Today in History
- DaveInSaoMiguel - Apr 27, 2024 - 3:19am
NY Times Strands
- Steely_D - Apr 27, 2024 - 1:35am
SCOTUS
- haresfur - Apr 26, 2024 - 9:41pm
The Moon
- KurtfromLaQuinta - Apr 26, 2024 - 9:08pm
Photography Forum - Your Own Photos
- KurtfromLaQuinta - Apr 26, 2024 - 9:06pm
April 2024 Photo Theme - Happenstance
- fractalv - Apr 26, 2024 - 8:59pm
Musky Mythology
- Red_Dragon - Apr 26, 2024 - 7:23pm
Trump
- Red_Dragon - Apr 26, 2024 - 5:35pm
Mini Meetups - Post Here!
- Red_Dragon - Apr 26, 2024 - 4:02pm
Australia has Disappeared
- Red_Dragon - Apr 26, 2024 - 2:41pm
If not RP, what are you listening to right now?
- westslope - Apr 26, 2024 - 1:18pm
Israel
- R_P - Apr 26, 2024 - 12:53pm
Breaking News
- kcar - Apr 26, 2024 - 11:17am
Radio Paradise sounding better recently
- firefly6 - Apr 26, 2024 - 10:39am
Neil Young
- Steely_D - Apr 26, 2024 - 9:20am
NYTimes Connections
- geoff_morphini - Apr 26, 2024 - 9:08am
Wordle - daily game
- geoff_morphini - Apr 26, 2024 - 9:02am
Country Up The Bumpkin
- KurtfromLaQuinta - Apr 26, 2024 - 9:01am
Radio Paradise Comments
- miamizsun - Apr 26, 2024 - 5:09am
Environmental, Brilliance or Stupidity
- miamizsun - Apr 26, 2024 - 5:07am
The Obituary Page
- DaveInSaoMiguel - Apr 26, 2024 - 3:47am
Joe Biden
- kurtster - Apr 25, 2024 - 9:24pm
Talk Behind Their Backs Forum
- islander - Apr 25, 2024 - 2:28pm
Things You Thought Today
- Manbird - Apr 25, 2024 - 2:12pm
Poetry Forum
- Manbird - Apr 25, 2024 - 12:30pm
Ask an Atheist
- R_P - Apr 25, 2024 - 11:02am
Mixtape Culture Club
- miamizsun - Apr 25, 2024 - 10:36am
Afghanistan
- R_P - Apr 25, 2024 - 10:26am
Science in the News
- Red_Dragon - Apr 25, 2024 - 10:00am
What the hell OV?
- miamizsun - Apr 25, 2024 - 9:46am
The Abortion Wars
- Isabeau - Apr 25, 2024 - 9:27am
Vinyl Only Spin List
- ColdMiser - Apr 25, 2024 - 7:15am
What's that smell?
- Manbird - Apr 24, 2024 - 10:27pm
Song of the Day
- oldviolin - Apr 24, 2024 - 10:20pm
260,000 Posts in one thread?
- NoEnzLefttoSplit - Apr 24, 2024 - 10:55am
Would you drive this car for dating with ur girl?
- rgio - Apr 24, 2024 - 8:44am
TV shows you watch
- Beaker - Apr 24, 2024 - 7:32am
Dialing 1-800-Manbird
- Bill_J - Apr 23, 2024 - 7:15pm
China
- R_P - Apr 23, 2024 - 5:35pm
Economix
- islander - Apr 23, 2024 - 12:11pm
USA! USA! USA!
- R_P - Apr 23, 2024 - 11:05am
One Partying State - Wyoming News
- sunybuny - Apr 23, 2024 - 6:53am
YouTube: Music-Videos
- Red_Dragon - Apr 22, 2024 - 7:42pm
Ukraine
- haresfur - Apr 22, 2024 - 6:19pm
songs that ROCK!
- Steely_D - Apr 22, 2024 - 1:50pm
Bug Reports & Feature Requests
- q4Fry - Apr 22, 2024 - 11:57am
Republican Party
- R_P - Apr 22, 2024 - 9:36am
Malaysia
- dcruzj - Apr 22, 2024 - 7:30am
Canada
- westslope - Apr 22, 2024 - 6:23am
Russia
- NoEnzLefttoSplit - Apr 22, 2024 - 1:03am
Broccoli for cats - you gotta see this!
- Bill_J - Apr 21, 2024 - 6:16pm
Name My Band
- DaveInSaoMiguel - Apr 21, 2024 - 3:06pm
Main Mix Playlist
- thisbody - Apr 21, 2024 - 12:04pm
George Orwell
- oldviolin - Apr 21, 2024 - 11:36am
• • • The Once-a-Day • • •
- oldviolin - Apr 20, 2024 - 7:44pm
What Did You See Today?
- Welly - Apr 20, 2024 - 4:50pm
Radio Paradise on multiple Echo speakers via an Alexa Rou...
- victory806 - Apr 20, 2024 - 2:11pm
Libertarian Party
- R_P - Apr 20, 2024 - 11:18am
Remembering the Good Old Days
- kurtster - Apr 20, 2024 - 2:37am
Words I didn't know...yrs ago
- Bill_J - Apr 19, 2024 - 7:06pm
Things that make you go Hmmmm.....
- Bill_J - Apr 19, 2024 - 6:59pm
Baseball, anyone?
- Red_Dragon - Apr 19, 2024 - 6:51pm
MILESTONES: Famous People, Dead Today, Born Today, Etc.
- Bill_J - Apr 19, 2024 - 6:44pm
2024 Elections!
- steeler - Apr 19, 2024 - 5:49pm
how do you feel right now?
- miamizsun - Apr 19, 2024 - 6:02am
When I need a Laugh I ...
- miamizsun - Apr 19, 2024 - 5:43am
Live Music
- oldviolin - Apr 18, 2024 - 3:24pm
What Makes You Laugh?
- oldviolin - Apr 18, 2024 - 2:49pm
Robots
- miamizsun - Apr 18, 2024 - 2:18pm
Museum Of Bad Album Covers
- Steve - Apr 18, 2024 - 6:58am
Europe
- haresfur - Apr 17, 2024 - 6:47pm
Business as Usual
- black321 - Apr 17, 2024 - 1:48pm
Magic Eye optical Illusions
- Proclivities - Apr 17, 2024 - 10:08am
Just for the Haiku of it. . .
- oldviolin - Apr 17, 2024 - 9:01am
HALF A WORLD
- oldviolin - Apr 17, 2024 - 8:52am
|
Index »
Radio Paradise/General »
General Discussion »
Climate Change
|
Page: Previous 1, 2, 3 ... 124, 125, 126, 127 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: ? ? ? 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...
|
|
|