Amazon

Thursday, October 10, 2013

Day 464: It's Getting Hot in Here...

http://edition.cnn.com/2013/10/10/us/climate-change-study/index.html?hpt=hp_c3

(CNN) -- Average annual temperatures will start to consistently exceed the highest levels previously recorded in as little as seven years in tropical hotspots and within four decades for the majority of the globe if nothing is done to stop climate change, according to a new study published Thursday in the journal Nature.
And by the end of the century, monthly average temperatures will be higher than at any time since at least 1860, according to the study, led by University of Hawaii geographer Camilo Mora.
The effects will be felt first in tropical climates, with the annual temperature range rising beyond the historical range in Manokwari, Indonesia, in 2020, according to a map that accompanies the study on the University of Hawaii website.
Mexico City's date is 2031. It's 2046 in Orlando, and a year later in Washington and New York, according to the group. Anchorage, Alaska, doesn't climb on board until 2071.
"The results shocked us. Regardless of the scenario, changes will be coming soon," Mora said in a statement posted by the university. "Within my generation, whatever climate we were used to will be a thing of the past."

http://www.corbettreport.com/global-warming-minute-why-is-the-ipcc-95-certain-that-climate-change-is-manmade/

In recent days, you’ve probably heard ad nauseum that the UN’s new IPCC report claims that it is “95% certain” that humans are causing climate change.
95% is a very specific number. So where does it come from?
The IPCC uses a “likelihood scale” that assigns percentages to various phrases, ranging from “exceptionally unlikely” (0-1% probability) to “virtually certain” (99-100% probability). This sounds like it is based on a precise scientific measurement or well-defined statistical process, but when it comes to deciding how likely it is that climate change is manmade, this is in fact a subjective decision that is made by the report’s authors.
According to the IPCC: “The approaches used in detection and attribution research […] cannot fully account for all uncertainties, and thus ultimately expert judgment is required to give a calibrated assessment of whether a specific cause is responsible for a given climate change.”
In other words, the “95% probability” that is making all of the headlines is nothing more than an arbitrary number decided on in closed door meetings between the report authors. Still, it serves an important propaganda purpose in giving a veneer of scientific credibility to the decision, one that a media that never bothers to explain these decisions to you thinks you will be too stupid to figure out for yourself: - The Corbett Report

What the hell is going on? No one actually know what the weather is doing, why it's doing it, nor what it plans to be doing in the future. Why are so many people presenting information as fact when it is actually more like a guesstimate? One thing we do know is that the weather has been going up and doing for as long as the Earth has been here. The other thing we know is that our actions most certainly do have negative consequences for the planet and atmosphere including, but not limited to air pollution, ground pollution and water pollution.

There is so much propaganda surrounding the state of the planet and the consequences of our actions that no one knows which information is actually relevant and which is just plain bullshit. Like everything we do and everything we scientifically research, there always ends up being more than one answer/result, all of which have the appropriate supporting data (ei evidence). They can't all be right. Even though this is presented to us clearly, we do not question things like why apples are good one month but bad the next.

There are very few people who actually know what is going on and how things actually work in this elaborate system we function within. The amount of time, effort and dedication it takes to unravel all the mysteries is enormous.

What should be self evident is that we are having a detrimental impact on the planet, animals, atmosphere - well, pretty much everything we touch. Orr look at. Or think about.

What needs to be realized is that if we continue living the way we live then we will be facing some unpleasant consequences down the road. We may understand this intellectually, but we seem to be nowhere near the actual living of this realization. We still live like we are invincible and like all the bad things that are happening are happening far away in some distant realm. Do we really need to wait for us to be personally affected before we take action?

No comments:

Post a Comment