Bush Fiddles While Climate Changes

Bush Fiddles Around
With each passing day and each new bit of calamitous news that greets my senses like pepper spray, I become more and more convinced that George W. Bush is a latter-day Nero, fiddling away while the world falls into ruin. I would almost find it entertaining, were the man not so completely out of tune and the consequences not so dire. It’s one thing to fiddle about while your house is burning down around you; it’s quite another to do so while the whole neighborhood is aflame. But perhaps Mr. Bush, man of faith that he is, simply aims to hasten the Apocalypse, in anticipation that he and his followers will receive deliverance on judgment day. (If that is the case, they better keep plenty of coins handy to give Charon for the crossing.) Regardless of the President’s intentions, he needs to be reminded that we all still reside on this earthly plane and that he has an obligation to do right by it. That includes addressing the issue of carbon dioxide emissions, which—as scientists have been telling us for many years now—are causing global warming. These emissions also represent a threat to ocean life, as reported yesterday by Jonathan Leake in The Sunday Times (UK):

Acid Seas Kill Off Coral Reefs

The world’s coral reefs could disappear within a few decades along with hundreds of species of plankton and shellfish, according to new studies into man’s impact on the oceans.

Researchers have found that carbon dioxide, the gas already blamed for causing global warming, is also raising the acid levels in the sea. The shells of coral and other marine life dissolve in acid. The process is happening so fast that many such species, including coral, crabs, oysters and mussels, may become unable to build and repair their shells and will die out, say the researchers.

“Increased carbon dioxide emissions are making the world’s oceans more acidic and could cause a mass extinction of marine life similar to the one that occurred on land when the dinosaurs disappeared,� said Professor Ken Caldeira of the Carnegie Institution’s global ecology department.

When CO2 produced by burning fossil fuels dissolves in the ocean, it forms carbonic acid. A little of this can benefit marine life by providing carbonate ions — a vital constituent in the biochemical process by which sea creatures such as corals and mollusks build their shells.

Caldeira found, however, that the huge volumes of carbon dioxide being released by humans are dissolving into the oceans so fast that sea creatures can no longer absorb it. Consequently, the levels of carbonic acid are rising and the oceans are “turning sour.â€? more…

My stomach is turning sour, as well. Mr. Bush, please put down the fiddle, pick up a pen, and sign off on the Kyoto Protocol. Regardless of what your political advisors or Michael Crichton or the voices in your head would have you believe, carbon dioxide emissions represent a real danger (as opposed to the concocted danger posed by pre-war Iraq). If you don’t believe me, then listen to your own scientists, like NASA climatologist James Hansen. It’s not too late. If you can hear me over that infernal fiddling, it’s not too late!

About these ads

8 responses

  1. At realclimate, Kiersten Marek wrote: Here is a link to our page which quotes the article and presses for our President to begin addressing these catastrophic environmental issues…

    Kiersten,

    I don’t think G.W. Bush is the biggest reason the U.S. is fiddling while the world climate changes. National Weather Service meteorologists (about 5,500 federal employees at NWS) have been saying skeptical things to the public like … global warming is no more than a statistical fluke … since the 1990s, and may still be saying things like that now.
    http://groups.yahoo.com/group/globalwarming/message/10457

    TV-radio people get much of their training and guidance from NWS staff, then pass the views that they pick up on to the public, almost every day. The explanations these people give the public about the warmer winters of the last 8-10 years in the Upper Midwest are weak or wrong, often blaming warmer temperatures on a lack of a snow cover. They frequently remind the public in their broadcasts, about a recent colder period, typical roller coaster temperatures and alleged near normals … as if these warmer and warmer winters are not that unusual and can be explained away as typical variability in weather.

    Wrong. I blame the government meteorologists and their managers, directors and administrators for a large part of the fiddling while the world climate changes, and I blame Bush too for going along with the misleading and just plain wrong explanations by weather people, Crichton and a few others. The blame should go to many people not just the shrub in the White House.

  2. Interesting, Pat. Thanks for broadening the picture of how this problem is being perpetuated.

  3. Slides mentioned can be viewed with additional detail at:- http://www.climateimc.org/?q=node/312

    Notice the plot of Human population. From 500 million to over 5 billion in under 400 years, the most rapid rise within the past 100 years.

    Next, ‘Heat’ is not ‘absorbed’ in any special manner by these ‘Greenhouse gases’ as ‘heat’ is but the measure of the average kinetic velocity of the molecules, in this case within the atmosphere.

    The commonly quoted ‘average temperature increase’ is also of the planetary surface, and this represents ONLY that kinetic energy NOT as yet conducted to the atmosphere to then produce the effects of Turbulence, including Convection, which is displayed also in the motions of Oceanic currents.

    The energy incident to the surface is seen in the plot of absorbance below, and is encompassed in the lower and upper Visible spectrum (where this energy is consumed by the process of Photosynthesis), and within the lower third of the UV spectrum (NOT REGION).

    To save time retyping, you (and others) should look at
    http://www.climateimc.org/?q=node/312
    where you will see that it is infact the alterations to the planetary surface that are inducing the redistribution to kinetic energy induction, and so are leading weather patterning away from what some would call the ‘normal’.

    Climate is presenting ‘persistence’ and NEVER permanence.

    It should be realised that the climate is progressing out of a glaciation. These glaciations are seen to reoccur within irregularly occuring periods of varying length, see the last side below. This particular period of glaciations is already 2 million years old.

    In the last glaciation (from which present climate is rising), there was permanent snow, with dependant fauna (and I assume flora) somewhere just north of today’s Texas, as example, at around 15,000 years ago. ‘Texas’ itself would have been grassed heavily with ample water from melt as the glaciation reverted to the present warming period.

    Now, we have much marginal terrain (desert like) within the planetary ‘equatorial region’. The ‘temperate region’ is heavily covered in photosynthetic mass (if you imagine the forests removed by Humanity to be present, for illustrative purpose). The ‘Polar Regions’ are now just warming.

    This indicates to the MAJORITY (many of the other ~500 Million tertiary educated members of the public, and also those interested in looking at what is taught pre-tertiary level) in regard to natural climate alterations, that what we are seeing as effect is primarily the NATURAL progressions of the primary CLIMATE oscillation; again see http://www.climateimc.org/?q=node/312 for more detail.

    What ‘climate science’ tries to present however is a ‘new phrase’, that seemingly being “Polar Amplification”, as it seems linguistic dexterity is a more major component of ‘climate education’ than is SCIENCE, and common knowledge (and sense). Perhaps too much ‘political science’ is incorporated in to ‘climate tutorials’.

    It is indeed, as some have mentioned in this thread, that too much ‘politics’ is used in reference to ‘greenhouse warming’. It is that after the ‘greenhouse hypothesis’ FAILED to be validated in its three attempts, it was run into the political arena, where it remains as a platformed ideology, still invalid in it’s implementations of SCIENCE.

    The natural oscillation of climate is well KNOWN, documented and realised as EXISTENT. It is NOT as yet shown that any substantial alterations to this oscillation have been made. It IS noted that additions of KINETIC ENERGY have been made to some events linked to Turbulence. This is recorded as a small increase in surface temperatures, a measure of retained intrinsic KINETIC ENERGY generation within the MATERIALS of the surface. This is link to the alterations OF the MATERIALING present, due to the activities of Humanity within the past 400 years and in particular in the last 100 years.

    These additions of kinetic energy will increase the AMPLITUDE of the short term oscillations of climate, but have little effect on the LONG TERM oscillation. The LONG TERM oscillation is defined by interactions of oscillators such as the planetary axial precession and orbital path variations. You also have the ‘climate systems’ of the Star Sol creating variations in energy output INDEPENDANT of our planetary oscillator’s altogether.

    As such the trivariant of axial precession, orbital variation and Solar Climate form one primary oscillator, with the Solar Climate being the greatest ‘unknown’ variant component, as an example. This alters the placement of land mass surface to the ‘face’ of the system star.

    Is there ‘compelling evidence’ for this being ‘the warmest period in the past 1000 years’, the warmest its been for 5000 years with the highest rate of ‘warming’ for the past 10000 years with all this related to ‘greenhouse concepts’? No not really, let us all think, ICE AGE, and consider when and why the ice retreated.

    Are we at or near a peak in the NATURAL climate oscillation? If you look AT the numerous temperature plots about, you might note the ‘symmetry’ of the ‘wobble’ exhibited.

    See the link again http://www.climateimc.org/?q=node/312 and additional comments.

    If the overall oscillation was still upwards, there would be additive effects for the ‘Positive secondary oscillator output’ with the ‘primary waveform’; this would also limit the ‘subtractive interactions’ effects as these would be working against the overall effect. You would see smaller periods of rapid rise into warmth with cooler periods in between.

    If the overall oscillation was past peak and descending again, the ‘secondary positive additions’ would be ‘subtractive’ and the ‘negative secondary additions’ would be ‘additive’. You would see rapid descent into mini cold period’s tween small periods of relative ‘warmth’. It is presently considered that the climate is in a warming period tween periods of cooling, or even glaciation.

    The primary oscillation will ‘carry’ this mini (secondary) oscillation along, varying the extremes of the ‘mini peaks and troughs’ and the RATE of rise/decline between these shorter periods. You can reference any number of ‘temperature’ plots to note the symmetry of the ‘wobble’.

    This will be the case unless the primary oscillation is at a peak or trough, where the ‘flatness’ of the primary oscillator effect is made ‘transparent’ in effect, and we can see the secondary effects with greatest CLARITY.

    Climate is never still, never has been still, and never will. It is Humanity that has labeled behavior and developed concepts relating to ‘permanence’ when perhaps the notion of ‘persistence’ would have been the better basis of definition.

    Your’s, Peter K. Anderson a.k.a. Hartlod(tm)
    From the PC of Peter K Anderson
    E-Mail: Hartlod@bigpond.com

  4. Beware: Hartlod (also Peter K. Anderson), stalker and spammer from Australia.

    Posted this to fuelcell-energy today:

    – “Hartlod” wrote:
    > Dear Pat N. you might wish to opinion an
    > existence for the ‘greenhouse effect’, …

    For my reply, see: “Bush Fiddles While Climate Changes”:
    http://kmareka.com/index.php/?p=157

    Pat N

    http://groups.yahoo.com/group/fuelcell-energy/

  5. Is that it Pat, all you can do is call those who scrituinse your ‘material’ names?

    AS you well know Pat, my name is Peter K Anderson, known also as “Hartlod”, this word being my username in forums and so i have registered it as a trademark against my name.

    I do not ‘spam’ either Pat, of the two of us it is not myself that makes over 500 attempts to produce reference to themselves with repeated postings of a single article, that would be the action of Pat N. in reality.

    The reality that the rest of us all exist in Pat N., sees the situaton as being:-

    Beware: Pat N., belligerent stalker, spammer and liar.

    Why am i having to notice what PAt N. is doing?
    He has developed a habit of beginning ‘hate threads’ like
    http://pittsburgh.indymedia.org/news/2006/02/22607.php
    so now i must waste some more time on Pat N. simply as he cannot withstand scrutiny of his opinionations.

    Your’s, Peter K. Anderson a.k.a. Hartlod(tm)
    From the PC of Peter K Anderson
    E-Mail: Hartlod@bigpond.com

  6. I don’t want to get into a flame war on this site, Pat N and Peter K, though I am pleased to have informed climate-following people posting here. But we are getting into name calling and that is not good. I hope you will continue to visit our site, but this discussion does not appear to be productive. Thank you!

  7. You are very correct Kiersten, i too have better to do than look over the internet for ‘hate hartlod threads’ began by those few who avoid discussion to produce self promoting propaganda, and am truly sorry to have been forced to impose such a dialogue upon this site.

    I have placed an outline, with additional comments raised from outside discussion, at the link:-

    http://www.climateimc.org/?q=node/312

    (to save typing) and would welcome discussion on the matters there in raised. Feel free to mail me directly if you prefer, i will post general responses to the above link if volume of a particular enquiry suggests such is useful.

    Your’s, Peter K. Anderson a.k.a. Hartlod(tm)
    From the PC of Peter K Anderson
    E-Mail: Hartlod@bigpond.com

  8. Humanity is even the CHILD of ‘climate change’. The existence OF ‘human like apes’, 3 million years approximately, is near totally within the ‘dawn’ of the present (active now for ~2 MILLION years) ‘glaciation cycle’.

    Would HUMANITY be STANDING here ‘NOW’ without the onset OF the present Period of GLACIATIONAL cycles?

    See
    http://www.climateimc.org/?q=node/348

    for an outline presentation.

    Should the CHILD ever try to LEAD, before it can even CRAWL?

    Your’s, Peter K. Anderson a.k.a. Hartlod(tm)
    From the PC of Peter K Anderson
    E-Mail: Hartlod@bigpond.com

Follow

Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.

Join 973 other followers

%d bloggers like this: