Wordle - daily game
- ScottFromWyoming - Jan 30, 2023 - 1:11pm
TV shows you watch
- ScottFromWyoming - Jan 30, 2023 - 1:11pm
Photography Forum - Your Own Photos
- Beez - Jan 30, 2023 - 12:52pm
Ukraine
- cc_rider - Jan 30, 2023 - 12:50pm
Things You Thought Today
- Peyote - Jan 30, 2023 - 11:50am
Upcoming concerts or shows you can't wait to see
- ScottFromWyoming - Jan 30, 2023 - 9:44am
The Obituary Page
- Steely_D - Jan 30, 2023 - 9:19am
Are you ready for some football?
- cc_rider - Jan 30, 2023 - 8:02am
Out the window
- DaveInSaoMiguel - Jan 30, 2023 - 7:56am
Radio Paradise Comments
- cc_rider - Jan 30, 2023 - 7:55am
Things I Saw Today...
- Red_Dragon - Jan 30, 2023 - 6:52am
Today in History
- Red_Dragon - Jan 30, 2023 - 5:45am
Florida
- miamizsun - Jan 30, 2023 - 4:18am
USA! USA! USA!
- KurtfromLaQuinta - Jan 29, 2023 - 9:07pm
NASA & other news from space
- kurtster - Jan 29, 2023 - 8:05pm
SCOTUS
- Red_Dragon - Jan 29, 2023 - 2:43pm
Beer
- DaveInSaoMiguel - Jan 29, 2023 - 2:00pm
New Music
- haresfur - Jan 29, 2023 - 12:34pm
Pretty Darn Good Bass Lines - among the best....
- miamizsun - Jan 29, 2023 - 8:28am
Outstanding Covers
- Coaxial - Jan 29, 2023 - 7:56am
Bad Poetry
- miamizsun - Jan 29, 2023 - 7:41am
Audials
- roger.holroyd1217 - Jan 29, 2023 - 3:31am
The strange tale of KFAT
- oldviolin - Jan 28, 2023 - 8:57pm
Sunrise, Sunset
- islander - Jan 28, 2023 - 6:25pm
What Did You Do Today?
- Bill_J - Jan 28, 2023 - 6:24pm
Strange signs, marquees, billboards, etc.
- Isabeau - Jan 28, 2023 - 1:34pm
Economix
- R_P - Jan 28, 2023 - 12:07pm
Guns
- R_P - Jan 28, 2023 - 10:57am
Bug Reports & Feature Requests
- geoff_morphini - Jan 28, 2023 - 7:43am
Music Requests
- Ralf - Jan 28, 2023 - 7:39am
last.fm-scrobbling
- hans-juergen - Jan 28, 2023 - 12:25am
Immigration
- westslope - Jan 27, 2023 - 4:13pm
Mixtape Culture Club
- Steely_D - Jan 27, 2023 - 3:39pm
Linking to "What's Playing"
- fraenki - Jan 27, 2023 - 2:18pm
What Makes You Cry :) ?
- black321 - Jan 27, 2023 - 12:42pm
Talk Behind Their Backs Forum
- GeneP59 - Jan 27, 2023 - 10:19am
The Monks of Zagorsk
- cathyetsylvain - Jan 27, 2023 - 9:16am
Having a Bad Day???
- GeneP59 - Jan 26, 2023 - 8:27pm
Living in America
- Red_Dragon - Jan 26, 2023 - 8:16pm
Things for which you would sell ManBird's soul
- GeneP59 - Jan 26, 2023 - 7:53pm
Trump
- haresfur - Jan 26, 2023 - 3:59pm
OUR CATS!!
- Isabeau - Jan 26, 2023 - 3:02pm
Oil, Gas Prices & Other Crapola
- black321 - Jan 26, 2023 - 12:44pm
RightWingNutZ
- R_P - Jan 26, 2023 - 12:20pm
Anti-War
- R_P - Jan 26, 2023 - 10:07am
21st century technology
- black321 - Jan 26, 2023 - 9:44am
The end of the world
- miamizsun - Jan 26, 2023 - 6:38am
Joe Biden
- kcar - Jan 25, 2023 - 9:21pm
Love is...
- Isabeau - Jan 25, 2023 - 6:03pm
Least Successful Phishing Scams
- Proclivities - Jan 25, 2023 - 6:35am
Poetry Forum
- ScottN - Jan 25, 2023 - 5:12am
a thank you for the team
- guy-wernher - Jan 25, 2023 - 3:05am
COVID-19
- thisbody - Jan 24, 2023 - 3:41pm
Todd Rundgren
- Steely_D - Jan 24, 2023 - 11:08am
Republican Party
- ScottFromWyoming - Jan 24, 2023 - 8:35am
Nuclear power - saviour or scourge?
- miamizsun - Jan 24, 2023 - 6:44am
Surfing!
- thisbody - Jan 24, 2023 - 2:15am
::odd but intriguing::
- KurtfromLaQuinta - Jan 23, 2023 - 9:00pm
Manbird's Episiotomy Stitch Licking Clinic - KEEP OUT
- miamizsun - Jan 23, 2023 - 3:09pm
Way Cool Video
- miamizsun - Jan 23, 2023 - 2:00pm
Russia
- cc_rider - Jan 23, 2023 - 8:14am
NOT Main Mix
- ScopPics - Jan 23, 2023 - 4:25am
Memorials - Remembering Our Loved Ones
- GeneP59 - Jan 22, 2023 - 9:14am
News of the Weird
- Bill_J - Jan 20, 2023 - 7:51pm
Breaking News
- ScottFromWyoming - Jan 20, 2023 - 2:57pm
Philosophy (Meaty Metaphysical Munchables!)
- R_P - Jan 20, 2023 - 1:48pm
The Bucket List
- miamizsun - Jan 20, 2023 - 10:38am
Derplahoma!
- Red_Dragon - Jan 20, 2023 - 10:02am
Things that make you go Hmmmm.....
- haresfur - Jan 19, 2023 - 8:14pm
What music have you paid real money for recently?
- kurtster - Jan 19, 2023 - 7:30pm
Twitter's finest moment
- westslope - Jan 19, 2023 - 7:03pm
Tidal / Spotify
- bigbargain - Jan 19, 2023 - 2:33pm
Is there any GOOD news out there?
- black321 - Jan 19, 2023 - 2:06pm
Tesla (motors, batteries, etc)
- Steely_D - Jan 19, 2023 - 11:17am
Baseball, anyone?
- ScottFromWyoming - Jan 19, 2023 - 11:13am
|
Index »
Radio Paradise/General »
General Discussion »
Climate Change
|
Page: Previous 1, 2, 3 ... 115, 116, 117, 118 Next |
jadewahoo

Location: Puerto Viejo, Costa Rica Gender:  
|
Posted:
Nov 30, 2009 - 9:16pm |
|
dionysius wrote:
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.
Whoa. You say those names like you have actually read them. ?
|
|
dionysius

Location: The People's Republic of Austin Gender:  
|
Posted:
Nov 30, 2009 - 9:02pm |
|
miamizsun wrote: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  Sorry, I don't know Portuguese. And the email "scandal"—proves nothing. Zilch. Does nothing to invalidate science being done all over the world, not just in one small organization. There is no smoking gun, not one than can clean up all the smoking chimneys. This is a venial sin next to the mortal one of climate change denial. Look past this well-intentioned error to the much bigger error beyond it. The hard choices do have to be made. That's why there is a denial movement, to delay (because it cannot be prevented, ultimately) the hard political and economic decisions. Denial is in the short-term interests of a few who are heavily invested in the present carbon economy. The carbon tax and cap-and-trade will benefit us all, in the long run. We have to see that short-term inconvenience is necessary for long-term welfare and, well, survival. For the natural world as well as us.
|
|
miamizsun

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

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

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: (3261.3 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: (3261.3 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.
|
|
|