The Enemy is Nature

[chlamor]

The Enemy is Nature

by Dan Crawford

The War on Nature we have been waging on this planet is going extraordinarily well. When we first invaded thousands of years ago, it seemed like a war that could not be won. The enemy was too big and strong for us to bring down. It is with much pride that I can state today we are very close to an assured victory.

I can already picture the entries in the Universe History books: “Homo sapiens conquer Nature - the greatest force known.” What a day that will be to finally attain the dream we have held for so long!

<snip>

So what if the sacrifice means the extinction of our species. It’s the end goal that matters. Extinction pales in comparison to the prestige of the Victory—defeating Nature itself. No other species has ever been known to do this. We will be the first and perhaps the only, imagine that!

<snip>

If we stick to our guns, full destruction of Nature should be upon us within the next two decades. We are happy to see the increase in exploitation of coal, uranium, oil, gas and metals. This is all very good news. As we continue to deplete these we will quickly concentrate our efforts on to the last few remaining protected areas and literally tear them apart. The forests will finally all come down. I can't wait to watch this all unfold and partake in the victory. Who would give up any of this for the world! March forth, don't stop now, we are almost there!

http://www.kootenaygreen.ca/mambo/index.php

[Psephos]

1. The enemy is overpopulation n/t

[NickofTime]

2. Cleaner Air Means More Global Warming!

from Nature

Nature says man can't figure out how to control nature. Allah knows best.

[chlamor]

3. That article is crap

Global warming isn't even so much about just hotter days. We live in a chemical stew and the forces of nature left to themselves are perfectly capable of rectifying the carnage and confusion wrought by Western Man who publishes such scientific reductionist articles.

The Arrogance of Humanism-David Ehrenfeld

[muriel_volestrangler]

4. Crap? Why?

Can you refute what it says? Have you proof that global dimming did increase over the past decade? If so, why don't you show it to us, rather than dismissing the results of people's work as 'crap' with no reasoning.

[bloom]

6. It looks like a disinformation site.

Maybe it's one of those things Exxon contributes to. It's pretty slick looking.

The article didn't mention CO2 - for instance - it didn't mention much of anything.

It almost seems like the fake news the OP posted.

"Wild says he can only speculate that the use of clean-air technologies in China might be more widespread and efficient than has been thought."

"It is clear that the greenhouse effect has been partly masked in the past by air pollution..."

Really - how is that clear?



Another article from that site:

"Antarctic glaciers in mass retreat"
Michael Hopkin

"Shifting pattern linked to warming on icy peninsula."

"Vaughan suspects that changing ocean currents may be responsible."


-anything but global warming/human causes, eh?




Another article by the same author:

"Excerpts: Did a great flood once surge into the Black Sea, forming the basis of a Biblical tale? Quirin Schiermeier investigates a computer model that has added weight to the idea.

Oceanography: Noah's Flood, Quirin Schiermeier, DOI: 10.1038/430718a, Nature 430, 718 - 719, 04/08/12"



other sites to consider:

http://planetforlife.com/gwarm/glob1000.html

http://www.usgcrp.gov/usgcrp/links/understandinglinks.htm

[muriel_volestrangler]

8. You're kidding me. Haven't you heard of Nature magazine?

It's probably the most respected scientific journal in the world. And it's reporting on a couple of articles in Science - its only serious competitor for that title. It publishes much of the evidence that has proved global warming is occurring. It is not funded by Exxon.

It doesn't mention CO2 because it wouldn't try to explain everything from first principles - it knows its readers understand that the greenhouse effect is caused by carbon dioxide and other gases in the atmosphere. The article isn't about the greenhouse effect itself, but about the phenomenon that may have lessened the warming - until now. Since carbon dioxide isn't involved in global dimming, it doesn't get mentioned in this article.

Wild speculates because he has the data showing the effect, but cannot prove the causes of what he has found. What do you expect him to say? That he has faith without proof? He's a scientist. He's being honest. So why the italics?

It is clear because scientists have measured the incoming solar radiation over the years. That's what the articles you link to in your next post say. So why are you questioning it here?

The article about the Antarctic glaciers says: "Temperature is probably not the only cause, says Vaughan. During the late 1980s there seems to have been a 'blip', during which the glaciers' retreat was curtailed even though temperatures continued to rise. Vaughan suspects that changing ocean currents may be responsible."

In other words, it is impossible for temperature alone to explain the period when the glaciers' retreat slowed down. Far from denying that human causes are responsible, it's saying that the temperature was rising then - but the glaciers wern't retreating as much as they have at other times. So there has to be a non-temperature-related effect involved.

What is the relevance of the Black Sea article to this?

What are your links to sites about global warming for?

[bloom]

7. Some other articles

Why the Sun seems to be 'dimming'

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/4171591.stm



Questions and answers about global dimming

http://www.bbc.co.uk/sn/tvradio/programmes/horizon/dimming_prog_summary.shtml




Dim Sun

Global dimming? Global warming? What's with the globe, anyway?

http://www.grist.org/news/maindish/2004/09/22/keen-dimming/

[muriel_volestrangler]

9. Thank you for those

Those articles show was what known about global dimming until recently. They predict the effect that the Nature article says has now been seen:

As things stand, CO2 levels are projected to rise strongly over coming decades, whereas there are encouraging signs that particle pollution is at last being brought under control.

"We're going to be in a situation unless we act where the cooling pollutant is dropping off while the warming pollutant is going up.

"That means we'll get reducing cooling and increased heating at the same time and that's a problem for us," says Dr Cox.

Even the most pessimistic forecasts of global warming may now have to be drastically revised upwards.

So what about that buffer? As emissions of deadly particulate matter decreased, so did their cooling power. Clouds let the sun shine through and -- behold! -- the greenhouse effect's disguise was cast aside. "Because of this double punch , the global temperature increased enormously," Ohmura concludes. Preliminary results of his, based on radiation records from 1992 to present, support this theory. Key monitoring stations show a resurgence of radiation levels during the 1990s -- not to pre-1958 levels, but enough to expose the true warming potential of greenhouse gases.

Ohmura's preliminary results have now been confirmed by Wild and Pinker. All mean that global warming is likely to be more serious than we thought, up until now. So why do you think the Nature article reads like something sponsored by Exxon?

[bloom]

10. From I saw...

the referenced article and other articles seemed to either put a happy face on the situation or suggest that the causes were local - not a planetary event. Just the kind of thing that Exxon would like people to think.

[muriel_volestrangler]

5. Original link out of date

This one now works: http://www.kootenaygreen.ca/mambo/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=132&Itemid=0