• Reply 2481 of 3043
    finetunesfinetunes Posts: 2,065member
    Originally Posted by jazzguru View Post

    Key word: could.

    They have no idea what will happen.

    Neither do you, but what they think will happen is based upon more evidence and science than what you have offered.

    Climate change and insect-borne disease: Facts and figures

    Priya Shetty

    Mosquito larvae: Increased rainfall can create stagnant pools of water where mosquitoes breed


    As the world heats up, ecosystems are visibly struggling to cope with the rapid ecological changes. Global warming has already triggered weather changes ? from flooding and storms to heatwaves and drought ? that are taking a heavy toll on people's health around the world.

    In high-level meetings, developed and developing country governments are busy battling over emission targets. Meanwhile, the world's poor, who bear the biggest disease burdens, can expect soaring rates of ill health.

    This increase will come partly from shifting population dynamics, as people flee flooded coasts or searing deserts for more habitable areas. A rise in diseases carried by insects, such as mosquitoes or ticks, could be a key factor. Climate influences these 'vectors' in many ways ? from controlling the length of their life cycle to influencing breeding conditions.

    Scientists broadly agree that climate change will affect insect-borne diseases, but the exact consequences remain uncertain. Whether warmer, wetter conditions make it easier for vectors such as mosquitoes to multiply and spread disease will depend on a much broader range of ecological and societal factors than just rainfall or temperature.


    Climate scientists say a rise of up to two degrees Celsius more than pre-industrial global temperatures could be manageable, with people only in specific, vulnerable regions suffering catastrophic environmental effects. Any larger temperature increase puts the whole planet's population at risk.


    Initial concerns about climate change in the early 1990sfocused on environmental impacts and all but ignored links with health. But this imbalance is slowly changing as research emerges on the likely effects climate change will have on people's health and the spread of disease.

    This year, for example, The Global Humanitarian Forum (GHF) published a report estimating that 315,000 people die due to climate change every year, and they predict this will rise to half a million by the year 2030. [3] While such estimates of direct deaths remain low relative to the size of the global population, about 310 million people are expected to have suffered ill health because of climate change by 2030.

    Nine out of ten of these people will be in developing countries and the number of healthy years of life lost to environmental change, including climate change, is set to be 500 times higher in Africa than Europe


    Developing countries already bear the brunt of the global disease burden. Their populations are more likely to be undernourished, lack access to clean water and contract infectious diseases such as malaria. They are also dealing with a growing epidemic of chronic diseases such as diabetes and cancer.

    Climate could worsen the problems in many ways. Changing rainfall patterns and sea level rises mean some areas will become drought-prone while others are flooded. Both situations have dire consequences for access to clean water. This, in turn, means a likely spread of waterborne diseases such as cholera and diarrhoea, which alone kills nearly two million children a year.


    One area of particular concern is how climate change will affect the spread of insect-borne diseases. These include dengue fever, malaria, Lyme disease, West Nile virus, Rift Valley fever, chikungunya and yellow fever. They are spread through the bite of 'vectors' such as mosquitoes, ticks and flies.

    Researchers currently focus much of their attention on dengue fever and malaria, partly because the diseases are so prevalent but also because outbreaks seem linked to climate. Increased rainfall in normally dry areas, for example, can create stagnant pools of water where mosquitoes breed.

    But the links between climate and insect-borne disease are far from simple (see Table 1 for potential interactions). The same rainfall increase in wet regions could reduce malaria by washing immature mosquitoes away. Changes in temperature can also have opposing effects, depending on where they occur.

    Generally speaking, the malaria mosquito digests blood quicker and feeds more often in warmer weather, thus speeding up transmission. The parasite meanwhile completes its life cycle more quickly, increasing replication. In theory then, global warming might allow these vectors to spread into areas they weren't previously able to colonise.

    By 2080, up to 320 million more people could be affected by malaria because of these new transmission zones. [6] Worryingly, the disease would then also be spreading to people whose immune systems may never have been exposed to malaria, and who may be more vulnerable as a result.


    The spread of other vector-borne diseases could also increase. The cholera bacteria Vibrio cholerae can live on some species of plankton. Warmer sea temperatures mean more plankton blooms, which could mean the cholera bacteria flourishes, spreading to populations on the warm coasts of countries such as Bangladesh.

    Schistosomiasis, a parasitic disease transmitted by aquatic snails, also seems to be affected by climate. In China, the latitudinal threshold beyond which temperatures were too cold for the snail to live has moved northwards, putting nearly 21 million more people at risk of the disease
  • Reply 2482 of 3043
    finetunesfinetunes Posts: 2,065member
    By Mark Kinver

    Science and environment reporter, BBC News

    22 October 2010 Last updated at 05:53 ET

    Rising temperatures could result in major changes in freshwater ecosystems, the study suggests


    Future warming could have "profound implications" for the stability of freshwater ecosystems, a study warns.

    Researchers said warmer water affected the distribution and size of plankton - tiny organisms that form the basis of food chains in aquatic systems.


    "Our study provides almost the first direct experimental evidence that - in the short-term - if a [freshwater] ecosystem warms up, it has profound implications for the size structure of plankton communities," said lead author Gabriel Yvon-Durocher from Queen Mary, University of London.

    "Essentially, what we observed within the phytoplankton (microscopic plants) community was that it switched from a system that was dominated by larger autotrophs (plants that photosynthesise) to a system that was dominated by smaller autotrophs with a lower standing biomass."

    Dr Yvon-Durocher added that a greater abundance, but lower overall biomass, of smaller phytoplankton had "very important implications for the stability of plankton food webs".

    Scientific article appears in Global Change Biology @
  • Reply 2485 of 3043
    finetunesfinetunes Posts: 2,065member
    Originally Posted by jazzguru View Post

    Global Warming?s Corrupt Science

    William R. L. Anderegg a , 1 , James W. Prall b , Jacob Harold c , and Stephen H. Schneider a , d , 1

    + Author Affiliations

    aDepartment of Biology, Stanford University, Stanford, CA 94305;

    bElectrical and Computer Engineering, University of Toronto, Toronto, ON, Canada M5S 3G4;

    c William and Flora Hewlett Foundation, Palo Alto, CA 94025; and

    dWoods Institute for the Environment, Stanford University, Stanford, CA 94305

    Contributed by Stephen H. Schneider, April 9, 2010 (sent for review December 22, 2009)



    Although preliminary estimates from published literature and expert surveys suggest striking agreement among climate scientists on the tenets of anthropogenic climate change (ACC), the American public expresses substantial doubt about both the anthropogenic cause and the level of scientific agreement underpinning ACC. A broad analysis of the climate scientist community itself, the distribution of credibility of dissenting researchers relative to agreeing researchers, and the level of agreement among top climate experts has not been conducted and would inform future ACC discussions. Here, we use an extensive dataset of 1,372 climate researchers and their publication and citation data to show that (i) 97?98% of the climate researchers most actively publishing in the field support the tenets of ACC outlined by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, and (ii) the relative climate expertise and scientific prominence of the researchers unconvinced of ACC are substantially below that of the convinced researchers.

  • Reply 2486 of 3043
    finetunesfinetunes Posts: 2,065member

    by NPR STAFF

    October 23, 2010


    The more carbon that gets released into the atmosphere, the higher the average temperature rises.

    That's a scientific fact.

    Human activities, such as driving, flying, building and even turning on the lights, are the biggest contributor to the release of carbon.

    That too, is a fact.

    And yet the majority of Republicans running for House and Senate seats this year disagree.

    Ken Buck, the GOP senate candidate in Colorado admits he's a climate change denier. Ron Johnson, who leads in the polls of Wisconsin's senatorial race, has said that "it is far more likely that [climate change] is just sunspot activity or something just in the geologic eons of time where we have changes in the climate."

    And when Christine O'Donnell, the Republican candidate for Senate in Delaware, was asked whether human activity contributes to global warming, she said, "I don't have an opinion on that."

    Conservatives in Congress are turning against the science behind climate change. That means if Republicans take control this November, there's little hope for climate change policy.

    Today's climate change denial trend isn't new. Years ago, when President George W. Bush was in the White House, scientific data on climate change was censored, and some scientists and top-level policymakers resigned in protest.

    Scientific Findings Dismissed

    For 10 years, Rick Piltz worked as a senior official for the Global Change Research Program ? the main governmental office that gathers scientific data on climate change carried out by U.S. researchers.


    "It was an office where the world of science collided with the world of climate politics," Piltz tells NPR's Guy Raz.

    In the spring of 2001, Piltz was putting together a major report for Congress. The report would include clear evidence that tied carbon emissions to a rapid shift in global temperatures.


    Piltz says his team was told "to delete the pages that summarized the findings of the IPCC report. To delete the material about the National Assessment of climate change impacts that had just come out."

    The IPCC, or Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, is the international body that collects climate research from countries around the world. The National Assessment was a similar report that covered research from U.S.-based scientists. In both cases, the result was conclusive: Climate change was happening and human activity was speeding it up.

    But the Bush White House didn't buy it.


    "The expertise had come together to make pretty clear and compelling statements, and to say that you didn't believe it was to say that you didn't want to go along with the preponderance of scientific evidence," Piltz says.

    The science was being politicized. Over the next four years, almost every report Piltz and his team put out was heavily edited. References to climate change or carbon emissions were altered or even deleted.

    By 2005, Piltz couldn't take it anymore. He resigned and told his story to The New York Times.

    A Conservative Who Spoke Up ? And Paid The Price

    It's a big deal for Republicans in Congress to say they believe that humans are heating the planet.


    "People look at you like you've grown an extra head or something," says Rep. Bob Inglis, a Republican from South Carolina.

    Inglis has represented South Carolina's 4th District for the last 12 years, but this one will be his last.

    In June, Inglis lost the primary bid to Tea Party-backed Republican candidate Trey Gowdy, who accused him of not being conservative enough.

    For the longest time, Inglis says, education, health care issues and the environment have been Democratic issues, while taxes and national security have been Republican issues. Inglis says that's not right.


    "As a Republican, I believe we should be talking about conservation, because that's our heritage. If you go back to Teddy Roosevelt, that's who we are."

    Inglis paid the price for speaking out about the importance of conservation and climate change.


    He admits he may have "committed other heresies," such as voting for TARP and against the troop surge. "But the most enduring problem I had, the one that really was difficult, was just saying that climate change was real and let's do something about it."

    Inglis, who also voted no on cap-and-trade, tried to make climate change palatable for conservatives. He proposed a revenue-neutral tax swap: Payroll taxes would be reduced and the amount of that reduction would be applied as a tax on carbon dioxide emissions ? mainly hitting coal plants and natural gas facilities.


    Inglis also tried to connect the issue of climate change with the issue of national security. "We are dependent on a region of the world that doesn't like us very much for oil. We need to change the game there."

    Inglis even stressed the need to hold the oil and coal companies accountable for their environmental practices.

    Accountability, he says, "is a very bedrock conservative concept ? even a biblical concept."

    Even though Inglis won't be coming back to the Hill to serve another term, he hasn't lost hope in climate change policy. The choice, Inglis says, is clear.


    "Do we play to our strengths? Or do we continue to play to our weakness ? which is playing the oil game."

    Tackling Climate Change Takes Both The Left And The Right

    Bill McKibben, scholar in residence at Middlebury College in Vermont and the founder of, says it is a tragedy that conservatives are turning their back on the science behind climate change.


    "On this issue maybe more than most, we need that interplay of liberal and conservative," he says. "Liberals are good at sort of pointing the way forward in kind of progressive new directions and conservatives are good at providing the anchor that says human nature won't go along with that. That back and forth has been very useful."

    If Republicans take control of the House this November, McKibben says, he doesn't see a future for climate change policy.


    "Look, the Democrats ? with a huge majority ? couldn't pass climate change legislation even of a very, very weak variety this year, so I doubt there'll be any action over the next two years."

    That is, unless conservatives decide to team up with liberals.


    "We desperately need conservatives at the forefront of the fight," McKibben says. "The sooner that conservatives are willing to accept the science, the reality, the sooner we can get to work with their very important help in figuring out what set of prescriptions, what combination of market and regulation will be required in order to deal wi the most serious problem we've ever stumbled into."

  • Reply 2487 of 3043
    finetunesfinetunes Posts: 2,065member

    October 25, 2010 from KQED


    California is the nation's largest dairy state, which means that while cows there produce a lot of milk, they also produce something else ? methane gas.

    And methane is a powerful contributor to climate change.

    Some farmers, at a great up-front cost, are capturing the gas and using it to create renewable electricity for their farms. But by solving one environmental problem, they're running headlong into another.

    Double-Edged Sword

    For nearly 100 years, John Fiscalini's family has run a dairy farm in California's Central Valley.

    And like any other cows, the ones on Fiscalini's farm produce a lot of manure ? about 100 pounds a day.

    That manure fuels some cutting-edge technology. Every few hours, it's flushed, washed out of the barn and collected in large concrete tanks nearby. The tanks trap methane gas that's released from the manure.


    "The gas bubbles up to the top, and there is a pipe that basically comes from each of the two tanks," Fiscalini says.

    The pipe goes to a nearby generator, which looks like a massive car engine. And the generator uses the gas to produce electricity ? enough electricity to run the whole farm.


    "Our farm is completely renewable in the fact that we don't buy electricity from outside sources," Fiscalini says.

    But this is where his problems started. Like any combustion engine, his generator produces air pollution, which contributes to smog. So, even though the digester is reducing one kind of pollution ? greenhouse gases ? it's contributing to another ? smog, which state air officials are trying to prevent. [FT Comment: Exhaust should be CO2 and H2O, that are not components of SMOG. Incomplete combustion would yield CO or carbon monoxide which is a component of SMOG. Just ensure that there is complete combustion. In carbon out put there is a 1:1 input to out put ratio. One carbon from CH4 to one carbon CO2---which is worse methane or CO2?]

    Air Quality Before Climate Change

    After having spent $4 million on his digester, Fiscalini had to add a $200,000 pollution control device. He thinks his experience has discouraged other dairies from investing in digesters.


    "There [are] not many people who wish to follow in my footsteps and build something like this given the fact that they are not economical to build and operate, and most importantly, there will be two agencies that will be all over you," Fiscalini says.

    Being asked to spend money to control pollutants is not an unusual thing to hear from any industry, says Dave Warner, who works for one of those agencies ? the San Joaquin Valley Air Pollution Control District.

    Warner says air pollution here is consistently higher than federal law allows, and asthma rates are among the state's highest. And although California has set some ambitious climate change goals, he says those goals shouldn't come at the cost of air quality.


    "It's been recognized from day one," Warner says. "There should not be sacrifices made to the protection of public health in interest of reduction of greenhouse gases."

    Two other air districts in California have followed San Joaquin Valley and set similar pollution controls, which is good for local air quality, but it leaves farmers back where they started.

    "Good intentions but bad result," says Allen Dusault of Sustainable Conservation, an environmental group in San Francisco. He says interest in digester projects has waned, especially given the financial downturn.


    "We had a lot of private capital looking to come in and build these systems," he says. "And I used to get several calls a week asking me about the different technologies and about the different companies. And today I get almost none."

    Digesters A 'Tough Sell' In California

    Dusault says dairy states like Wisconsin and New York are building digesters at a much faster rate than California because those states don't face the same regulations. He says to get things moving again, affordable pollution control technology will need to be developed.

    Fiscalini agrees that until that happens, the business case for a dairy digester is a tough sell.


    "I really believe it is the right thing to do," Fiscalini says. "It simply needs to be made more available to the masses. The current series of laws that we have don't make digesters profitable."

    California state air officials are now taking a look at how dairy digesters are regulated.

  • Reply 2488 of 3043
    jazzgurujazzguru Posts: 6,435member
    Sea Level Data Shatters The Hype


    Over the last five years, sea level rise rates have significantly declined, from 3.5 mm/year to 2.0 mm/year. Identical to the rise rate for the last century.

  • Reply 2489 of 3043

    If we want to read your links to right wing climate denial blogs we'll seek them out ourselves.

    if you start your own climate denial aggregator we might even seek out yours. You never know.
  • Reply 2490 of 3043
    (You know we love you.)
  • Reply 2492 of 3043
    finetunesfinetunes Posts: 2,065member
    Originally Posted by jazzguru View Post

    Sea Level Data Shatters The Hype

    Over the last five years, sea level rise rates have significantly declined, from 3.5 mm/year to 2.0 mm/year. Identical to the rise rate for the last century.

    Your Earlier Post:

    Originally Posted by jazzguru View Post

    Sea Level Falling In 2010


    We are constantly being told that 2010 is the hottest year ever, and that the polar ice caps are melting down at a record rate. Dr. Hansen tells us to expect 3-6+ metres of sea level rise this century. That would be a minimum of 30 mm/year.


    Only problem is, since the start of the hottest year ever, sea level has fallen 10 mm.

    My response to yours:

    Originally Posted by FineTunes View Post

    The data doesn't support your contention. Appears long term sea levels on the rise.

    Since August 1992 the satellite altimeters have been measuring sea level on a global basis with unprecedented accuracy. The TOPEX/POSEIDON (T/P) satellite mission provided observations of sea level change from 1992 until 2005. ason-1, launched in late 2001 as the successor to T/P, continues this record by providing an estimate of global mean sea level every 10 days with an uncertainty of 3-4 mm. The latest mean sea level time series and maps of regional sea level change can be found on this site.

    My Reply To Your Latest Post:


    The Skeptics:

    Sea level rise is exaggerated


    "We are told sea level is rising and will soon swamp all of our cities. Everybody knows that the Pacific island of Tuvalu is sinking. Around 1990 it became obvious the local tide-gauge did not agree - there was no evidence of 'sinking.' So scientists at Flinders University, Adelaide, set up new, modern, tide-gauges in 12 Pacific islands. Recently, the whole project was abandoned as there was no sign of a change in sea level at any of the 12 islands for the past 16 years." (Vincent Gray).

    The Reality:


    Sea levels are measured by a variety of methods that show close agreement - sediment cores, tidal gauges, satellite measurements. What they find is sea level rise has been steadily accelerating over the past century.

    A common error in climate debate is*drawing conclusions from narrow pieces of data while neglecting the whole picture. A good example is the recent claim that sea level rise is slowing. The data cited is satellite altimeter measurements of*global mean sea level over the past 16 years (Figure 1). The 60 day smoothed average (blue line) seems to indicate*sea level* peaked around the start of 2006. So one might argue that sea levels haven't risen for 3 years. Could one conclude that the long term trend in sea level rise has ended?

    Figure 1: Satellite altimeter measurements of the change global mean sea level with inverse barometer effect (University of Colorado).

    Global mean sea level (eg - the global average height of the ocean) has typically been calculated from tidal gauges. Tide gauges measure the height of the sea surface relative to coastal benchmarks.*The problem with this is the height of the land is not always constant. Tectonic movements can alter it, as well as Glacial Isostatic Adjustment. This is*where land which was formerly pressed down by massive ice sheets, rebounds now that the ice sheets are gone.

    To construct a global historical record of sea levels, tide gauge records are taken from locations away from plate boundaries and*subject to little isostatic rebound. This has been done in A 20th century acceleration in global sea-level rise (Church 2006)*which reconstructs global sea level rise from tide gauges across the globe. An updated version of the sea level plot is displayed in Figure 3:

    Figure 3: Global mean sea level from 1870 to 2006 with one standard deviation error estimates (Church 2008).

    Tidal estimates from sediment cores go even further back to the 1300's. They find sea level rise is close to zero in the early part of the sedimentary record. They then observe an acceleration in*sea-level rise during the 19th and early 20th century. Over the period where the two datasets overlap, there is good agreement between sedimentary records and tidal gauge data (Donnelly 2004, Gehrels 2006).

    What we're most interested in is the long term trends. Figure*[4] shows 20 year trends from the tidal data. From 1880 to the early 1900's, sea level was rising at around 1mm per year. Throughout most of the 20th century, sea levels have been rising at around 2mm per year. In the latter 20th century, it's reached 3mm per year. The five most recent 20-year trends also happen to be the highest values.

    Figure 4: The linear trends in sea level over 20-year periods, with one sigma error on the trend estimates shown by the dotted lines. From 1963 to 1991, there were a series of volcanic eruptions which caused cooling and hence contraction of the upper ocean. This temporarily slowed the rate of sea level rise.

    So a broader view of the historical record reveals that sea level is not just rising. The rate of sea level rise has been increasing since the late 19th century.

  • Reply 2493 of 3043

    That's nice.


    If you want a propganda aggregator, START A BLOG. Fine Tunes just debunks this shit remorselessly every time and you never bother to respond. So just START A BLOG AND TURN THE COMMENTS OFF.
  • Reply 2494 of 3043
    jazzgurujazzguru Posts: 6,435member
    Add more profanity next time, Mumbo. You just might get through to me that way.

    As I have stated before, I am posting links to information that I believe casts serious doubt on the claims of the Anthropogenic Global Warming zealots.

    Read them, or don't. Believe them, or don't.

    Post what you feel are good rebuttals and try to debunk the information, or post meaningless, profanity-laced rants. Or don't.
  • Reply 2495 of 3043
    Originally Posted by jazzguru View Post

    Add more profanity next time, Mumbo. You just might get through to me that way.

    As I have stated before, I am posting links to information that I believe casts serious doubt on the claims of the Anthropogenic Global Warming zealots.

    Read them, or don't. Believe them, or don't.

    Post what you feel are good rebuttals and try to debunk the information, or post meaningless, profanity-laced rants. Or don't.

    More profanity?



    This is not your blog. This is a forum. If you want a climate denier aggregator, start your own climate denier aggregator and stop bumping this thread with horsehit from climate denial blogs. Fine Tunes debunks it and you ignore him again and again, so you don't want to discuss, you just want to post, so you should start a blog. That's what you should do.
  • Reply 2496 of 3043
    jazzgurujazzguru Posts: 6,435member
    Not enough profanity. Maybe you should engage in personal attacks, too. That might work.
  • Reply 2497 of 3043
    Originally Posted by jazzguru View Post

    Not enough profanity. Maybe you should engage in personal attacks, too. That might work.

    Profanity? Yes, I can see why you might level that criticism at me (I used the words tits, balls, anus, cunts and cuntsticks, yes, my apologies.)

    But personal attacks? Where? Is pointing out that this is a forum and not a blog a personal attack? Where is the personal attack? This really is a forum, it really isn't a blog, and you really do ignore Fine Tunes when he debunks the links you post.

    Oh, by the way, I think you should start a blog, because this is something you are clearly very passionate about, and the world really needs more climate denial blogs to cope with the overwhelming, interdigitating, cross-corroborative and stringently cross-checked evidence that man-made climate change is real.

    You could also start an intelligent design blog, if you like, or a 'cigarettes are really safe' blog, or a 'banks aren't greedy blog'. The world really needs more of those, too.
  • Reply 2498 of 3043
    jazzgurujazzguru Posts: 6,435member
    Or maybe I can just keep posting links to relevant information in this thread and you can ignore them.

    You see, when it comes to climate change, I prefer to trust the data and the experts in the field. The problem is, that anyone willing to look beneath the surface will realize that there is no "scientific consensus" regarding the anthropogenic aspect of climate change, and that there are peer-reviewed studies being released all the time that question, challenge, or directly refute claims being made by the Anthropogenic Global Warming zealots.

    I have stated repeatedly that I am in favor of doing more with less and protecting our environment for future generations, and I have already taken steps within my small sphere of influence to do my part.

    But that is not enough for the AGW zealots. It is extremely important to them that I embrace their belief that humanity is destroying the planet by farting too much. That makes it easier for them to impose regulations and controls on the economy, what products and services we can and cannot purchase, etc.

    I am not a scientist, but I have always considered the words "scientist" and "skeptic" to be synonymous. And it is disturbing to me that you and others would rather stifle debate on this subject than consider the possibility that maybe, just maybe, there is some merit to what AGW skeptics are saying.
  • Reply 2499 of 3043
    Originally Posted by jazzguru View Post

    Or maybe I can just keep posting links to relevant information in this thread and you can ignore them.

    You seem to find the concept of a forum problematic.

    If you look on the previous page, you will see that you post twelve links in separate posts to climate denial blogs.

    Fine Tunes debunks several.

    And you ignore him. I think you spend two or three posts on him, and only one is longer than a single line.

    So what you really should do is start a blog. Start a climate denial blog, and turn the comments off. You?re not interested in discussion. We can tell this because you don?t defend any of your posts.

    Start a blog. Turn the comments off. A forum has a ?reply? button so people can engage in debate with you. If you?re not interested in what people have to say, I think a blog would be better for you, and you could stop bumping this thread.
  • Reply 2500 of 3043
    jazzgurujazzguru Posts: 6,435member
    A forum also has an ignore feature. Which I am now employing in your case. Good day.
Sign In or Register to comment.