USA! USA! USA!
- R_P - Jun 10, 2024 - 1:48pm
Words that should be put on the substitutes bench for a year
- ScottFromWyoming - Jun 10, 2024 - 12:42pm
NY Times Strands
- n4ku - Jun 10, 2024 - 12:21pm
NYTimes Connections
- n4ku - Jun 10, 2024 - 12:17pm
Marijuana: Baked News.
- R_P - Jun 10, 2024 - 12:01pm
Climate Change
- R_P - Jun 10, 2024 - 11:45am
Streaming Marantz/HEOS
- rgio - Jun 10, 2024 - 11:43am
Joe Biden
- R_P - Jun 10, 2024 - 10:28am
Israel
- R_P - Jun 10, 2024 - 10:06am
Europe
- thisbody - Jun 10, 2024 - 9:29am
Wordle - daily game
- geoff_morphini - Jun 10, 2024 - 9:23am
June 2024 Photo Theme - Eyes
- fractalv - Jun 10, 2024 - 9:01am
Today in History
- DaveInSaoMiguel - Jun 10, 2024 - 8:38am
What Are You Going To Do Today?
- GeneP59 - Jun 10, 2024 - 8:36am
Radio Paradise Comments
- GeneP59 - Jun 10, 2024 - 8:25am
Trump
- rgio - Jun 10, 2024 - 8:08am
Is there any DOG news out there?
- thisbody - Jun 9, 2024 - 12:38pm
Name My Band
- thisbody - Jun 9, 2024 - 11:57am
Quick! I need a chicken...
- thisbody - Jun 9, 2024 - 10:38am
Breaking News
- thisbody - Jun 9, 2024 - 10:01am
Song of the Day
- Proclivities - Jun 9, 2024 - 8:34am
Mixtape Culture Club
- Steely_D - Jun 8, 2024 - 9:22pm
China
- R_P - Jun 8, 2024 - 7:42pm
Economix
- Bill_J - Jun 8, 2024 - 5:25pm
Gotta Get Your Drink On
- Antigone - Jun 8, 2024 - 2:42pm
Snakes & streaming images. WTH is going on?
- rasta_tiger - Jun 8, 2024 - 2:16pm
Strips, cartoons, illustrations
- R_P - Jun 8, 2024 - 11:28am
Great guitar faces
- thisbody - Jun 8, 2024 - 10:39am
TEXAS
- maryte - Jun 8, 2024 - 9:21am
NASA & other news from space
- Beaker - Jun 8, 2024 - 8:23am
Live Music
- oldviolin - Jun 7, 2024 - 10:03pm
• • • The Once-a-Day • • •
- oldviolin - Jun 7, 2024 - 9:54pm
Republican Party
- kcar - Jun 7, 2024 - 8:11pm
favorite love songs
- Manbird - Jun 7, 2024 - 8:06pm
Lyrics that are stuck in your head today...
- Manbird - Jun 7, 2024 - 8:04pm
What the hell OV?
- oldviolin - Jun 7, 2024 - 7:42pm
Things You Thought Today
- Antigone - Jun 7, 2024 - 4:11pm
Can you afford to retire?
- JrzyTmata - Jun 7, 2024 - 2:05pm
Old timers, crosswords &
- ScottFromWyoming - Jun 7, 2024 - 12:09pm
Military Matters
- R_P - Jun 7, 2024 - 11:31am
Bug Reports & Feature Requests
- Laptopdog - Jun 7, 2024 - 11:09am
Derplahoma!
- Red_Dragon - Jun 7, 2024 - 8:01am
Favorite Quotes
- black321 - Jun 7, 2024 - 7:45am
What makes you smile?
- Red_Dragon - Jun 7, 2024 - 6:32am
Artificial Intelligence
- johkir - Jun 6, 2024 - 3:57pm
Cryptic Posts - Leave Them Guessing
- oldviolin - Jun 6, 2024 - 12:35pm
What's with the Sitar? ...and Robert Plant
- thisbody - Jun 6, 2024 - 11:16am
songs that ROCK!
- thisbody - Jun 6, 2024 - 10:39am
Democratic Party
- kurtster - Jun 5, 2024 - 9:23pm
Canada
- Beaker - Jun 5, 2024 - 1:58pm
the Todd Rundgren topic
- miamizsun - Jun 5, 2024 - 5:00am
Photos you have taken of your walks or hikes.
- MrDill - Jun 5, 2024 - 2:26am
What Makes You Laugh?
- Steely_D - Jun 5, 2024 - 12:44am
Automotive Lust
- KurtfromLaQuinta - Jun 4, 2024 - 9:28pm
Art Show
- Manbird - Jun 4, 2024 - 8:20pm
Bad Poetry
- Isabeau - Jun 4, 2024 - 12:11pm
Classic TV Curiosities
- Isabeau - Jun 4, 2024 - 12:09pm
What's that smell?
- Isabeau - Jun 4, 2024 - 11:50am
Music Videos
- black321 - Jun 4, 2024 - 10:11am
Baseball, anyone?
- ScottFromWyoming - Jun 4, 2024 - 8:28am
Your First Albums
- Manbird - Jun 3, 2024 - 5:42pm
King Crimson
- Steely_D - Jun 3, 2024 - 2:25pm
2024 Elections!
- R_P - Jun 3, 2024 - 10:19am
Your favourite conspiracy theory?
- Beaker - Jun 3, 2024 - 8:00am
Beer
- Red_Dragon - Jun 3, 2024 - 5:20am
Ukraine
- R_P - Jun 2, 2024 - 3:07pm
RP on Twitter
- R_P - Jun 1, 2024 - 2:47pm
Football, soccer, futbol, calcio...
- thisbody - Jun 1, 2024 - 10:20am
What Did You See Today?
- Isabeau - May 31, 2024 - 1:15pm
ONE WORD
- thisbody - May 31, 2024 - 10:39am
May 2024 Photo Theme - Peaceful
- Alchemist - May 30, 2024 - 6:58pm
Human Curated?
- Ipse_Dixit - May 30, 2024 - 2:55pm
Evolution!
- R_P - May 30, 2024 - 12:22pm
Sonos
- konz - May 30, 2024 - 10:26am
Fascism In America
- R_P - May 29, 2024 - 11:01pm
|
Index »
Radio Paradise/General »
General Discussion »
Climate Change
|
Page: Previous 1, 2, 3 ... 125, 126, 127, 128 Next |
Lazy8
Location: The Gallatin Valley of Montana Gender:
|
Posted:
Nov 30, 2009 - 7:53pm |
|
Beaker wrote:Check around - throwing out original source data just isn't done. Sure it is. Try archiving an ice core for twenty years. I'm looking forward to what a whole bunch of sunlight will bring to the facts and claims as laid out by the warmists.
Sure, but be prepared to be right back where we started. Being a sloppy codesmith or a belligerent partisan or even a dishonest scientist doesn't make your conclusions wrong.
|
|
fuh2
Location: Mexican beach paradise Gender:
|
Posted:
Nov 30, 2009 - 7:51pm |
|
Beaker wrote: I'm looking forward to what a whole bunch of sunlight will bring to the facts and claims as laid out by the warmists.
From what I understand, in 1998 there was an unusual global temperature spike that has not been matched until 2007. The Carbon Industry PR machine has used that spike to try to show temperatures are now declining. The last 14 years are the hottest on record and the Himalaya glaciers are now 300-400 vertical feet lower than they were in 1920's. The world pumps 28 BILLION TONS of CO2 into the air every year which is why atmospheric CO2 is increasing 2% a year. CO2 is a proven greenhouse gas. Before the industrial revolution began the atmosphere was at 275 Parts Per Million CO2. It is now 390 PPM and many climatologists agree that we have to get it back down to 350 PPM to keep climate change from spiralling out of control.
|
|
BasmntMadman
Location: Off-White Gardens
|
Posted:
Nov 30, 2009 - 7:01pm |
|
Beaker wrote:Pardon me, but perhaps you've missed the news that the research "data" much of the IPCC conclusions are based upon is a bunch of hooey. Oh, and the 'peer-reviewed' scientists over at the UEA's CRU aren't able to offer up their data for independent analysis. It seems they deliberately deleted it. Climate change data dumpedSo much for scientific repeatability to assure us their calcs are accurate. Everything output by the CRU and New Zealand's NWA is suspect. It all needs to be re-done, by a fresh set of eyes.. All of it. And open-sourcing the data wouldn't hurt either. The original, raw data were thrown out to save room in a move to new quarters in the eighties, long before global warming was such a charged issue. It's also before the current director of the CRU was in charge. Says so right in the linked article. The raw data may be lost, but the methods of processing it must be known, and the people who did it may well still be around, so I doubt that the trail to the original data is completely obscured. And when it's re-done and shows the same thing, then there will be some other noisy denunciation of it, because of...anything. There's never going to be perfection in research. Open sourcing will have to be applied equally to the opponents of AWG as well as proponents. If one side's confidential correspondence is revealed, then so should the other's. That will be interesting. The sword cuts both ways.
|
|
dionysius
Location: The People's Republic of Austin Gender:
|
Posted:
Nov 30, 2009 - 4:23pm |
|
miamizsun wrote: I'm curious about the IPCCs credibility, I don't doubt that there is good data and good science involved, but obviously there is some evidence of collusion.
How "obviously"? If you have "evidence of collusion" (with whom?), then give us a link to it, or something. Who is the more credible and acknowledged source? (edit:) Anyone seriously interested can go to: http://www.ipcc-data.org/ There are many, many folks working on this besides the hapless screwups in East Anglia.
|
|
miamizsun
Location: (3283.1 Miles SE of RP) Gender:
|
Posted:
Nov 30, 2009 - 4:17pm |
|
dionysius wrote:Hi Jeff! No, not all all difficult to say. No one doubts that cycles in solar radiation occur, and that they have affected terrestrial climate in the past. But it takes many thousands of years for such variations in solar radiation or orbital attitude to achieve significant change. The relative speed of the warming points towards human causality. It's happening too quickly to be natural. Read the Scientific American article, and its debunking of the solar radiation hypothesis: "Astronomical phenomena are obvious natural factors to consider when trying to understand climate, particularly the brightness of the sun and details of the earth's orbit, because those seem to have been major drivers of the ice ages and other climate changes before the rise of industrial civilization. Climatologists, therefore, do take them into account in their models. But in defiance of the naysayers who want to chalk the recent warming up to natural cycles, there is insufficient evidence that enough extra solar energy is reaching our planet to account for the observed rise in global temperatures. "The IPCC notes that between 1750 and 2005, the radiative forcing from the sun increased by 0.12 watts/square-meter-less than a tenth of the net forcings from human activities (1.6 W/m2). The largest uncertainty in that comparison comes from the estimated effects of aerosols in the atmosphere, which can variously shade the earth or warm it. Even granting the maximum uncertainties to these estimates, however, the increase in human influence on climate exceeds that of any solar variation." I'm curious about the IPCCs credibility, I don't doubt that there is good data and good science involved, but obviously there is some evidence of collusion.
|
|
dionysius
Location: The People's Republic of Austin Gender:
|
Posted:
Nov 30, 2009 - 4:01pm |
|
miamizsun wrote:First, I'd like to see this "de-politicized", most politicians are people we pay to lie to us. Politicians(both parties) should be out of this altogether. Opposing something because of another party's take on it makes zero sense. I like others here want to see the evidence, all of it, and put it through the rigors. I'm also more concerned with pollution than climate change, we can deal with water better/easier than poison. I'm wondering what caused the planet to go through its cycles before we were here(short of a cataclysmic event). We see glacial striations all over the place, glaciers receding and forming thousands of years ago, yet we weren't using fossil fuels to any extent then. I tend to think that it is mostly caused by the sun(in all of its flux) and man plays a minor part, much less than hyped. Lots of articles like this which suggest warming coinciding between mars and earth for example, are solar induced phenomena.(this is an older article, but I think that this type of data may gaining traction) "Man-made greenhouse warming has made a small contribution to the warming seen on Earth in recent years, but it cannot compete with the increase in solar irradiance," Abdussamatov said.It is difficult to say. Regards Hi Jeff! No, not all all difficult to say. No one doubts that cycles in solar radiation occur, and that they have affected terrestrial climate in the past. But it takes many thousands of years for such variations in solar radiation or orbital attitude to achieve significant change. The relative speed of the warming points towards human causality. It's happening too quickly to be natural. Read the Scientific American article, and its debunking of the solar radiation hypothesis: "Astronomical phenomena are obvious natural factors to consider when trying to understand climate, particularly the brightness of the sun and details of the earth's orbit, because those seem to have been major drivers of the ice ages and other climate changes before the rise of industrial civilization. Climatologists, therefore, do take them into account in their models. But in defiance of the naysayers who want to chalk the recent warming up to natural cycles, there is insufficient evidence that enough extra solar energy is reaching our planet to account for the observed rise in global temperatures. "The IPCC notes that between 1750 and 2005, the radiative forcing from the sun increased by 0.12 watts/square-meter-less than a tenth of the net forcings from human activities (1.6 W/m2). The largest uncertainty in that comparison comes from the estimated effects of aerosols in the atmosphere, which can variously shade the earth or warm it. Even granting the maximum uncertainties to these estimates, however, the increase in human influence on climate exceeds that of any solar variation."
|
|
miamizsun
Location: (3283.1 Miles SE of RP) Gender:
|
Posted:
Nov 30, 2009 - 3:50pm |
|
First, I'd like to see this "de-politicized", most politicians are people we pay to lie to us. Politicians(both parties) should be out of this altogether. Opposing something because of another party's take on it makes zero sense. I like others here want to see the evidence, all of it, and put it through the rigors. I'm also more concerned with pollution than climate change, we can deal with water better/easier than poison. I'm wondering what caused the planet to go through its cycles before we were here(short of a cataclysmic event). We see glacial striations all over the place, glaciers receding and forming thousands of years ago, yet we weren't using fossil fuels to any extent then. I tend to think that it is mostly caused by the sun(in all of its flux) and man plays a minor part, much less than hyped. Lots of articles like this which suggest warming coinciding between mars and earth for example, are solar induced phenomena.(this is an older article, but I think that this type of data may gaining traction) "Man-made greenhouse warming has made a small contribution to the warming seen on Earth in recent years, but it cannot compete with the increase in solar irradiance," Abdussamatov said.It is difficult to say. Regards I thought this was good. Climate Change - the Scientific Debate
|
|
Welly
Location: Lotusland Gender:
|
Posted:
Nov 30, 2009 - 12:02pm |
|
|
|
oldviolin
Location: esse quam videri Gender:
|
Posted:
Nov 30, 2009 - 11:15am |
|
dionysius wrote:
What does this even mean?
Doesn't mean anything, Mark. Not a thing...I use big words to make myself sound smart. I said it was my opinion, but what do I know. Take it or leave it.
|
|
hippiechick
Location: topsy turvy land Gender:
|
Posted:
Nov 30, 2009 - 11:14am |
|
dionysius wrote:
The two are intimately related in a whole complex of bad human behaviors that damage the natural world. Increased CO2 in the atmosphere is itself a form of pollution that (for instance) increases the acidity of the oceans, dooming coral reefs and associated ecosystems. Deforestation is not itself pollution, but is the destruction of (a) habitat for many, many animal and plant species, and (b) one of our main carbon sinks, the destruction of which makes a bad problem worse. *Etc., etc.* History will not judge us kindly if we do not act soon and act decisively to curb our bad habits.
Everyone wants simple answers to complex questions. We are now paying for hundreds of years of bad behavior, financially, ecologically, educationally. Whatever the causes, we must stop our bad behavior anyway, if we want anything left for our grandchildren.
|
|
dionysius
Location: The People's Republic of Austin Gender:
|
Posted:
Nov 30, 2009 - 11:12am |
|
oldviolin wrote: My point was / is, that if we can address the realities of pollution in general, then the arguable pretensions of the effects of human attributes to climate change will be addressed. My opinion.
"Here we go round the prickly pear..."
What does this even mean?
|
|
oldviolin
Location: esse quam videri Gender:
|
Posted:
Nov 30, 2009 - 11:11am |
|
dionysius wrote:
The two are intimately related in a whole complex of bad human behaviors that damage the natural world. Increased CO2 in the atmosphere is itself a form of pollution that (for instance) increases the acidity of the oceans, dooming coral reefs and associated ecosystems. Deforestation is not itself pollution, but is the destruction of (a) habitat for many, many animal and plant species, and (b) one of our main carbon sinks, the destruction of which makes a bad problem worse. *Etc., etc.* History will not judge us kindly if we do not act soon and act decisively to curb our bad habits.
My point was / is, that if we can address the realities of pollution in general, then the arguable pretensions of the effects of human attributes to climate change will be addressed. My opinion. "Here we go round the prickly pear..."
|
|
hobiejoe
Location: Still in the tunnel, looking for the light. Gender:
|
Posted:
Nov 30, 2009 - 10:59am |
|
dionysius wrote:We must do something, after all, to help save the gharial. ! Oh, of course......
|
|
Welly
Location: Lotusland Gender:
|
Posted:
Nov 30, 2009 - 10:55am |
|
dionysius wrote:
|
|
dionysius
Location: The People's Republic of Austin Gender:
|
Posted:
Nov 30, 2009 - 10:54am |
|
We must do something, after all, to help save the gharial.
|
|
dionysius
Location: The People's Republic of Austin Gender:
|
Posted:
Nov 30, 2009 - 10:50am |
|
oldviolin wrote:My point was / is, that if we can address the realities of pollution in general, then the arguable pretensions of the effects of human attributes to climate change will be addressed. My opinion.
The two are intimately related in a whole complex of bad human behaviors that damage the natural world. Increased CO2 in the atmosphere is itself a form of pollution that (for instance) increases the acidity of the oceans, dooming coral reefs and associated ecosystems. Deforestation is not itself pollution, but is the destruction of (a) habitat for many, many animal and plant species, and (b) one of our main carbon sinks, the destruction of which makes a bad problem worse. *Etc., etc.* History will not judge us kindly if we do not act soon and act decisively to curb our bad habits.
|
|
Manbird
Location: La Villa Toscana Gender:
|
Posted:
Nov 30, 2009 - 10:49am |
|
" c l i m a t e i s g e t t i n g w a r m e r "
|
|
oldviolin
Location: esse quam videri Gender:
|
Posted:
Nov 30, 2009 - 10:38am |
|
My point was / is, that if we can address the realities of pollution in general, then the arguable pretensions of the effects of human attributes to climate change will be addressed. My opinion.
|
|
dionysius
Location: The People's Republic of Austin Gender:
|
Posted:
Nov 30, 2009 - 10:34am |
|
oldviolin wrote: Pretty cut and dried. I honor your opinion. You must be emersed in the know...
I honor the opinions of the scientists who make their lives' work the study of climate. The overwhelming majority of them agree on anthropogenic climate change. If you're going to disagree with this majority, you had better bring better arguments than those dealt with in the Scientific American article. Read the article!
|
|
oldviolin
Location: esse quam videri Gender:
|
Posted:
Nov 30, 2009 - 10:29am |
|
dionysius wrote:
There is no lack of consensus, really, The denial game is to manufacture one. There is no equivalence between the two "sides" in this matter—one is right and the other simply wrong.
Pretty cut and dried. I honor your opinion. You must be emersed in the know...
|
|
|