naturerecordists
[Top] [All Lists]

Re: Climate change and human connections

Subject: Re: Climate change and human connections
From: "Wild Sanctuary" bigchirp1
Date: Wed Feb 21, 2007 10:56 am ((PST))
Walt, and please note the the draft also included apriori hand-on 
experience reports of many living in different areas throughout the 
world. Greenland, for instance. The Antarctic, for instance. Sites 
all along the northernmost edge Beaufort Sea, for instance. Those 
aren't "computer models." Those are feet-on-the-ground experiences 
and measurements. The computer models are extrapolations of what has 
been seen/measured/weighed. The issues of CO2 are addressed in the 
draft, and in much more detail than what you're addressing.  I'll 
stick with the conculsions in the report, thank you. And I'm not a 
very religious person (at least not the institutional type).

Bernie Krause



>Posted by: "Wild Sanctuary"
>
>>
>>  Having been priviliged to read a complete draft of the recent UNEP
>>  Global Warming report (not yet released in full form) late last Fall,
>>  I am doubtful if most of the several hundred climatologists,
>>  physicists, biologists, and/or naturalists who participated are
>>  terribly "stupid" and/or misinformed. While it's probably best just
>>  to leave things alone and back off from our compulsion to consume,
>>  and while it's likely (as Lovelock suggests) that we'll be superceded
>>  and outlived by the lowly cockroach sooner rather than later, the
>>  human connection to global warming in this instance is supported by
>>  evidence beyond compelling in the report, which I hope will be
>>  released soon to dispel any remaining skepticism on the issue. After
>>  serious worldwide peer review, there was nearly universal consensus
>>  on the language and a 90% level of certainty. And this comes from a
>>  group that can literally erupt in fisticuffs over minor points at
>>  conferences. I've rarely seen this kind of accord.  My money's on
>>  this one, for the moment.
>>
>
>Please note that a great deal of this is based on computer models. When
>they put in the actual conditions for the last billion years, interval
>by interval and those models are verified against what actually happened
>   then there might be a little confidence in them. I spent a chunk of my
>life developing computer models and that was basic.
>
>For instance put in carbon dioxide levels 3000% higher than today. Just
>normal for certain parts of earth's history. It was probably even higher
>before a tiny bit was tied up in coal and oil. The earth did not turn
>into a cinder back then.
>
>Global warming has more of the earmarks of religion than science. It
>needs a lot more science and a lot less promotion of personal choices in
>lifestyle. And a whole lot more realism about what can actually be
>fixed. And a lot more logic about what to fix. You'd think listening to
>folks that we could easily freeze new ice to replace that lost in the
>antarctic or greenland.
>
>Yes, humans are having some effect on the climate. This is particularly
>true in the heat islands of cities (where most weather stations are
>located). But it's a minor blip compared to the several billion years of
>earth's history. During nearly all of which life existed on earth. And
>did well without our fixing. The major changes in the earth are a large
>part of the driving force of evolution. Life adapted through evolution,
>it seems humans think they can say stop to changes in the earth and it
>will not happen. That's not adapting.
>
>No matter how much running around and fixing things we do, the earth's
>climate will vary considerably more than it has in historical times. If
>it pleases you to do something rather than adapting that's fine, it
>won't change much. In the end if humans don't adapt to the major changes
>that are normal, then the cockroach has far more chance of surviving
>than the human species. Denial of the natural part of earth's climate
>has become the norm in global warming discussions. I suppose it's human
>ego to think that all things are a result of us, it's just not so.
>
>There are things that all this energy could do that would have a real
>benefit. How many of you even know the details of your local county's
>comprehensive land use plan? Or had anything to say when they passed it?
>
>Believe what you want, my bet is on the natural earth. If humans don't
>adapt it will crush them and discard them. And they will deserve their fate.
>
>Walt
>
>
>"Microphones are not ears,
>Loudspeakers are not birds,
>A listening room is not nature."
>Klas Strandberg
>Yahoo! Groups Links
>
>
>


-- 
Wild Sanctuary
P. O. Box 536
Glen Ellen, CA 95442
t. 707-996-6677
f. 707-996-0280
http://www.wildsanctuary.com




<Prev in Thread] Current Thread [Next in Thread>
Admin

The University of NSW School of Computer and Engineering takes no responsibility for the contents of this archive. It is purely a compilation of material sent by many people to the naturerecordists mailing list. It has not been checked for accuracy nor its content verified in any way. If you wish to get material removed from the archive or have other queries about the archive e-mail Andrew Taylor at this address: andrewt@cse.unsw.EDU.AU