Today in History
- DaveInSaoMiguel - May 15, 2024 - 3:15am
Play the Blues
- Steely_D - May 15, 2024 - 1:50am
Joe Biden
- kurtster - May 14, 2024 - 8:37pm
Science is bullsh*t
- buddy - May 14, 2024 - 8:11pm
Animal Resistance
- R_P - May 14, 2024 - 6:37pm
Things You Thought Today
- Red_Dragon - May 14, 2024 - 6:25pm
2024 Elections!
- R_P - May 14, 2024 - 6:00pm
May 2024 Photo Theme - Peaceful
- fractalv - May 14, 2024 - 5:02pm
Israel
- R_P - May 14, 2024 - 4:57pm
Fascism In America
- Red_Dragon - May 14, 2024 - 4:27pm
Bug Reports & Feature Requests
- cptbuz - May 14, 2024 - 3:31pm
USA! USA! USA!
- R_P - May 14, 2024 - 3:20pm
NY Times Strands
- geoff_morphini - May 14, 2024 - 2:45pm
punk? hip-hop? metal? noise? garage?
- thisbody - May 14, 2024 - 1:27pm
What can you hear right now?
- thisbody - May 14, 2024 - 1:25pm
The Obituary Page
- thisbody - May 14, 2024 - 12:41pm
NYTimes Connections
- maryte - May 14, 2024 - 12:21pm
Wordle - daily game
- maryte - May 14, 2024 - 12:15pm
• • • The Once-a-Day • • •
- oldviolin - May 14, 2024 - 10:24am
Radio Paradise Comments
- oldviolin - May 14, 2024 - 10:21am
Social Media Are Changing Everything
- Red_Dragon - May 14, 2024 - 8:08am
Internet connection
- ai63 - May 14, 2024 - 7:53am
Song of the Day
- Steely_D - May 14, 2024 - 1:23am
Congress
- Red_Dragon - May 13, 2024 - 8:22pm
Ukraine
- R_P - May 13, 2024 - 5:50pm
Strange signs, marquees, billboards, etc.
- Red_Dragon - May 13, 2024 - 3:36pm
What The Hell Buddy?
- oldviolin - May 13, 2024 - 1:25pm
Surfing!
- KurtfromLaQuinta - May 13, 2024 - 1:21pm
What the hell OV?
- oldviolin - May 13, 2024 - 12:28pm
China
- R_P - May 13, 2024 - 12:11pm
Bad Poetry
- oldviolin - May 13, 2024 - 11:38am
What Did You See Today?
- kurtster - May 13, 2024 - 10:35am
See This Film
- Red_Dragon - May 13, 2024 - 8:35am
Podcast recommendations???
- ColdMiser - May 13, 2024 - 7:50am
News of the Weird
- Red_Dragon - May 13, 2024 - 5:05am
Mixtape Culture Club
- Lazy8 - May 12, 2024 - 10:26pm
Trump
- Steely_D - May 12, 2024 - 3:35pm
Those Lovable Policemen
- R_P - May 12, 2024 - 11:31am
Vinyl Only Spin List
- kurtster - May 12, 2024 - 9:16am
The All-Things Beatles Forum
- Steely_D - May 12, 2024 - 9:04am
Baseball, anyone?
- Red_Dragon - May 12, 2024 - 6:52am
Poetry Forum
- ScottN - May 12, 2024 - 6:32am
Photography Forum - Your Own Photos
- miamizsun - May 11, 2024 - 10:37am
Upcoming concerts or shows you can't wait to see
- oldviolin - May 11, 2024 - 8:43am
Beer
- ScottFromWyoming - May 10, 2024 - 8:58pm
It's the economy stupid.
- thisbody - May 10, 2024 - 3:21pm
Oh dear god, BEES!
- R_P - May 10, 2024 - 3:11pm
Tornado!
- miamizsun - May 10, 2024 - 2:49pm
The 1960s
- kcar - May 10, 2024 - 2:49pm
Climate Change
- R_P - May 10, 2024 - 10:08am
Name My Band
- GeneP59 - May 10, 2024 - 9:35am
Marko Haavisto & Poutahaukat
- thisbody - May 10, 2024 - 7:57am
Artificial Intelligence
- miamizsun - May 10, 2024 - 6:51am
Living in America
- Proclivities - May 10, 2024 - 6:45am
Virginia News
- Red_Dragon - May 10, 2024 - 5:42am
Outstanding Covers
- Steely_D - May 10, 2024 - 12:56am
Democratic Party
- R_P - May 9, 2024 - 3:06pm
RP on HomePod mini
- RPnate1 - May 9, 2024 - 10:52am
Interesting Words
- Proclivities - May 9, 2024 - 10:22am
Positive Thoughts and Prayer Requests
- islander - May 9, 2024 - 7:21am
Breaking News
- maryte - May 9, 2024 - 7:17am
Guns
- Red_Dragon - May 9, 2024 - 6:16am
Spambags on RP
- Steely_D - May 8, 2024 - 2:30pm
Suggestion for new RP Channel: Modern / Family
- Ruuddie - May 8, 2024 - 11:46am
Gaming, Shopping, and More? Samsung's Metaverse Plans for...
- alexhoxdson - May 8, 2024 - 7:00am
SLOVENIA
- novitibo - May 8, 2024 - 1:38am
Reviews and Pix from your concerts and shows you couldn't...
- haresfur - May 7, 2024 - 10:46pm
Eclectic Sound-Drops
- Manbird - May 7, 2024 - 10:18pm
Farts!
- KurtfromLaQuinta - May 7, 2024 - 9:53pm
The RP YouTube (Google) Group
- oldviolin - May 7, 2024 - 8:46pm
Dialing 1-800-Manbird
- oldviolin - May 7, 2024 - 8:35pm
What Are You Going To Do Today?
- Manbird - May 7, 2024 - 7:55pm
Russia
- R_P - May 7, 2024 - 1:59am
Politically Uncorrect News
- oldviolin - May 6, 2024 - 2:15pm
Other Medical Stuff
- kurtster - May 6, 2024 - 1:04pm
|
Index »
Radio Paradise/General »
General Discussion »
Climate Change
|
Page: Previous 1, 2, 3 ... 124, 125, 126, 127 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: (3283.1 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: (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.
|
|
|