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

Today in History - Red_Dragon - Jul 15, 2024 - 5:32am
 
Please don't ban me, but: Taylor Swift... - sunybuny - Jul 15, 2024 - 4:55am
 
Radio Paradise Comments - Coaxial - Jul 15, 2024 - 4:51am
 
NYTimes Connections - Coaxial - Jul 15, 2024 - 4:45am
 
Wordle - daily game - Coaxial - Jul 15, 2024 - 4:33am
 
Trump - Beaker - Jul 15, 2024 - 4:26am
 
NY Times Strands - Proclivities - Jul 15, 2024 - 4:26am
 
Name My Band - GeneP59 - Jul 14, 2024 - 6:57pm
 
Joe Biden - Beaker - Jul 14, 2024 - 5:05pm
 
YouTube: Music-Videos - Beaker - Jul 14, 2024 - 3:51pm
 
July 2024 Photo Theme - Summer - KurtfromLaQuinta - Jul 14, 2024 - 3:37pm
 
Things You Thought Today - KurtfromLaQuinta - Jul 14, 2024 - 3:35pm
 
• • • The Once-a-Day • • •  - oldviolin - Jul 14, 2024 - 2:17pm
 
Pernicious Pious Proclivities Particularized Prodigiously - R_P - Jul 14, 2024 - 12:52pm
 
Media Bias - Beaker - Jul 14, 2024 - 9:46am
 
what the hell, miamizsun? - oldviolin - Jul 14, 2024 - 7:51am
 
The Obituary Page - DaveInSaoMiguel - Jul 14, 2024 - 6:42am
 
What questions would you like to answer for the world? - kurtster - Jul 13, 2024 - 11:42pm
 
Musky Mythology - R_P - Jul 13, 2024 - 11:14pm
 
Mixtape Culture Club - KurtfromLaQuinta - Jul 13, 2024 - 9:20pm
 
AH! There's an elephant in the room! - Red_Dragon - Jul 13, 2024 - 3:42pm
 
Project 2025 - Red_Dragon - Jul 13, 2024 - 1:35pm
 
Outstanding Covers - DaveInSaoMiguel - Jul 13, 2024 - 12:49pm
 
Israel - R_P - Jul 13, 2024 - 11:01am
 
2024 Elections! - Steely_D - Jul 13, 2024 - 10:45am
 
Evolution! - R_P - Jul 13, 2024 - 10:34am
 
Climate Change - R_P - Jul 13, 2024 - 10:28am
 
Eclectic Sound-Drops - oldviolin - Jul 13, 2024 - 10:23am
 
Song of the Day - oldviolin - Jul 13, 2024 - 10:09am
 
What the hell OV? - oldviolin - Jul 13, 2024 - 10:03am
 
Europe - thisbody - Jul 12, 2024 - 11:35pm
 
Vinyl Only Spin List - kurtster - Jul 12, 2024 - 9:59pm
 
RP on Mac Just Stopped Working - tourtelot - Jul 12, 2024 - 9:35pm
 
Are they married yet? YES THEY ARE! - Manbird - Jul 12, 2024 - 2:51pm
 
Tech & Science - Manbird - Jul 12, 2024 - 2:46pm
 
Classic TV Curiosities - Proclivities - Jul 12, 2024 - 12:50pm
 
Bug Reports & Feature Requests - simonchutchings - Jul 12, 2024 - 11:24am
 
Ukraine - R_P - Jul 12, 2024 - 10:48am
 
New Music - R_P - Jul 12, 2024 - 10:23am
 
USA! USA! USA! - R_P - Jul 12, 2024 - 9:35am
 
Florida - miamizsun - Jul 12, 2024 - 7:05am
 
Regarding Birds - Jiggz - Jul 12, 2024 - 1:41am
 
Strange signs, marquees, billboards, etc. - thisbody - Jul 11, 2024 - 10:36pm
 
Guns - Red_Dragon - Jul 11, 2024 - 3:44pm
 
Gotta Get Your Drink On - Antigone - Jul 11, 2024 - 2:36pm
 
Photography Forum - Your Own Photos - KurtfromLaQuinta - Jul 11, 2024 - 2:05pm
 
Record Store Day - Proclivities - Jul 11, 2024 - 8:18am
 
Rhetorical questions - Coaxial - Jul 11, 2024 - 7:03am
 
What makes you smile? - Steely_D - Jul 11, 2024 - 5:12am
 
Derplahoma! - sunybuny - Jul 11, 2024 - 4:39am
 
Russia - thisbody - Jul 11, 2024 - 3:11am
 
France - thisbody - Jul 11, 2024 - 3:04am
 
Britain - thisbody - Jul 10, 2024 - 11:36pm
 
Good Idea / Bad Idea - ScottFromWyoming - Jul 10, 2024 - 4:39pm
 
How's the weather? - KurtfromLaQuinta - Jul 10, 2024 - 4:35pm
 
China - Red_Dragon - Jul 10, 2024 - 4:28pm
 
RP Daily Trivia Challenge - ScottFromWyoming - Jul 10, 2024 - 2:56pm
 
SCOTUS - Red_Dragon - Jul 10, 2024 - 2:20pm
 
Twitter and democracy - R_P - Jul 10, 2024 - 8:40am
 
Baseball, anyone? - Bill_J - Jul 9, 2024 - 8:58pm
 
The Truth About (Modern) Popular Music - ScottFromWyoming - Jul 9, 2024 - 8:51pm
 
Is RP stuck in a loop? - thisbody - Jul 9, 2024 - 3:51pm
 
COVID-19 - oldviolin - Jul 9, 2024 - 2:18pm
 
Favorite Quotes - oldviolin - Jul 9, 2024 - 2:11pm
 
The Sound of Falling Water - KurtfromLaQuinta - Jul 9, 2024 - 2:04pm
 
Spambags on RP - GeneP59 - Jul 9, 2024 - 1:37pm
 
RP is stuck in repetitive loop of songs! WTH? - thisbody - Jul 9, 2024 - 1:29pm
 
Make Scott laugh - thisbody - Jul 9, 2024 - 11:33am
 
RightWingNutZ - R_P - Jul 9, 2024 - 11:09am
 
The Day the Sausage Died - thisbody - Jul 9, 2024 - 10:43am
 
Philosophy (Meaty Metaphysical Munchables!) - thisbody - Jul 9, 2024 - 10:41am
 
Best Funk ? - thisbody - Jul 9, 2024 - 10:22am
 
Get the Quote - thisbody - Jul 9, 2024 - 10:19am
 
Internet connection - thisbody - Jul 9, 2024 - 9:59am
 
Nature's Creatures - thisbody - Jul 9, 2024 - 9:13am
 
Index » Radio Paradise/General » General Discussion » Climate Change Page: Previous  1, 2, 3 ... 127, 128, 129, 130  Next
Post to this Topic
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: (3283.1 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: (3283.1 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: La Villa Toscana
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.

dionysius

dionysius Avatar

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


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!
Page: Previous  1, 2, 3 ... 127, 128, 129, 130  Next