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

260,000 Posts in one thread? - Red_Dragon - Aug 7, 2020 - 9:20pm
 
Trump - R_P - Aug 7, 2020 - 6:51pm
 
Two questions. That's it. I promise. - oldviolin - Aug 7, 2020 - 5:22pm
 
Name My Band - Kajukenbo - Aug 7, 2020 - 5:16pm
 
Florida - westslope - Aug 7, 2020 - 5:03pm
 
Gotta Get Your Drink On - Antigone - Aug 7, 2020 - 4:22pm
 
COVID-19 - R_P - Aug 7, 2020 - 4:20pm
 
Poetry Forum - oldviolin - Aug 7, 2020 - 4:18pm
 
Private messages in a public forum - kcar - Aug 7, 2020 - 4:02pm
 
Breaking News - kcar - Aug 7, 2020 - 3:39pm
 
Pernicious Pious Proclivities Particularized Prodigiously - oldviolin - Aug 7, 2020 - 3:00pm
 
Mixtape Culture Club - miamizsun - Aug 7, 2020 - 2:53pm
 
New Music - buddy - Aug 7, 2020 - 2:42pm
 
HELP! Sound Cutting out problem - michael16 - Aug 7, 2020 - 2:14pm
 
A little smooth jazz never hurt anyone - rhahl - Aug 7, 2020 - 1:51pm
 
2020 Elections - R_P - Aug 7, 2020 - 1:02pm
 
Climate Change - R_P - Aug 7, 2020 - 12:39pm
 
It seemed like a good idea at the time - Proclivities - Aug 7, 2020 - 11:54am
 
Race in America - R_P - Aug 7, 2020 - 10:32am
 
songs that ROCK! - sirdroseph - Aug 7, 2020 - 10:02am
 
What did you have for lunch? - miamizsun - Aug 7, 2020 - 8:55am
 
American Justice - miamizsun - Aug 7, 2020 - 8:40am
 
Music Videos - black321 - Aug 7, 2020 - 7:30am
 
Our tolerance for opposing views - Coaxial - Aug 7, 2020 - 7:30am
 
New Song Submissions system - Hastur_T - Aug 7, 2020 - 7:12am
 
Republican Party - Proclivities - Aug 7, 2020 - 6:33am
 
Fake News*  ?  ! - miamizsun - Aug 7, 2020 - 5:57am
 
Your favorite artist - miamizsun - Aug 7, 2020 - 5:44am
 
Reinstock '05 Link Repository - Red_Dragon - Aug 7, 2020 - 5:38am
 
Radio Paradise Comments - miamizsun - Aug 7, 2020 - 5:38am
 
China - R_P - Aug 6, 2020 - 9:01pm
 
True Confessions - oldviolin - Aug 6, 2020 - 7:42pm
 
Solar / Wind / Geothermal / Efficiency Energy - R_P - Aug 6, 2020 - 7:41pm
 
Vinyl Only Spin List - kurtster - Aug 6, 2020 - 5:34pm
 
TV shows you watch - westslope - Aug 6, 2020 - 2:44pm
 
kurtster's quiet vinyl - kurtster - Aug 6, 2020 - 2:42pm
 
Baseball, anyone? - rgio - Aug 6, 2020 - 2:25pm
 
Offset between Music and Song/Interpret Text, Silence... - nicolas65 - Aug 6, 2020 - 11:23am
 
Bug Reports & Feature Requests - nicolas65 - Aug 6, 2020 - 10:18am
 
Derplahoma Questions and Points of Interest - Red_Dragon - Aug 6, 2020 - 10:03am
 
Artists You Miss - NoEnzLefttoSplit - Aug 6, 2020 - 8:30am
 
Counting with Pictures - ScottN - Aug 6, 2020 - 7:53am
 
Museum Of Bad Album Covers - Proclivities - Aug 6, 2020 - 5:34am
 
Yellowstone is in Wyoming Meetup • Aug. 11 2007 • YEA... - sunybuny - Aug 6, 2020 - 5:31am
 
Today in History - Red_Dragon - Aug 6, 2020 - 5:14am
 
Outstanding Covers - miamizsun - Aug 6, 2020 - 4:42am
 
What Are You Going To Do Today? - Steely_D - Aug 5, 2020 - 4:56pm
 
Capital Punishment - R_P - Aug 5, 2020 - 4:05pm
 
Strips, cartoons, illustrations - R_P - Aug 5, 2020 - 3:48pm
 
Better Together - MarcsRadio - Aug 5, 2020 - 1:13pm
 
Auto-skip songs I rate poorly - MrPeebles - Aug 5, 2020 - 10:12am
 
Things that make you go Hmmmm..... - KarmaKarma - Aug 5, 2020 - 10:09am
 
Looting & vandalism isn't protest - R_P - Aug 5, 2020 - 9:58am
 
Little known information...maybe even facts - miamizsun - Aug 5, 2020 - 9:24am
 
Two Things - oldviolin - Aug 5, 2020 - 7:18am
 
NASA & other news from space - Coaxial - Aug 5, 2020 - 4:45am
 
RP Streaming Keeps Stopping - jarro - Aug 5, 2020 - 2:41am
 
Amazon Products (May Contain Spam) - westslope - Aug 4, 2020 - 6:20pm
 
• • • What Makes You Happy? • • •  - Antigone - Aug 4, 2020 - 4:05pm
 
RightWingNutZ - kcar - Aug 4, 2020 - 2:19pm
 
Band Suggestion - toddpthayer - Aug 4, 2020 - 2:13pm
 
Neil Young - buddy - Aug 4, 2020 - 1:01pm
 
People who never came to Gilligan's Island - Proclivities - Aug 4, 2020 - 8:02am
 
Economix - rexi - Aug 4, 2020 - 2:32am
 
Celebrity Deaths - Proclivities - Aug 3, 2020 - 11:49am
 
Reccomended System or Powered Speakers - Ohmsen - Aug 3, 2020 - 10:42am
 
BACK TO THE 80's - Ohmsen - Aug 3, 2020 - 9:40am
 
• • • The Once-a-Day • • •  - oldviolin - Aug 3, 2020 - 9:01am
 
Annoying stuff. not things that piss you off, just annoyi... - oldviolin - Aug 3, 2020 - 8:59am
 
BillyGee's Greatest Segues - ScottFromWyoming - Aug 3, 2020 - 8:43am
 
Those Lovable Policemen - R_P - Aug 2, 2020 - 8:46pm
 
What Makes You Laugh? - Antigone - Aug 2, 2020 - 4:42pm
 
Lyrics that strike a chord today... - Antigone - Aug 2, 2020 - 2:46pm
 
Hot Dog... it's Summer! - miamizsun - Aug 2, 2020 - 12:42pm
 
Little Feat tour - Ohmsen - Aug 2, 2020 - 9:51am
 
Index » Radio Paradise/General » General Discussion » Climate Change Page: Previous  1, 2, 3 ... 100, 101, 102, 103  Next
Post to this Topic
miamizsun

miamizsun Avatar

Location: (3261.3 Miles SE of RP)
Gender: Male


Posted: Nov 30, 2009 - 8:48pm

 dionysius wrote:

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.

 
M, I was referring to the hapless screw ups/CRU you speak of, here is a list with some of their emails with some parts bolded. I just can't look past this type of thing, especially when there is so much riding on it.(a worldwide tax of mythic proportion)

I'm very concerned they're going to use something like this (obviously manipulated data/evidence) to ram this "carbon tax" through and "f" us royally.

Regards

dionysius

dionysius Avatar

Location: The People's Republic of Austin
Gender: Male


Posted: Nov 30, 2009 - 7:56pm

 fuh2 wrote:


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.

 

You don't have to respond to every crazy pet conspiracy theory out there. You're already right. You don't have to give Immanuel Velikovsky, Madame Blavatsky and Erich von Däniken the time of day. Let crank scholarship eat itself.
Lazy8

Lazy8 Avatar

Location: The Gallatin Valley of Montana
Gender: Male


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

fuh2 Avatar

Location: Mexican beach paradise
Gender: Male


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

BasmntMadman Avatar

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 dumped

So 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

dionysius Avatar

Location: The People's Republic of Austin
Gender: Male


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

miamizsun Avatar

Location: (3261.3 Miles SE of RP)
Gender: Male


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

dionysius Avatar

Location: The People's Republic of Austin
Gender: Male


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

miamizsun Avatar

Location: (3261.3 Miles SE of RP)
Gender: Male


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

Welly Avatar

Location: Lotusland
Gender: Female


Posted: Nov 30, 2009 - 12:02pm

Interesting!


oldviolin

oldviolin Avatar

Location: esse quam videri
Gender: Male


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

hippiechick Avatar

Location: topsy turvy land
Gender: Female


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

dionysius Avatar

Location: The People's Republic of Austin
Gender: Male


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

oldviolin Avatar

Location: esse quam videri
Gender: Male


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

hobiejoe Avatar

Location: Still in the tunnel, looking for the light.
Gender: Male


Posted: Nov 30, 2009 - 10:59am

 dionysius wrote:
We must do something, after all, to help save the gharial.



 
{#Idea} ! Oh, of course......{#Good-vibes}
Welly

Welly Avatar

Location: Lotusland
Gender: Female


Posted: Nov 30, 2009 - 10:55am

 dionysius wrote: 
{#Clap}

dionysius

dionysius Avatar

Location: The People's Republic of Austin
Gender: Male


Posted: Nov 30, 2009 - 10:54am

We must do something, after all, to help save the gharial.


dionysius

dionysius Avatar

Location: The People's Republic of Austin
Gender: Male


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

Manbird Avatar

Location: Oroville, Ca
Gender: Male


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

oldviolin Avatar

Location: esse quam videri
Gender: Male


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.

Page: Previous  1, 2, 3 ... 100, 101, 102, 103  Next