[ ]   [ ]   [ ]                        [ ]      [ ]   [ ]

Baseball, anyone? - kcar - Jul 13, 2025 - 12:41pm
 
Trump - R_P - Jul 13, 2025 - 12:08pm
 
Name My Band - DaveInSaoMiguel - Jul 13, 2025 - 12:06pm
 
The Marie Antoinette Moment... - Isabeau - Jul 13, 2025 - 11:43am
 
Are they married yet? YES THEY ARE! - Isabeau - Jul 13, 2025 - 11:39am
 
Wordle - daily game - Isabeau - Jul 13, 2025 - 11:37am
 
Infinite cat - Isabeau - Jul 13, 2025 - 11:37am
 
Dialing 1-800-Manbird - oldviolin - Jul 13, 2025 - 11:35am
 
USA! USA! USA! - R_P - Jul 13, 2025 - 11:05am
 
What Makes You Laugh? - GeneP59 - Jul 13, 2025 - 10:10am
 
NY Times Strands - GeneP59 - Jul 13, 2025 - 10:05am
 
NYTimes Connections - GeneP59 - Jul 13, 2025 - 9:57am
 
Radio Paradise Comments - GeneP59 - Jul 13, 2025 - 9:53am
 
• • • The Once-a-Day • • •  - oldviolin - Jul 13, 2025 - 9:29am
 
July 2025 Photo Theme - Stone - Proclivities - Jul 13, 2025 - 6:27am
 
Talk Behind Their Backs Forum - VV - Jul 12, 2025 - 9:16pm
 
What the hell OV? - oldviolin - Jul 12, 2025 - 8:39pm
 
Europe - R_P - Jul 12, 2025 - 6:30pm
 
Why atheists swallow, - R_P - Jul 12, 2025 - 2:37pm
 
Israel - R_P - Jul 12, 2025 - 1:50pm
 
Democratic Party - R_P - Jul 12, 2025 - 1:37pm
 
Bug Reports & Feature Requests - machar - Jul 12, 2025 - 12:34pm
 
Beyond mix - Steely_D - Jul 12, 2025 - 11:29am
 
A motivational quote - steeler - Jul 11, 2025 - 6:58pm
 
Beyond... - GeneP59 - Jul 11, 2025 - 6:35pm
 
M.A.G.A. - R_P - Jul 11, 2025 - 4:36pm
 
Protest Songs - R_P - Jul 11, 2025 - 12:38pm
 
True Confessions - oldviolin - Jul 11, 2025 - 11:56am
 
Jess Roden - legendary UK vocalist - and "Seven Windows" ... - J_C - Jul 11, 2025 - 11:22am
 
Great Old Songs You Rarely Hear Anymore - chieromancer1 - Jul 11, 2025 - 10:34am
 
Live Music - oldviolin - Jul 11, 2025 - 10:13am
 
Today in History - Red_Dragon - Jul 11, 2025 - 8:04am
 
It seemed like a good idea at the time - ptooey - Jul 11, 2025 - 6:10am
 
Country Up The Bumpkin - KurtfromLaQuinta - Jul 10, 2025 - 9:13pm
 
TV shows you watch - R_P - Jul 10, 2025 - 5:31pm
 
Wasted Money - GeneP59 - Jul 10, 2025 - 5:22pm
 
Rock mix / repitition - walk2k - Jul 10, 2025 - 4:31pm
 
How's the weather? - GeneP59 - Jul 10, 2025 - 3:21pm
 
Climate Change - R_P - Jul 10, 2025 - 12:52pm
 
Random Solutions - Random Advice - oldviolin - Jul 10, 2025 - 10:11am
 
Spambags on RP - KurtfromLaQuinta - Jul 10, 2025 - 9:02am
 
misheard lyrics - GeneP59 - Jul 10, 2025 - 6:30am
 
New Song Submissions system - Teja - Jul 10, 2025 - 3:36am
 
TEXAS - Red_Dragon - Jul 9, 2025 - 5:57pm
 
DQ (as in 'Daily Quote') - black321 - Jul 9, 2025 - 11:33am
 
Fascism In America - ColdMiser - Jul 9, 2025 - 10:23am
 
Republican Party - Red_Dragon - Jul 9, 2025 - 7:50am
 
Economix - oldviolin - Jul 9, 2025 - 7:45am
 
Outstanding Covers - oldviolin - Jul 8, 2025 - 9:29pm
 
Trump Lies™ - R_P - Jul 8, 2025 - 7:14pm
 
Musky Mythology - R_P - Jul 8, 2025 - 5:43pm
 
Photography Forum - Your Own Photos - Alchemist - Jul 8, 2025 - 11:45am
 
What is the meaning of this? - islander - Jul 8, 2025 - 10:11am
 
Love & Hate - oldviolin - Jul 8, 2025 - 8:15am
 
Artificial Intelligence - Red_Dragon - Jul 8, 2025 - 6:45am
 
Anti-War - R_P - Jul 7, 2025 - 6:45pm
 
Environment - R_P - Jul 7, 2025 - 5:38pm
 
(Big) Media Watch - R_P - Jul 7, 2025 - 12:04pm
 
The Grateful Dead - black321 - Jul 7, 2025 - 11:17am
 
Music Videos - black321 - Jul 7, 2025 - 9:00am
 
Mixtape Culture Club - KurtfromLaQuinta - Jul 7, 2025 - 8:59am
 
Immigration - black321 - Jul 7, 2025 - 8:02am
 
Russia - Red_Dragon - Jul 7, 2025 - 7:39am
 
Triskele and The Grateful Dead - geoff_morphini - Jul 6, 2025 - 10:33pm
 
Hey Baby, It's The 4th O' July - GeneP59 - Jul 6, 2025 - 9:42pm
 
Customize a shirt with my favorite album - 2644364236 - Jul 6, 2025 - 7:20pm
 
Those Lovable Policemen - R_P - Jul 6, 2025 - 10:56am
 
Beer - SeriousLee - Jul 6, 2025 - 6:54am
 
Iran - R_P - Jul 5, 2025 - 9:01pm
 
What are you doing RIGHT NOW? - Coaxial - Jul 5, 2025 - 6:48pm
 
New vs Old RP App (Android) - mhamann123 - Jul 5, 2025 - 5:41am
 
Britain - R_P - Jul 4, 2025 - 1:41pm
 
Ukraine - R_P - Jul 4, 2025 - 11:10am
 
Best Song Comments. - 2644364236 - Jul 3, 2025 - 11:32pm
 
The Obituary Page - ScottFromWyoming - Jul 3, 2025 - 11:27am
 
Index » Radio Paradise/General » General Discussion » Climate Change Page: Previous  1, 2, 3 ... 100, 101, 102 ... 132, 133, 134  Next
Post to this Topic
R_P

R_P Avatar

Gender: Male


Posted: Mar 2, 2010 - 9:06pm

 Beaker wrote:

Finally, a scientific discipline enters the Climategate fray with a bang:

Memorandum submitted by the Institute of Physics (CRU 39)

1. The Institute is concerned that, unless the disclosed e-mails are proved to be forgeries or adaptations, worrying implications arise for the integrity of scientific research in this field and for the credibility of the scientific method as practised in this context.

2. The CRU e-mails as published on the internet provide prima facie evidence of determined and co-ordinated refusals to comply with honourable scientific traditions and freedom of information law. The principle that scientists should be willing to expose their ideas and results to independent testing and replication by others, which requires the open exchange of data, procedures and materials, is vital. The lack of compliance has been confirmed by the findings of the Information Commissioner. This extends well beyond the CRU itself - most of the e-mails were exchanged with researchers in a number of other international institutions who are also involved in the formulation of the IPCC's conclusions on climate change.

See also.

IOP and the Science and Technology Committee’s inquiry into the disclosure of climate data
Institute of Physics News

The Institute of Physics recently submitted a response to a House of Commons Science and Technology Committee call for evidence in relation to its inquiry into the disclosure of climate data from the Climatic Research Unit at the University of East Anglia.

The Institute's statement, which has been published both on the Institute's website and the Committee's, has been interpreted by some individuals to imply that it does not support the scientific evidence that the rising concentration of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere is contributing to global warming.

That is not the case. The Institute's position on climate change is clear: the basic science is well enough understood to be sure that our climate is changing – and that we need to take action now to mitigate that change.
(...)

Zep

Zep Avatar

Location: Funkytown


Posted: Mar 2, 2010 - 1:23pm

Alright now, behave.


HazzeSwede

HazzeSwede Avatar

Location: Hammerdal
Gender: Male


Posted: Mar 2, 2010 - 12:00pm

Global Warming causing Climate Change and Severe Storms
has forced us to Close This Ride !!
    alg_carnival-ride{#Yes}
ScottFromWyoming

ScottFromWyoming Avatar

Location: Powell
Gender: Male


Posted: Mar 2, 2010 - 11:47am

 Beaker wrote:
So - you pick one link, shoot some holes into it, without any links to verify your assertions, of course, and expect to tarnish the entire set?

Good luck with that.
 
I'd just like to interject that at some point, we can stipulate to certain statements by certain posters on certain topics, at least as far as casual conversation goes. By that I mean that Lazy doesn't need to post a link every time he says the sky is blue.

Zep

Zep Avatar

Location: Funkytown


Posted: Mar 2, 2010 - 11:42am

 Beaker wrote:
How mature.  That'll surely stop the bleats. 
 
Don't like it? Take it elsewhere.


Zep

Zep Avatar

Location: Funkytown


Posted: Mar 2, 2010 - 11:37am

{#Grumpy}
marko86

marko86 Avatar

Location: North TX
Gender: Male


Posted: Mar 2, 2010 - 11:34am

 Beaker wrote:

You really should try and read past the simple details.  Attempting to discredit someone who doesn't have credentials up to your par, really isn't where you want to place your bets - the IPCC has learned this lesson the hard way, yet it still seems lost on you.  A full read of his involvement in the issue, since 2003, would have told you that his input is respected.  But if you're working with a preconceived set of facts on the topic and are unwilling to open your eyes to dissenting opinion, well ... that's how ya got O'Barry too.

 

Seriously?? You are the one incapable of reading into the details. You have yet to explain how you accept the withdrawal of the paper regarding sea rise yet dismiss the same research that showed the miscalculation and the that the correction shows there will be more sea level rise. But then that goes against what you believe.. As far a McIntyre goes, he is not  all that repected except in the denialsphere that you inhabit.

His name comes up frequently though. There is a number of articles that are direct rebuttals to his false assertions, if you have the guts to actually read them.

HERE

 



HazzeSwede

HazzeSwede Avatar

Location: Hammerdal
Gender: Male


Posted: Mar 2, 2010 - 11:27am

 

Contrary to what the global warming *disinformers* say about the recent temperature record, it is almost certainly the case that the planet has warmed up more this decade than NASA says, and especially more than the UK’s Hadley Center says.

*Beaks*{#Lol}


maryte

maryte Avatar

Location: Blinding You With Library Science!
Gender: Female


Posted: Mar 2, 2010 - 10:25am

 Beaker wrote:

Stephen McIntyre is the author of Climate Audit.  You might want to revisit your opinion, as you re-check your facts.

/done
 

Stephen McIntyre is not a climatologist or a meteorologist.  His education is in mathematics.  His career is as a director of a mineral exploration company.  Neither of things make him a climate expert.
Lazy8

Lazy8 Avatar

Location: The Gallatin Valley of Montana
Gender: Male


Posted: Mar 2, 2010 - 10:18am

 Beaker wrote:
Stephen McIntyre is the author of Climate Audit.  You might want to revisit your opinion.
 
I'm well aware of Stephen McIntyre, and for the record I think he's done a valuable service in challenging the prevailing orthodoxy. I'm also aware of how little time I have on this planet, and I can't read every juicy bit of gossip. Feel free to post when he has something substantial to say.

Lazy8

Lazy8 Avatar

Location: The Gallatin Valley of Montana
Gender: Male


Posted: Mar 2, 2010 - 10:12am

 Beaker wrote:
Hot Air is not a science blog - that should be obvious.  To hold it to scientific standards is absurd.  But it certainly does issue updates and corrections to its posts, unlike much of the MSM.

However, Watts Up With That, *is* a science blog.  Feel free to hold their feet to the fire anytime you want to get started:

Watts Up With That: When Results Go Bad

See also the excellent blogClimate Audit

Sorry, just not seeing much there. More of a People Magazine approach to science.

Climate Audit is showing similar trends.

This is not how science gets done. If you find a problem with somebody's research you publish your findings, you don't attack their integrity. That may be fun but it doesn't lead to the truth, which should be the goal.

Lazy8

Lazy8 Avatar

Location: The Gallatin Valley of Montana
Gender: Male


Posted: Mar 2, 2010 - 9:40am

 Beaker wrote:
So - you pick one link, shoot some holes into it, without any links to verify your assertions, of course, and expect to tarnish the entire set?

Good luck with that.

Picking on blogs again eh?  Here's a blog you should start firing at - its one of many leading the charges against the CRU.  Go ahead - pick one of their posts (many of which are often echoed by the blogs I often read)  and shoot some holes in it. 

C'mon now - let's see what you have got:  Watts Up With That?
 
Do I really need to post a link showing CO2 levels have risen in the last 150 years? If you've been following this topic at all this is one area no one (OK, no one but political bloggers) disputes. There are arguments about whether or not it will drive global temperatures or to what extent, but not whether it has risen or not. C'mon.

I'm not defending CRU, they behaved terribly. I'm defending the process of honest scientific discussion. That's my beef with CRU, and that's my beef with Hot Air.

As for quotes from grandstanding MPs in the British Parliament...what weight have you given all those that disagree with you? This is not a criticism of the science CRU has done or the conclusions it has reached, it's criticism of the transparency and integrity with which it has done its work. Valid concerns, but none of it means the climate isn't changing or that human emissions of greenhouse gasses aren't responsible for some of it.

marko86

marko86 Avatar

Location: North TX
Gender: Male


Posted: Mar 2, 2010 - 9:36am

Look ma, I can cut and paste too:
http://www.skepticalscience.com/Is-the-airborne-fraction-of-anthropogenic-CO2-emissions-increasing.html

http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2010/01/unforced-variations-2/
http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2010/02/close-encounters-of-the-absurd-kind//
Lazy8

Lazy8 Avatar

Location: The Gallatin Valley of Montana
Gender: Male


Posted: Mar 2, 2010 - 9:18am

 Beaker wrote:
Your beef is with Science Daily and the University of Bristol.  Take it up with them. 

Sorry to see you bottom feeding like this.
 
My beef is with an ignorant and superficial examination of a second-hand report of a scientific paper. The conclusions are so clearly wrong (and so easily disproven) it's comical.

There are legitimate complaints about hyperbole among climate alarmists. That does not mean every bit of science supporting their claims is wrong or dishonest, or that the hypothesis they're pushing (however far they're pushing it, and whatever their motives) is completely wrong.

But if you want to sound the bell about such things you have to avoid falling into the same trap—of trumpeting every scrap of evidence contrary to the hypothesis you disagree with as a smoking gun proving the whole thing is a tissue of lies. By all means point out flaws in the science! But to do that requires more than reading a blog written by people who clearly do not know what they are talking about. And the more often you post stuff like the above the less credible you'll be doing it.

marko86

marko86 Avatar

Location: North TX
Gender: Male


Posted: Mar 2, 2010 - 9:10am

If hoot means intellectually challenged, then yes, he is a hoot. He is not really capable of reading beyond the headlines. If you would like to know the big picture.
Figure 2: Annual global CO2 emissions from fossil fuel burning and cement manufacture in GtC yr?1 (black), annual averages of the 13C/12C ratio measured in atmospheric CO2 at Mauna Loa from 1981 to 2002 (red). ). The isotope data are expressed as δ13C(CO2) ‰ (per mil) deviation from a calibration standard. Note that this scale is inverted to improve clarity. (IPCC AR4)
Figure 2: Annual global CO2 emissions from fossil fuel burning and cement manufacture in GtC yr?1 (black), annual averages of the 13C/12C ratio measured in atmospheric CO2 at Mauna Loa from 1981 to 2002 (red). ). The isotope data are expressed as δ13C(CO2) ‰ (per mil) deviation from a calibration standard. Note that this scale is inverted to improve clarity. (IPCC AR4)

http://www.skepticalscience.com/human-co2-smaller-than-natural-emissions.htm

About 40% of human CO2 emissions are being absorbed, mostly by vegetation and the oceans. The rest remains in the atmosphere. As a consequence, atmospheric CO2 is at its highest level in 15 to 20 million years (Tripati 2009). A natural change of 100ppm normally takes 5,000 to 20.000 years. The recent increase of 100ppm has taken just 120 years.

Additional confirmation that rising CO2 levels are due to human activity comes from examining the ratio of carbon isotopes (eg ? carbon atoms with differing numbers of neutrons) found in the atmosphere. Carbon 12 has 6 neutrons, carbon 13 has 7 neutrons. Plants have a lower C13/C12 ratio than in the atmosphere. If rising atmospheric CO2 comes fossil fuels, the C13/C12 should be falling. Indeed this is what is occurring (Ghosh 2003). The C13/C12 ratio correlates with the trend in global emissions.


hippiechick

hippiechick Avatar

Location: topsy turvy land
Gender: Female


Posted: Mar 2, 2010 - 8:58am

 Beaker wrote:

Your beef is with Science Daily and the University of Bristol.  Take it up with them. 

Sorry to see you bottom feeding like this.

 
Beaker, you are a hoot!

Lazy8

Lazy8 Avatar

Location: The Gallatin Valley of Montana
Gender: Male


Posted: Mar 2, 2010 - 8:40am

 Beaker wrote:

Another American media failure

<...>

Look how well you are being served on this topic by your MSM betters.  As if anyone really needs to ponder why so many are ill-informed on the world and topics that affect all of us.
 
Just picked a link at random and read the article "No rise in atmospheric carbon fraction over the last 150 years: University of Bristol". It reports that the fraction of carbon dioxide remaining in the atmosphere and that absorbed by the oceans hasn't changed in a long time and concludes that CO2 levels haven't risen in 150 years.

This conclusion is flat wrong, contradicted by numerous measurements from numerous sources and silly on the face of it. The rate of emission has risen dramatically over 150 years, so while the fractions heading to various fates hasn't changed the absolute amounts has—they've gone up, as every measurement anybody has tried to make has demonstrated.

This is like saying that since the strength of the beer I drink is the same doubling the amount I consume won't increase my alcohol intake.

Or maybe they tried that experiment over at Hot Air.

marko86

marko86 Avatar

Location: North TX
Gender: Male


Posted: Mar 1, 2010 - 9:54am

 Beaker wrote:

IPCC “science” on hurricanes no longer settled, either


"In the aftermath of Hurricanes Katrina and Rita in 2005, anthropogenic global warming (AGW) activists insisted that the stronger storm systems resulted from the build-up of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere, making hurricanes increasingly more severe.  These claims made their way into the UN’s IPCC report and have been a staple of AGW arguments for immediate and drastic action to limit energy production as part of the “settled science” attempt to shut down debate.  Unfortunately for the hysterics, new peer-reviewed research published in Nature Geoscience concludes that hurricane strength has little to do with global warming:"

 

Old shit. No, hurricanes are not considered to be a cornerstone in the IPCC report and again changes nothing on the basic premise of AGW, but serously doubt you are capable of complex thought.

http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2007/04/shear-turbulence/

"We have commented on the connections between hurricanes and climate change frequently in the past (see e.g. here, here, here, and here). The bottom line conclusion has consistently remained that, while our knowledge of likely future changes in hurricanes or tropical cyclones (TCs) remains an uncertain area of science, the observed relationship between increased intensity of TCs and rising ocean temperatures appears to be robust (Figure 1). There is nothing in this latest article that changes that."
Inamorato

Inamorato Avatar

Location: Twin Cities
Gender: Male


Posted: Feb 28, 2010 - 5:38am

It will be good to eliminate any questionable science or unsubstantiated assertions from the IPCC report. Those things only give ammunition to the climate-change-is-a-hoax crowd.

U.N. to create science panel to review IPCC

By Sunanda Creagh

NUSA DUA, Indonesia (Reuters) - An independent board of scientists is to review the work of a U.N. climate panel, whose credibility came under attack after it published errors, a U.N. environment spokesman said on Friday.

The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) accepted last month that its 2007 report had exaggerated the pace of melt of Himalayan glaciers, and this month admitted the report had also overstated how much of the Netherlands is below sea level.

The report shared the 2007 Nobel Peace Prize with former U.S. Vice President Al Gore, and has driven political momentum to agree a new, more ambitious climate treaty to replace the Kyoto Protocol.

The remit and process of the review panel would be disclosed next week, said Nick Nuttall, spokesman for the U.N. Environment Programme, on the sidelines of a UNEP conference of environment ministers and officials from more than 135 countries in the Indonesian island of Bali.

"It will be a credible, sensible review of how the IPCC operates, to strengthen its fifth report," he said.

"It should do a review of the IPCC, produce a report by, say, August. There is a plenary of the IPCC in South Korea in October. The review will go there for adoption. I think we are bringing some level of closure to this issue."

The latest, fourth IPCC report was published in 2007 and the next is due in 2014.

HUMANS TO BLAME

All options are on the table for the review, Nuttall said, including, how to treat "grey literature" — a term for academic papers which are not published in peer-reviewed journals.

The IPCC had said that the Himalayas could melt by 2035, but an original source spoke of the world's glaciers melting by 2350, not 2035. The IPCC report had cited the 2035 year from a non-peer reviewed WWF paper, which in turn had referred to a Scientific American article.

Public conviction of global warming's risks may have been undermined by the panel's errors and by the disclosure of hacked emails revealing scientists sniping at skeptics, who leapt on these as evidence of data fixing.

Pachauri told Reuters on Wednesday that the IPCC stood by its main 2007 finding — that it was more than 90 percent certain that human activities were the main cause of global warming in the past 50 years.

Governments and ministers attending the conference this week in Bali reaffirmed their confidence that manmade greenhouse gas emissions were stoking climate change, said Nuttall.

"There was absolutely no government, no minister of environment who attended that meeting who said that the IPCC was the wrong vehicle for understanding the science of climate change," Nuttall added.

The IPCC's 2007 assessment report on the causes and impacts of climate change was over 3,000 pages long, cited more than 10,000 scientific papers and is policymakers' main data source.


samiyam

samiyam Avatar

Location: Moving North


Posted: Feb 28, 2010 - 5:13am

 helenofjoy wrote:
How 'bout them ice shelves?

 
What Ice Shelves? 

Page: Previous  1, 2, 3 ... 100, 101, 102 ... 132, 133, 134  Next