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

NY Times Strands - rgio - Feb 15, 2025 - 11:58am
 
Trump - rgio - Feb 15, 2025 - 11:55am
 
Celebrity Cats - Proclivities - Feb 15, 2025 - 11:36am
 
NYTimes Connections - geoff_morphini - Feb 15, 2025 - 11:07am
 
Wordle - daily game - geoff_morphini - Feb 15, 2025 - 10:25am
 
You Gotta See This! - Coaxial - Feb 15, 2025 - 8:22am
 
RP stopping frequently - wheatgerm - Feb 15, 2025 - 8:14am
 
President(s) Musk/Trump - Red_Dragon - Feb 15, 2025 - 7:24am
 
Song of the Day - miamizsun - Feb 15, 2025 - 7:19am
 
Artificial Intelligence - miamizsun - Feb 15, 2025 - 6:50am
 
Radio Paradise Comments - miamizsun - Feb 15, 2025 - 6:46am
 
hAPPY aNNIVERSARY bUZZ and jRZYTMATA - miamizsun - Feb 15, 2025 - 6:45am
 
Today in History - Red_Dragon - Feb 15, 2025 - 6:28am
 
Australia has Disappeared - Red_Dragon - Feb 15, 2025 - 6:19am
 
The Abortion Wars - R_P - Feb 14, 2025 - 9:42pm
 
Talk Behind Their Backs Forum - buddy - Feb 14, 2025 - 8:50pm
 
Musky Mythology - R_P - Feb 14, 2025 - 6:58pm
 
Food Texture Issues - buddy - Feb 14, 2025 - 6:53pm
 
Things You Thought Today - buddy - Feb 14, 2025 - 4:53pm
 
Business as Usual - R_P - Feb 14, 2025 - 4:23pm
 
Questions. - Red_Dragon - Feb 14, 2025 - 3:59pm
 
Ukraine - R_P - Feb 14, 2025 - 2:49pm
 
Other Medical Stuff - Steely_D - Feb 14, 2025 - 2:27pm
 
Are you ready for some football? - rgio - Feb 14, 2025 - 1:51pm
 
New Music - KurtfromLaQuinta - Feb 14, 2025 - 1:36pm
 
Billionaires - R_P - Feb 14, 2025 - 12:54pm
 
Republican Party - kcar - Feb 14, 2025 - 12:01pm
 
Israel - R_P - Feb 14, 2025 - 11:20am
 
Immigration - R_P - Feb 14, 2025 - 10:55am
 
Live Music - R_P - Feb 14, 2025 - 10:31am
 
USA! USA! USA! - R_P - Feb 14, 2025 - 10:23am
 
what the hell, miamizsun? - oldviolin - Feb 14, 2025 - 10:00am
 
• • • The Once-a-Day • • •  - oldviolin - Feb 14, 2025 - 9:49am
 
African radio - touristtam - Feb 14, 2025 - 9:40am
 
Democratic Party - ColdMiser - Feb 14, 2025 - 9:37am
 
Poetry Forum - Red_Dragon - Feb 14, 2025 - 8:38am
 
RP App - swtobias508 - Feb 14, 2025 - 8:18am
 
Russia - Red_Dragon - Feb 14, 2025 - 7:42am
 
Word of the Day - Isabeau - Feb 14, 2025 - 5:28am
 
Things I Saw Today... - KurtfromLaQuinta - Feb 13, 2025 - 7:40pm
 
Canada - R_P - Feb 13, 2025 - 4:45pm
 
Name My Band - oldviolin - Feb 12, 2025 - 10:53pm
 
What Are You Going To Do Today? - GeneP59 - Feb 12, 2025 - 6:48pm
 
The Obituary Page - steeler - Feb 12, 2025 - 3:06pm
 
Way Cool Video - islander - Feb 12, 2025 - 1:43pm
 
Economix - R_P - Feb 12, 2025 - 11:01am
 
Health Care - R_P - Feb 12, 2025 - 10:57am
 
RP on Naim - Eggybeard - Feb 12, 2025 - 7:57am
 
Photography Forum - Your Own Photos - Isabeau - Feb 11, 2025 - 1:56pm
 
Edit option on my playlist - haresfur - Feb 11, 2025 - 12:52pm
 
February 2025 Photo Theme - Wet - KurtfromLaQuinta - Feb 10, 2025 - 8:45pm
 
If not RP, what are you listening to right now? - Red_Dragon - Feb 10, 2025 - 6:17pm
 
Dialing 1-800-Manbird - Red_Dragon - Feb 10, 2025 - 6:12pm
 
Bug Reports & Feature Requests - kenkonzelman - Feb 10, 2025 - 5:51pm
 
Google Inc. - Steely_D - Feb 10, 2025 - 5:05pm
 
New York Dolls - Steely_D - Feb 10, 2025 - 12:25pm
 
Test - Red_Dragon - Feb 10, 2025 - 11:30am
 
RP dropouts on BlueNode - frankfrench - Feb 10, 2025 - 10:53am
 
Peanut Butter Recall - Proclivities - Feb 10, 2025 - 10:32am
 
Radio Paradise NFL Pick'em Group - Coaxial - Feb 10, 2025 - 8:25am
 
DIY - ScottFromWyoming - Feb 10, 2025 - 8:22am
 
Fires - miamizsun - Feb 10, 2025 - 7:38am
 
Food - Isabeau - Feb 10, 2025 - 6:59am
 
Strange & Cool Music - miamizsun - Feb 10, 2025 - 5:13am
 
Love & Hate - miamizsun - Feb 10, 2025 - 4:40am
 
Banksters - R_P - Feb 9, 2025 - 1:51pm
 
Bluesky - instead of Twitter - ScottFromWyoming - Feb 9, 2025 - 8:49am
 
Concert Reviews - miamizsun - Feb 9, 2025 - 7:48am
 
Why do the Monkees never get played on R.P? - KurtfromLaQuinta - Feb 8, 2025 - 3:28pm
 
Birthday wishes - oldviolin - Feb 8, 2025 - 3:18pm
 
Happy Birthday!!! - Red_Dragon - Feb 8, 2025 - 1:09pm
 
Friends of Bill W? - miamizsun - Feb 8, 2025 - 1:05pm
 
New Yorker Magazine (Feb10, 2025) "The Mail" - Isabeau - Feb 8, 2025 - 6:26am
 
Mini Meetups - Post Here! - buddy - Feb 7, 2025 - 5:27pm
 
Breaking News - Steely_D - Feb 7, 2025 - 4:54pm
 
Index » Radio Paradise/General » General Discussion » Climate Change Page: Previous  1, 2, 3 ... 130, 131, 132, 133  Next
Post to this Topic
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!
oldviolin

oldviolin Avatar

Location: esse quam videri
Gender: Male


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...



Page: Previous  1, 2, 3 ... 130, 131, 132, 133  Next