March Twenty Fifth

(Clearly I need to reset the date function on my camera. These were taken about ten hours after the date stamp says they were.)

IMG_1931

IMG_1932

IMG_1933

This is bullshit.

Advertisements

20 thoughts on “March Twenty Fifth

        • The article itself wonders if a twenty-year period is too short for the data.

          I myself, for what it’s worth, have no opinion.

          What is concerning is that an essentially scientific matter has acquired such political significance.

          • It’s politically significant if human activity can be connected with the observations. I myself find the science persuasive; this development was predicted, and now it is happening. This means that some people are being told they have to stop doing things that they want to do, and therefore these people are digging in their heels against any governmental attempt to change the situation. In the process, they are actually persecuting climate scientists (right here in Virginia there was an enormous wave of barratry involving climate research, led by our dinosaur-like Tea Party governer). How can it not be political?

          • There is a significant body of scientific thought which contradicts models blaming global warming on increased atmospheric carbon dioxide through industrial activity.

            Misplaced conclusions, sometimes based on false constructs such as the notorious “hook graph”, may not be beneficial long term to human prospects. Alarmist comparisons with the planet Venus are unhelpful. The subject is much polluted by commercial interest and political ambition.

            That we have climate change is not to be doubted; it has always been with us. It is also highly desirable that the profligate waste of the Earth’s resources and the despoliation of our planet is eliminated, but for the right reasons.

          • (1) I don’t care if people clean up their act, environmentally, for the right or the wrong reasons so long as they clean it up. We may not have time to argue about the reasons.

            (2) It seems to me that scientific ground on which to solidly base climate change skepticism is sketchy at best. The timing is too closely parallel. There was a body of thought for a while that insisted the HIV virus was not the cause of AIDS and that all researchers pursuing ways of dealing with the virus were profiteers or prima donnas of some sort. I even own a book by an otherwise impressive alternative-health writer, who really truly argued that (sparing anyone’s blushes) anal sex was the proximal cause of the disease because of the stress it placed on the immune system. Why buggery had suddenly become so perilous after centuries of history he could not say. Certainly efforts to control viral contagion or replication have resulted in slowing the contagion and progress of the disease, so I’m glad this argument wasn’t allowed to drag on.

            Models of the current climate uptick which completely discount industrial pollution give off that same whiff to me.

            In any event, politicians who dislike the idea of man-induced climate change ought not to abuse climatologists by means o legal harassment, as has happened in this state and elsewhere.
            http://www.physicstoday.org/resource/1/phtoad/v65/i2/p22_s1?bypassSSO=1

          • 1 It is important to clear up for the right reasons to avoid repeating errors or losing the confidence of those you wish to persuade.

            2 There is evidence that warming occurred prior to the rises in atmospheric carbon dioxide, but noise, emotion and irrelevances prevail. There is also a distasteful denigration of those who merely seek the scientific truths in the face of a lobby that is richly funded, not to say self-interested and occasionally corrupt. Yes, “uptick graph” is the accepted term for the record that has been shown unfounded or distorted.

            An open mind, untrammelled by hysteria or vested interests, is required for such an important topic.

          • Richard, sometimes I think you just like to argue with me to be perverse.

            If you are in the law courts and issue the right decision for the wrong reasons, of course you get in trouble. Fruit of the poisoned tree arguments, for example.

            In this case though, we are dealing with a matter in which, if the man-made warming theory is correct, we have limited time in which to avoid irreversible damage; some say we have already passed a point of no return and it is at best a question of minimizing the damage. Meanwhile, it’s inarguable that industrial and carbon pollution cause multiple threats to species across the board.

            Hence, if we work to roll back carbon pollution because we believe it is responsible for climbing temperatures and climate changes, and this belief is wrong, we have still achieved a net gain in world health at the cost of some inconvenience and (primariliy) loss of profit by fossil-fuel companies. If after that we were to find that no human action could affect the trajectory of climate change, we would still be looking at a net gain.

            Whereas, if we do not act and human agency IS the culprit, we’re kinda screwed. Some decisions have to be made in the face of a ticking clock, with the best information available, and it is cheap to refer to this as hysteria. My mind runs backward in time to Lister and puerperal fever.

            I assume that by “distasteful denigration of those who merely seek the scientific truths in the face of a lobby that is richly funded, not to say self-interested and occasionally corrupt” you are referring to the fossil fuel energy lobbies and business lobbies that have bagged relentlessly on academic climate scientists who present the global warming model. The cui bono question makes it difficult to take this phrase seriously if it is meant the other way around.

  1. Looks kind of like the ground around here. Oh wait. Around here, it’s all flower petals from the almond trees, blown loose by gentle spring breezes. My mistake.

  2. We had that last week; all gone by the 25th, probably to celebrate Greece’s National Day: Liberation from the Ottoman empire in 1821. The day was all blue with some shreds of white melting merrily away.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s