weather data and temperature profiles to refine their models.
GiGo: garbage in garbage out
The scientists may be being played ( orchestrated ) with essentially falsified "data" of unnatural origins -- which they consider to be from natural trends in our Planet's nature. Very few initially saw _9_!_!_ for what it was and is -- and I hope to be correct about this -- as the alternative, as KEM so often has reminded us, is inevitable disaster of catastrophic global proportions.
I know that "nature" is not our enemy, and grasp that humans are at times self-destructive. Regardless, I now believe that we're being played AS IF there is a whole "NEW WAR ON NATURE" being waged to control our thinking in FEAR
Please see my other posting this thread { Mmoooooo }, at time stamp:
____ enliven September 14th, 2008 11:23 am ____
Namaste
enliven -- Playing god is what we have done. Now, unfortunately, we've grown to believe we are immortal, that this moment in time in the history of the earth (still our anthropocentric moment) is special. Unfortunately, CO2 acts the same whether it is produced by volcanos or by humans. Perhaps, it is a concept and step similar to that of revolving planets in overcoming the anthropocentrism that blinds us to the true beauty and meaning of existence.
You're so close about human involvement in climate change but are unable to see what is directly in front of you.
I'm quite aware of particle physics and the unified nature of all particulars of the universe. Beyond the fascinating specifics of the science, I have had momentary illuminating experiences, as have many people, where the beauty and truth of existence are displayed in a wondrous unity. (Keats was correct, as cliched as it sometimes sounds.) I agree that the concepts have yet to enter into the "spiritual" thought of most humans.
But take it where it goes naturally. Don't try to jam it into preconceptions. Don't abuse it.
A R R Y,
Thank you, for the understanding reply. I know that many have taken on "god complexes" as a power grab and justification for their heinous greed driven savaging of millions of innocents, their feet of clay will soon be wash out from beneath them.
I am a man of faith, and that carries with it, a perpetual hope connected eternally to the source of all.
Although I can conceive of a world destroyed by man's hubris and HIS flaunting of his imagined superiority over nature ( feminine energy = Gaia ), I do not live in that reality. We do share many conceptualizations, and nod our heads about this consensus reality -- but that is such a small part of what really IS.
And yes, I do take it naturally were it goes, and for me that's a higher purpose of our existence -- not just being given a pretty sandbox world that we can trash when get tired or need a new diaper. Yes humankind is immature, and although childish -- it's also CHILDLIKE for it's profound beauty and grace ( until most of us we "grow" up -- in size, but down in consciousness ).
There is an undercurrent of existence that many refer to as the source stream, of which we and the Earth itself are key elements of manifest expression and experience. What we see as contrasts pro & con to our preferences and liking, creates and inspires OUR thoughts & perceptions -- and that energy is non-physically linked to of the genesis of and propagation of LIFE everywhere.
We humans are likened to the Gods upon the Earth that create our own reality, although in these lower stages of evolved consciousness, many mistakes about that are being made -- none of these are permanent.
I not clear about your meaning, when you mention "Don't try to jam it into preconceptions. Don't abuse it." Perhaps you are referring to that grace that ALLOWS that we may connect spiritually to the ONE ?
I am advocating something as radical as embracing OUR SPIRITUAL SIDES, which is naturally linked to hope for humankind's purpose evolving in a grand arc of many little INDIVIDUAL creations. The great abundance of all that there is -- is quite beyond your individual creation's impacting myself -- much less those of the CorpoRAPISTS -- unless I so choose to allow that ( and let them come "IN" and co-create with me - shudder that thought ).
What does concern me, is how the "default creation" aspects of the masses of our mostly unconscious Americans -- is being wickedly manipulated through the jacka$$ sewer main stream media's tools of PROPAGANDA and PSYOPS conditioning. The power to control people's thoughts and intentions is not the question, it's the power to encourage people to choose to believe those broadcast ideas of what to think about -- which are cleverly framed with powerfully emotionally ladened messages -- that indirectly, is a means of subtle control of the herd mentality or consensus reality.
People's innate drive for FREEDOM, will eventually be triggered by too many abuses -- so this system is naturally provided with a "governor" -- like in an engine so as to preclude self-destruction.
I'm Mmmoooing ( see elsewhere on this thread ) for the herd to become aware of the danger …
The consensus reality is actually composed of both collective conscious and collective unconscious portions, similarly to how our own minds are organized conceptually. Many of the details of a culture's shared "conversations" about various beliefs and practices are subtle and behind the veil of this consensus, although nonetheless quite prominent and powerful.
Each culture, as each individual shapes their own pieces of this shared mentality of hidden consciousness, which is the basis of Jiminy Cricket being the source of "Pinocchio's" lessons about what our conscience is and how it's formed.
The grand arc of creation is not completely unstoppable, as if ALL of the contrasts were to vanish -- and all were perfectly content -- the yearning for our desires and wanting of new experiences and pursuits would also vanish. But that is never going to happen, as the amount of inertia already ginned up is more than enough to perpetually drive countless generations to seek something unprecedented and uniquely chosen as novel representations of themselves.
It's a regularly blasting away "supernova of self-expression" that is behind the veil of OUR consensus reality, and let's not forget to add to this picture and include nature's beasts and plants -- which nurture and sustain us and ALL of LIFE.
One cannot really abuse LIFE itself, as it's eternally present - and it's expressions are ubiquitous.
Namaste
Please see my other posting this thread { Mmoooooo }, at time stamp:
____ enliven September 14th, 2008 11:23 am ____
Fellow posters,
Climate science is complex so it is doubtful a layman can get a good grounding in this field without a few years of reading technical articles.
I've followed this development for about 6 - 7 years now. I am not pessimistic. When I want some serious facts or discussion about the topic I go to:
http://www.columbia.edu/~jeh1/
James Hansen's website, the lead climate scientest at NASA. He's been instrumental in raising awareness.
James is convinced that in order to have a normal planet we need to get back to 350 ppm. By "normal" read "livable". In my reading the more alarming facts:
1. Rapid melting of Tundra in the Arctic and Siberia, freeing vast quantities of methane, a very potent greenhouse gas.
2. The presence of methane hydrates frozen in vast quantities below the sea floor - it is possible that these deposits may melt, releaseing even more methane. There are estimated to be from 35 to 177 quadrillion cubic feet of methane locked up in this manner - global estimates of natural gas are around 6 quadrillion feet.
3. The rapid disappearance of the arctic ice sheet - in my girlfriend's college text the statement is made "the Arctic may be ice-free in 50 years" - actually it might happen any year now (change is proceeding faster than expected).
All of the above represent tipping points that if exceeded, can possibly set an avalance of climate change in motion.
Personally, due to the presense of large powerful centralized governments and large powerful corporations, I feel we are pretty much screwed - these governments and corporations have other agendas - wealth and power come first, the hell with mass extinction and runaway climate change.
Public awareness will raise only when it starts to get blatantly unbearable. Then perhaps we can prosecute and imprison some of the oil company execs and politicians who worked to delay action. I suspect it will be too late at that point to prevent runaway climate change, leading to mass extinctions of plants and animals, perhaps making the planet unlivable for humans.
:)
Tanstaafl.
PS Thanks for the link.
PS Thanks for the link.
How can you write you're not pessimistic and "we are pretty much screwed" in the same comment? Just struck me odd.
I agree about awareness. Its going to have to get worse than this to get people's attention. There might not be time to arrest and prosecute any perps, but there might be mandatory conservation and rationing backed up with martial law. Not to mention millions of refugees.
Wasilla is gonna sink in the muck, Sarah.
I wasn't banned, ___ some of my comments keep erasing when I hit submit and I get a message that says ___ access dennied. ___ I'm wasn't anywhere near the 1,000 word limit limit or used any frightful language.
BTW, the author of this link is 100% correect. What he writes is the bottom line, whether global warming is man caused or not.
There is no use of anyone arguing with his reasoning and findings and what he wrote is the most important paper ever written by man. Those who deny it and say he is wrong need to get a house cat and have it stare at thier bare body for an hour or two.
http://www.energybulletin.net/3647.html
~Kem Patrick~
I had an access denied recently. It was a new article in the early afternoon. I went back to it in the evening and everything worked fine.
In some ways the hockeystick is counterproductive. There are so many assumptions and so much fossil data that can be twisted and picked apart one piece at a time, and the "CO2 increases lag temp increases" thing.
There is a broad scientific consenus that the CO2 and tmperature data since the industrial revolution hangs together, and despite the inaccuracies of the models, more fossil fuel CO2 = more global warming. There just isn't as broad a consensus among governmental leaders, indusry and lay people - leaving the subject open to lay pundits, hired opinions, and folks that just don't want to believe what is happening every day.
The models tell us that somewhere arounf 450 ppm all the cyclical stuff (solar cycle, El Nino, La Nina...) and "global dimming" become dwarfed by the CO2 greenhouse efect and wildcard positive feedbacks. Its already getting bad in the north at 387 ppm, and signs things may be starting to "spiral".
What are the chances Sarah will spend her golden years in the lower 48 because Wasilla warmed up sank into the muck?
Kem and anyone else.
Don't worry about CD it is nothing but a venting hole. It is not going to change the thinking of McCain or Obama or Bush. I have seen from far right to far left and just off the wall postings and have you noticed a change in those running for President? So go ahead and knock yourself out posting and sharing web sites to back you position if it makes you feel like you are doing something. Trouble is it is doing nothing but giving CD a list of who is right and who left on some issues. Your real name, address and phone number. Save them time go out and protest and get arrested.
i agree with you hp and i've said before we posters here feel frustrated cos we know we are in the minority and can't make any 'effective' changes.
but personally, it gives me a good feeling to communicate with like-minded people (for the most part anyway) and not have to see the incredulous looks i get from others around me when i talk about issues such as this.............
every day that heat sink is getting larger. I notice here in the country as using a well for water it takes so little to notice a change. Now I am several hundred feet above sea level but the well water level can drop 10 to 20 feet in a matter of a couple weeks.
More people if they are worried about water should put in a cistern to collect rain water.
KEM:
Kem can always go under a different name. Just go to Hotmail, set up a different E mail account and then go to CD as a new member. He could use KEMM if he wanted. He knows what must have pissed them off so don't go there. Of if that doesn't work just buy a used lap top so it gives a different computer number being used to CD. I know that our names and E mailed are shared since I went to other sites to sign up and used a different name it said my name was wrong and wouldn't let me go sign up so I did as I mentioned above. V
Coco and Siouxrose,
I miss KEM also.
I am sure is rather discouraging to apparently be banned for stating what you passionately believe is important.
KEM stated his posts were removed IIRC.
I like reading MiMiCcS too although is seems to me that his logic is backwards. He equates acquiescence of a man-accelerated increasing global carbon footprint with a superstitious religious belief. While in reality, the belief of AGW is based on more current trending data than he is citing. James Hansen and other qualified climatoligists have provided irrefutable proof that the last two years have spun out of control on polar ice melt. All you have to do is click here to see that the effect of carbon footprint is not contrived:
http://nsidc.org/arcticseaicenews/
I admit I am more of a defeatist in this regard. Since it takes about thirty years (I've read in nature) for the heat sink (oceans, land and air) to reflect an input change, I feel like most of the existing shoreline is going to be flooded and there is nothing we can do about it. Oil companies apparently have reached the same conclusion with their arctic exploration environmental units and have decided to make all new refineries floating units!
Noun 1. heat sink - a metal conductor specially designed to conduct (and radiate) heat
conductor - a device designed to transmit electricity, heat, etc.
sink - (technology) a process that acts to absorb or remove energy or a substance from a system; "the ocean is a sink for carbon dioxide"
Here is a better definition of the ocean as a "heat sink":
heat sink
n.
1. An environment capable of absorbing heat from an object with which it is in thermal contact without a phase change or an appreciable change in temperature.
2. A protective device that absorbs and dissipates the excess heat generated by a system.
And if you keep adding heat energy to it, all heat sinks reach a point of thermal breakdown where temps soar and the unit fails (whether you're talking about a circuit board heat sink or an ocean.)
I submit that the arctic has his that limit and is next endangering the Greenland ice sheet. That puts us 20 feet underwater at the coasts if it breaks up. If KEM were here, he would elaborate on the worse Methane gas release danger which is being witnessed now according to Greenpeace monitors.
I'm concerned that the large amount of hot air expelled during the election of a new President will seriously tip the world off the edge. Do you think the candidates should use sign language?
What do you fear? Check the survey on my blog.
www.dangerouscreation.com
KEM PATRICK: Where are you? Are you on an expedition to save the Polar Bears?
no, siouxrose, kem is pissed off cos he was denied access or something. and he said he was never gonna post again. but i've seen him over on another thread. he'll be back, don't worry............you can't keep a good man down.
Yes Kem I too miss your comments on global warming. - I swear I get the same forbidding "Access Denied" message as you when I sign in and perhaps under other circumstances. It goes away if you click the back button a couple of times. It looks like a programming bug. I don't think CD is / would deliberately keep you away.
Joe
mimiccs:
Yes history has told of warming and cooling but you step over the one point you use to make the warming and cooling argument. It is the short time that the warming has happened. When half of Florida is under water the WTC is under 20 feet of water what will be the economic impact be? Iraq will be a drop in the bucket on the costs. Do you feel America or even the world can survive that? War will break out over food water , oil like never before.
Do you know how much warming we have had over the last 130 years? Do you? How about 0.6 deg C? Thats hardly causing "rapid warming".
The warming you are talking about is just speculative terrorism. The models can predict cows can fly given enough free parameters, and in the world of IPCC consensus science, parameters are free.
Haven't you learned anything, MiMiCcS? All science is "consensus science". Sometimes the consensus changes or evolves.
You just don't like this consensus.
Sorry, consensus is a political term. IPCC is a political organization. Science has always been about skepticism. Hypothesis can not be proven, only disproven. Skepticism is required to disprove unfounded hypothesis. Discourage skepticism, and hoaxes like AGW are possible, encouraged by the political and corporate hacks who will profit from them.
Well, you're wrong again, MiMiCcS. Consensus simply means "general agreement". If you persist on seeing it as a "political" term, you are narrowing the discussion to leave out what you would prefer to leave out. That in itself is a kind of political decision on your part.
BTW, Galileo and the other Renaissance scinteists were certainly working in a "consensus". They corresponded with each other incessantly and developed a consensus which made further research possible.
While Bush and his new Look Alike have their heads buried in the sand people like you can't see as your head is buried up Bush's arse
CO2 from burning fossil fuels is the overwhelming cause of recent global climate change. This is the conclusion of decades of study subjected to decades of peer review. There are still some that try to prop up “scientific” reasons why evolution doesn’t exists (LOL!). My point is that there are always people outside of rational reason (exhibit A, MiMiCcS), and they will never be swayed by rational debate. These people need to be told that they are wrong, and then just ignored.
MiMiCcs: You are wrong.
So thats your idea of debate?
http://www.sws.uiuc.edu/hilites/skepticism/skepticism.htm
Theories are by definition not proven. And there is zero proof mans CO2 has caused Global Warming (not sating there has not been Global warming.
Link me to your best scientific article proving CO2 from man has caused todays warming, maybe I am wrong.
As the article I linked to shows, skepticism and debate should continue. Thats good science.
Authoritarian debates are a lot like American elections -- the outcome is predetermined
Namaste
The desired outcome can be pre-determined by authoritarians only if individuals inside the consensus reality are ignorant that their reality is largely an illusion (outside their personal experiences).
A collective awakening of the herd to truth, or the reality that exists outside the consensus reality that they provide with their control over the news, publishing and education, is their great fear. This is why Orwell said truth in the time of universal deception is considered a revolutionary act. All revolutions must be crushed, and so must the truth that lies outside the consensus, it must be controlled.
Revolution (peaceful) can only be sparked by those outside the consensus reality, and while the odds are low that it can be sparked, the outcome is favourable if it is since the herd is many, and those who control them are few. If the herd is alerted to the truth, and collectively accepts it as truth, then the consensus reality given by authoritarians who use their control over the herds reality for evil intentions is removed, and the herd stampedes to safety.
It is all well and good to live within your spiritual self, but then your physical self is still under control of authoritarians, and like cattle, you have no control over the selection process as to which one will be sacrificed for the Gods or for food (the analogy is for cattle not humans).
So I offer my truth. Of course, truth outside the consensus reality must kept outside. This pseudo sciences such as psychology and psychiatry have been created for this purpose (as well as to help with the psyops of military and intelligence forces). Those who have a view outside the consensus, well, if being called a "denialist" does not work, or "conspiracy theorist" does not shut you up, your sanity gets questioned. The treatment and drugs are a way of brainwashing you to accept the consensus. So in the old days they burned the witches, today they just give them drugs (meds) and therapy. Both are effective, at least the meds and therapy produce less CO2, although you do keep on consuming resources. So maybe the old ways are more efficient. LOL.
Well stated,
although I favor the spiritual side as that part of the maddening herd, that is essentially being thwarted foremost, through carefully crafted pattern of thought.
People are innately good and moral, and it is only when constantly bombarded with FEAR inducing terror, that they lose connection with their brain's higher level cerebral functioning -- and resort to primitive lower functioning brain stem thinking -- essentially becoming a PSYOPS lobotomized shadow of how they really are.
It is the intention of each person, which is a combination of herd behavior and individual expression, that is being manipulated -- so as long as the authoritarians can entrain a pattern of thinking in fearful modes. The problem is that the brain adapts and new techniques and tactics must be substituted, to suppress the inevitable times when the awareness begins to re-emerge.
Because each of us has access to our own thinking, and a portion of the collective patterns -- the system is inherently unstable, and the jacka$$ sewer main stream media MUST maintain control by constantly re-imprint new forms of thinking. The targeted marketing "hidden persuader" aspects of PROPAGANDA PSYOPS makes excellent use of wide reaching data mining of most individuals' web purchasing decisions, bank accounts, amazon wish lists, Facebook and blogging content, google searches, polls, and are also mapped to compensate for regional differences. Test markets are used to explore "trial balloons" for politicians as well to optimize the master programmers of "herd thinking".
Regardless, the innate freedom seeking nature of humankind is going to always be percolating up and re-emerging -- and the juggling act is now focusing on false prophets and leaders to inspire just a little redemption of those urges -- to attempt to force submission once again -- and avoid the rumbling discontent to escape and resulting widespread stampeding ( as MiMiCcS illustrates well ).
Temple Grandin is renown in her study of herd mentality for humane animal killing, in that most of the slaughter houses use her designs of gradually curving pathways -- to hide the visual aspects of what is coming, so that the portion of the herd in the very front do not become spooked and inflict the meat with high levels of stress hormones, nor enable any communication for any reason for the rest of the herd's REAL NEED to attempts to escape ( stampede - if they wish to LIVE ).
PSOPS is those curving walls, that leads us HUMANS around with careful choices of thinking patterns to match diverse American perceptions of various realities.
Where do you think that they are taking us ? How much "wool", "war", and "winnings" will they fleece this time ? How much is too much ?
I'm MMOOOOOooooo for your safety -- can you hear the call to stampede yet ?
Namaste « Presence »
« We must be the change we wish to see in the world » — Gandhi
« There is a sufficiency in the world for man’s need but not for man’s greed » — Gandhi
« We adopt the means of nonviolence because our end is a community at peace with itself » — ML King
Even a healthy skepticism is no match for an inevitable paradigm shift. Of course you are correct about the day-to-day meanderings of science. But what is the bigger context that bridges between drastically different points of view ?
Sometimes, a phase inversion effect is necessary to shake out the old world view.
For example the word "revolution" itself, carries it current primary meaning as a direct consequence of the shattering of an outdated paradigm, for one in which the Earth REVOLVES around the sun. The words "revolt" and "rebellion" were sufficient before that immense transformation of thinking occurred.
Namaste
Reasoning and thought is the peaceful bridge between two opposing points of view. War is of course the unpeaceful bridge, and upon meeting in the center, one belief is destroyed and the other belief lives on to rule the day.
The outdated paradigm, where the sun revolves around the sun (religon, thesis), was challenged with the theory the earth revolves the sun (science, anti-thesis). This then synthesized to the religion of Social Darwinism (pseudo science), where science and religion seem to co-exist, albeit uncomfortably. The American and French Revolutions were necessary steps in the process, as Americas newly formed secular government was the bridge to the New World of secularism coexisting with religion.
The prevention of intelligent debate, as in AGW, is a form of intellectual war on the unpeaceful bridge. Critics are labelled as denialists, much as Galileo was labelled as a heretic. Galileo had powerful allies among the illuminated elite who began a revolution that sought the end of religion and nationalism, and resulted in the synthesis we see today, which includes Globalization. Otherwise, today the sun would still revolve around the earth. We would continue in the Dark Ages.
AGW is simply a new tool of this religion, whose beliefs include superiority of certain races, eugenics and neo-malthusian concepts. Intelligent debate will not be allowed on this issue, unless of course, someone from the top intervenes, which is unlikely.
It appears to me that the next revolution, or paradigm shift, will lead to a reality where a new religion, one where mans seeks to evolve to his potential to be god, as opposed to worshiping an omnipotent god. This religion will rely on the science of eugenics and the elimination of inferior races and genetically deficient beings. It will be protected by the Totalitarian Global Government that will come about at the end of the Globalization process. It may be under these circumstances that pure science will be free of political interference.
Before WW I, there was some debate as to how to bring about this great change. It was decided that war was the means. After seeing how counterproductive it was to kill off the most genetically fit, in the 60's, they decided it might be enough to substitute a number of external threats with smaller wars.
And so we have had a century of change. It might be another great war is necessay to facilitate the next paradigm shift, or perhaps if enough people believe in AGW, that might be the bloodless revolution (might have to hand a few of us skeptics though). I can not say.
But you are right, change is coming, skepticism or not. Those bringing it likely justify their actions as the means justifies the end. Evil can be used to bring about Good, so they say. I believe it is just rationalization however, a way to get those at the lower levels behind the program and execute orders. Power corrupts, absolute power corrupts absolutely. Of that I have no doubt.
The science is clear here the top 11 warmest years on record have in the last 13 years:
http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2007/12/071213101419.htm
It has nothing to do with the new world order or conspiracy that is the physical reality we are facing. If we don't get off the oil teat and start building more windmills and mass transit like they are doing in Europe the next 20 years are going to be ugly for us all. Hopefully we can all be smart enough to do this is in a calm, slow power down decntralist co-ops and community gardens sort of way but if not it's going to look a lot like Road Warrior in 2030 IMO. That is change of course but not of any good kind I assure you.
Consensus reality is only an approximation.
Science ( and society's overall consensus ) can take a long time to correct for certain variable points of view, especially those that deeply desire their reality to maintain ( like Earth centric "solar" system, creationism, "free" markets ).
MiMiCcS is far from alone in a being in a different point of view and model of "current reality". I have no desire to dispute your personal beliefs, as that would only strengthen your position and resolve.
Do you realize that by arguing with MiMiCcS, about "what is", that you actually create a larger expansion of that reality that you claim to deny. That seems counterproductive to me.
Namaste
What are you talking about? The whole point of science is to base reality on observation, evidence, and analysis. You may not believe in the methods of science, but that's another discussion. Personally, I believe in a kind of yin/yang of analysis and creativity/inspiration. But that's also another discussion.
I think it is important, especially, to correct errors in understanding that would perpetuate ignorance. It is not somebody's personal "reality" that science progresses by means of the scientific method within a consensus; it is a fact. Misunderstanding this fact could lead to all kinds of silly (and dangerous) fantasies.
People have to know what they are actually saying and what it means. We could all become lotus-eaters, but it would be the least useful thing we could do.
But, really, I don't know what you mean. I can't "create a larger expansion of reality that I claim to deny." I'm not denying reality.
????
Perhaps the realms of Quantum Mechanics and the Uncertainty Principle are too far removed from our macrocosmic nominal existence.
The lack of a real surface of solidified matter, is only because it is apparently solid from electron cloud interactions, which are probablistically occupied -- depended upon the state of the observer. Your and my own electrons & orbitals are effectively shared, regardless of your physical juxtaposition -- everything in this universe is entangled in ways we can barely yet understand nor conceptualize.
Perhaps the TRUTH of this fantastic reality, has yet to percolate to your field of study or profession -- but the zero point energy field of "empty" space, and interaction between mind ( thoughts = energy ) and matter ( energy ) are definitively the solid foundation of physics and cosmology.
While each of us has a shared portion of reality that compares well with another's, there are always differences -- even between genetic twins. While this collective or consensus reality surrounds us all, each of us also by virtue of our unique consciousness, creates a personalized perceptual viewpoint.
The study of the intersection between the spiritual and physical forms is further along than most understand, while doctors are currently content with being able to discern if LIFE is present or not -- the real story is much more complex in the manner that LIFE itself ( being formless ) is not amenable to scientific or logical labeling of thingness ( or form-ness ) -- because LIFE as is the same as for consciousness -- and both are w/o form ( and exist both in the physical and non-physical realities ).
It is the spiritual or non-physical dimension ( w/o form ) that provides the ENLIVENING allowing for form to become manifest ( as the stillness between notes allows the sounds themselves to be heard -- and the space between the stars provides the allowing for the stars to become manifest ).
I am a spiritual being who has physical expression -- although many people still live their lives AS IF they were purely physical beings ( some of which sometimes have spiritual experiences ). The linkage between the two is that LIFE itself is beyond mere physicality ( it is formless ), and that we in fact share expressions of ourselves simultaneously in both physical and non-physical realms.
Namaste
P. S. For more of this explanation, please see my other article posting at time stamp :
___ enliven September 11th, 2008 10:44 pm ___
and another article posting at time stamp :
___ enliven September 13th, 2008 10:34 pm ___
Mann likes to cherry pick his data and exclude date that does nopt produce his hockey stick. Plus it does not include the recent years of global cooling.
More about it here.
http://www.climateaudit.org/?p=3608#comments
But then, of course, the world has been warming since the last ice age, with some cycles of unusual cooling and warming, Little Ice Age (cooling), MWP (warming), and of course the warming of the 20th century (which had 30 years cycles of cooling and warming) over the last 700 years.
We have been in an interglacial for over 12,000 years and temperatures have increased 5-6 degrees C and sea levels have risen 120 meters since the last ice age, and will certainly warm some more before the next ice age which has come on average over the last 600,000, at about 12,000 years into every interglacial.
The climate in the past 600,000 years has shown us to be in an ice age 80% of the time. This warming is really a breath of fresh air for man and anything green, as a species we have flourished. Ice ages kill.
The idea that the planets climate does not change unless man is involved is a myth at best, a criminal and government backed con at worst.
Please think before you post. What you wrote would make sense if conditions had remained the same on the Earth for the past 600,000 years and millions of tons of CO2 weren't being dumped in the atmosphere every year.
"Forget everything you've heard about airlines and CO2 emissions. The news is much worse than anyone thought.
A recently disclosed report finds that airlines are spewing 20 percent more carbon dioxide into the environment than previously estimated and the amount could hit 1.5 billion tons a year by 2025. That's far more than even the worst-case predictions laid out by the International Panel on Climate Change.
If you're looking to put that number in perspective, the European Union currently emits 3.1 billion tons of CO2 annually. Yup, that's the entire 27-nation, 457 million person EU.
The report, "Trends in Global Aviation Noise and Emissions from Commercial Aviation for 2000 to 2025," is among the most authoritative estimates of the industry's growth in emissions. It was produced by the U.S. Department of Transportation, Eurocontrol, the Manchester Metropolitan University and the technology company QinetiQ. They used a variety of models to calculate current fuel use, then projected out to 2025 based on these findings and anticipated increases in air travel.
"Growth of CO2 emissions on this scale will comfortably outstrip any gains made by improved technology and ensure aviation is an even larger contributor to global warming by 2025 than previously thought,...."
http://blog.wired.com/cars/2008/05/airline-emissio.html
Ok, but you know man only accounts for 3% of total CO2 global emissions and that the total CO2 emitted as CO2 from all sources is over 600 billion tons annually (200 billion tons carbon).
In fact, the atmosphere at any moment holds over 2 trillion tons of CO2 (760 billion CO2 as Carbon)
Tell me what you "think" about that.
That 600b tons of CO2 equiv. minus the 3% of man-made is the amount that the biosphere is able to recycle in its various processes resulting in a stable global average temp. Add the 3% man-made CO2 equiv. and the temp goes up. Subtract the 3% and the temp goes back down to the stable level. Our gluttonous fossil consumption is one of the most wicked elements of the capitalist agenda. We have a mountain of good reasons to stop it. Stabilize the temps, lose the pollution, stifle the guttony, starve the capitalist beast, emancipate the people, save the lives of innocent civilians, etc.
MiMiCcS you're so right about this government backed con. This is the worse conspiracy of all time. But I have a solution. You see the conspiracy is caused by brain wave leakage. You just need to tighten that aluminum helmet you wear and then get back in your padded room. Everything will be okay once you get your meds.
You have disproven intelligent design. Congratulations.
Actually, psychology is another pseudoscience used by the conspiracy. Stay away from their meds. But if you live in the Us, the meds are in your food and water, that kind of explains the lack of intelligent life in the US.
"The idea that the planets climate does not change unless man is involved is a myth at best, a criminal and government backed con at worst."
Please don't say silly things like that. At least stick to your own blatant cherry-picking. Nobody thinks that " the planets climate does not change unless man is involved..." Your attempt at looking rational is all for naught when you insert a ridiculous statement like that.
Most people on this site will not even consider the possibility that climate change happening today has nothing to do with man, it's part of the religion, the consensus has spoken. I have seen comment after comment blaming pretty much every weather event from hurricanes, drought, flood, even cooling on mans CO2, so do not say "nobody thinks" that. The concept is pervasive on MSM coverage and government scientists who have been politicized who imply this is so.
What gives you the insight to believe such an assumption about most folks on this site? I believe this misstatement to be a mirror into your own beliefs and motivations and proves nothing at all about the opinions of those who post here.
When more than 90% of the scientific community finds validity in the notion that the dumping of thousands of tons of carbon and other substances proven to cause warming and prevent the release of heat into our environment one might surmise a certain validity to the argument.
You seem to find a certain validity in your refutation of man made warming in the fact that our planet has shown temperature variations through the ages, something noone here has refuted. Yet you use this to hang your hat upon the hook that all man made global warming is myth and should be ignored. I've no idea why you would take up such a ridiculous and unscientific position. Perhaps, in your zeal to prove such a notion your overlook the simplest answer, we do not seek to change the natural variations of our planets course, only to bring relief from that which man wreaks upon our home.
We see things, not as they are, but as we are.
Anais Nin
&YYY&
The rise in temperature is not the only indicator of our fossil fuel excesses. A large amount of the extra energy trapped by the greenhouse blanket doesn't actually register as increased temperature of atmosphere. Instead the heat goes into the great heat capacity storage of the oceans, and into melting the ice sheets. That does not immediately register in temperature indicators like tree rings, corals, sediments and sea level and ground temperature indicators used by studies to see the temperatures we experience.
So more energy is trapped and this energy spreads around and does things, like the quickening pace of rising sea levels above the predictions made by the standard climate models. The rising acidity of the oceans is another scary chemical effect of where some of the extra carbon dioxide has gone. All these natural buffers are doing the work of absorbing some of our excesses, and change is happening where we cannot immediately see and feel it. The billions of human beings are slowly cooking themselves in the pot.
Although all visuals are not scientific proof, having a visual aid helps to get your mind wrapped around a subject. I posted these satphoto comparisons a couple days ago, but for those who didn't see it:
A side by side visual comparison of the Arctic melt... and it's not over yet. Note the fact that both the Northwest and Northeast passages are open. Also note the total lack of ice anywhere near Alaska and what appears to be a significant loss of land based ice in Northern Russia and Canada. Land based ice loss contributes to rising sea level.
All of this is within the last 10 weeks. You can adjust the dates to go back even further to compare the entire melt results.
http://igloo.atmos.uiuc.edu/cgi-bin/test/print.sh?fm=09&fd=11&fy=2008&sm...
added 09/13: and this melt was purportedly during a "cold" year (as the denialists readily point out). So far, it's second only to last year for recent stats... and yet may surpass that mark.
I lived in South Florida during Andrew, I watched as the Everglades was more and more drained and paved, and the Great Rain Machine turned into a fire hazard due to drought and the smoke was so thick in Fort Lauderdale I could not go outside.
You cannot tell me that we are not having an impact.
With cities being heat islands, the shear number of pollutants being release into what is essentially a closed ecosystem. It can only take so much.
After 911 we left South Florida because our jobs had be outsourced (sold to Malaysia and Sweden) and we lost our home and had to sell anything of value we could.
We moved to Asheville NC and were near a coal power plant, I got sick from the smoke I mean ER trips sick.
We moved to Greensboro NC when partner got a job there. It too is down wind from coal powered electric plants.
I got sick from the smoke again, on the worst days I could not leave the house or I would have a severe asthma attack requiring epinephrine inhaler.
We now live in the countryside. We found a place that the owners gave up on and abandoned and bought it.
It has 9 acres 2 yard and 7 woods. We are turning the yard into an edible landscape, you cannot get more local grown food than in your own yard.
We will be also replanting the woods with native trees , and orchard. We have also planted bamboo and Giant Sequoias in the yard, they both soak up enormous amounts of CO2, are fire and insect resistant, the Moso bamboo is edible and when mature it is a sustainable timber.
We got rid (junked for recycle) of the old minivan when it kicked the bucket and bought a Nissan that gets 37 mpg as my partner still works in Greensboro. We are also doing a lot of little things to the house to use less, Window film, gaskets in the switch and outlet covers, insulating curtain liners, CFLs and LEDs as the CFLs die and are recycled. We reuse, reduce, and recycle, we buy with an eye to sustainability. least packaging. We are doing what we can and keeping under a budget. eventually we plan on solar / wind and geo thermal and superinsulating the house, metal siding and roof too.
So to repubs that always holler about "Personal Responsibility" Take some, like this Librul Democrat has! We have reduced our carbon footprint by 50% over about 4 years and it is saving us $ and we are more comfortable in our house, and we are saving 100$ a month on power and using 30% of the gasoline we were using in the old van and pickup(still have but use sparingly).
Equality is for Everyone!
So much for being the worse in 15 million years …
___ I'm so surprised !
Namaste
I am very much a believer in global warming but with an open mind. After all the scientists are only about 90% sure it is man made.
My understanding is that there has been no increase in temperature world wide since 2000 and yet I have not heard even an attempted explanation for this aspect of the global warming phenomenon. Does anyone care to comment?
The definitive statements made by James Hansen NASA and Bill Mckibbon, as well as Greenpeace, NOAH, and IPCC show that this is clearly man-made warming. Please let us stop this oil company patter about whether there is warming. THERE is warming and it is becoming a critical problem. 350PPM of Carbon the atmosphere is the outside limit of what we can deal with that gives us about one and two thirds degree of warming.
This will take a hundred years to stabalize even if we stop loading now. This will and is presently giving us negative feedback problems that will become catastrophic as they seems to be happening presently at the 383 PPM to this point! The way things are going it looks like humanity will not be able to control emissions to the atmosphere of 450PPM by 2050.
If that becomes a fact most of humanity will be doomed and we will be looking at a, an eight meter rise in ocean levels, not to mention fresh-water depletion and so many other disasters of species annihilation, pandemics and so many other catastrophic events.
We are a "World On Edge" the name of my documentary.
As typical (and rightly so) of most such studies, this is not direct evidence that human actions are directly or wholly responsible for the measured changes.
BUT here is what is truly beyond all common sense -
would you, in the face of a hurricane, act to create more wind and rain?
would you during an earthquake set off underground explosions and cause more or larger tremors?
would you during a drought seek to scatter rain clouds away?
would you seek to weaken the levies and dams during a flood?
would you during a famine seek to diminish available food supplies?
for a plague, would you act to increase its spread throughout the population?
would you, in the face of any potential disaster, intentionally act to increase the possibilities of its harmful affect?
Or would you act to help prepare for and mitigate the dire consequences?
There are some wonderful sustainable green efforts being undertaken all over the world, but our government and economy and most our transnational corporations are plainly acting in defiance of all common sense, for the sake of a fistful of dollars.
And campaign advertisements and election polls clearly reflect the inability of most voters to relate candidate priorities and their related political agendas with real social responsibility and accountability, and the ultimate consequences of what we decide today and how it will affect us tomorrow.
What will the world be like for my children and grandchildren? Centuries from now, how will our time, our civilization, the once beautiful and pioneering America be perceived?
We did lead the world to a new and prosperous age, but must we now also go the way of all great civilizations before us? Must we inexplicably bring about our own demise just as they did? Or can we be that great society that finally learns to avoid the pitfalls, and overcome our self-absorption and lust, and do the right thing for posterity.
Let's look at the upside -- in southern Greenland a local farmer is getting ready to harvest 50 tons of potatoes. So he's happy!
True, if the glacial ice sheets keep sliding into the Atlantic, the sea level could rise a few feet, drowning some prime waterfront property -- but that would mean land further back would increase in value!
______________
There's a glory in the morning because the earth turns 'round and a promise in the evening when the sun goes down
Natural or man-made, who gives a fuck?
we're all dead no matter who or what is to blame.
would make sense to try to do something about it regardless of the origin.
"The only means of strengthening one's intellect is to make up one's mind about nothing, to let the mind be a thoroughfare for all thoughts." - John Keats
We have global weirding.
It's not just one Texas-sized hurricane named Ike crushing State Farm Insurance and its competitors into the ground. It's 100 such hurricanes. It's not just 175 mph Katrina (which hit as a category 2 with a 38 foot storm surge), but 175 mph Rita and 175 mph Wilma.
As a matter of fact, 2009 is forecast to be a big hurricane season, not this year. I wish us all good luck with that. In particular I wish the State of Florida good luck in taking property insurance public, because no private insurer will touch coastal Florida now. Funny how Republicans love big government when they need it. Roll them dice!
After Houston, maybe Miami or Jville? Up the east coast with a monster?
"Their previous study depended on tree rings, and some critics said it was not a reliable way to reconstruct past climate over a long period. Mann said that while it's not always true that tree rings aren't reliable, his team decided to conduct a new study that didn't depend on them.
They took data from other natural sources of clues about past climate - corals, ice cores and lake and cave sediments."
In other words, as more science comes in (the information Bush told us to wait for) the global warming evidence solidifies and increases. Which means we've wasted years waiting for more evidence when we could have been acting on what we were told years ago. While the deniers continue to fret we are all dying for their ignorance and recalcatrism, both conservative traits.
Devins, you are so right. The reason nothing is being done to protect all of humanity is that the assholes who COULD do anything worthwhile about it are the same assholes who are making $$$trillions on the way things are. They're not worried, they will save their own asses at the last minute like they always do. I say...open a season on the corporate dick heads.
Global Warming began shortly after the Sixties.
Clearly it's cause is Marijuana Smoke released into the atmosphere on a Global Scale.
Sorry Soccer Sarah.....
That's Man Made!
Whoo hooo! I did my part...
I can hear Palin now. Repeal the Clean Air Act! Dump more pollution into the atmosphere! And, of course, bombing Iran or Russia would put a lot of particulate matter into the air.
You know Frank Luntz tried to relabel it "Clear Skies" dont you? He also brought us "Death Tax". etc
As for "clean coal"--ever lived in a house heated by coal? You cannot make it "clean".
Just let the coal companies go up and level Alaska, should create lots of particulates.
I can't help but wonder what was going on 1300 years ago..
wrath of god...?
:)
What was going on 1300 years ago was the Dark Ages -
when the world was ruled by fear and religious intolerance.
Except in the Middle East, where Muslim scholars preserved, extended and innovated from Greek natural philosophy (mathematics, astronomy, etc) to the future benefit of all Western empires.
Today it's ironic that Islam is receiving such a bad press.
and that made it warmer? ( noting 1300-1700? years ago... although both are pretty much the dark ages... noting that we call them the dark ages because so little is known about them... maybe they did make it warmer ;)
actually.. would 300 AD be dark ages? not precisely up on my historic ages...
:)
Up until the 1700s the climate wasn't affected much by man. If it got warmer or cooler it was due to natural phenomena; volcanos, asteroids, dimmer or hotter sun. Then we clued into the energy potential of coal, oil and gas. Since then the climate has been affected by man, as well as what nature throws at us.
The dark ages... Depends on your point of view and where you lived. They weren't at all dark in the middle east, nor in China. If you were Roman then the dark ages started when the Visigoths first sacked Rome, or when their capitol was moved from Rome to Constinapol/Istanbul. If you were a Norseman, then it was a golden age. (grin, they were the guys who went 'a-viking')
The new warm and fuzzy dark ages are here. McPalin will warm and darken things with a bit of nuclear armaggedon. Rapture is little more than a heartbeat away. Until that day, when we all fly away, I hope we can pay...our health insurance.
Global warming is a natural phenomenon that occurs approximately every 1500 years, and is not caused by human-emitted greenhouse gases, says Dennis T. Avery, senior fellow, Hudson Institute. Co-author, "Unstoppable Global Warming: Every 1500 Years" (Rowman & Littlefield)
The author states that this is cyclical. I would like to ask him whether, every 1500 years, the earth's population finds and exploits vast reserves of petroleum and whether, every 1500 years, that population reaches 6,000,000,000.
This is a good point.
If we dont do something about it--whether you think it is caused by man or not(LOL--sorry-just thinking what people from other countries are thinking,...)then THIS is the Dark Ages!
The other ones were fun for my Viking Ancestors. BOO! Really?? Pot?