Climate Change, 'Greenhouse' effects, Environment, etc part III


log in

Advanced search

Message boards : Politics : Climate Change, 'Greenhouse' effects, Environment, etc part III

Previous · 1 . . . 8 · 9 · 10 · 11 · 12 · 13 · 14 . . . 29 · Next
Author Message
WinterKnight
Volunteer tester
Send message
Joined: 18 May 99
Posts: 8628
Credit: 23,676,995
RAC: 18,266
United Kingdom
Message 1304208 - Posted: 9 Nov 2012, 21:56:27 UTC - in response to Message 1304059.

No, there were studies in the 60's indicating that increased CO2 was having an effect. Think smog in CA.

And there have been studies, rejected at the time, that the greenhouse effect was increasing back in the 1930's.

WinterKnight
Volunteer tester
Send message
Joined: 18 May 99
Posts: 8628
Credit: 23,676,995
RAC: 18,266
United Kingdom
Message 1304210 - Posted: 9 Nov 2012, 21:58:32 UTC - in response to Message 1304042.

You two are beginning to sound like the Republican supporters in the US. Elderly white and stuck in your beliefs.


Poppycock! White yes, but older, wiser, and still remembering the time when the world was run a damn sight better that it is now. Stuck in our beliefs? Not at all, more a case of standing by ones principles. Yes we know global warming is happening, witness the lack of arctic summer ice this year, and other measurements. But it is not happening at the rate that a lot of people say it is.

As an ex OU man myself (S102, T102, M205) what take did the put on it?

Bad news sells newspapers, always has done, always will do.

Hrrrumph!

Without looking it up but wasn't there a report recently that said Greenland's glaciers were melting faster than expected.

Reed Young
Send message
Joined: 23 Feb 06
Posts: 122
Credit: 81,383
RAC: 0
United States
Message 1304227 - Posted: 9 Nov 2012, 22:31:00 UTC - in response to Message 1304059.

If you did your degree in the 1970's, "Climate Change" mean't Global Cooling" didn't it ?

Only if you got your "science" from two corporate media pieces and ignored the scientific journals. Which it seems you still do.
____________

Profile Michel448a
Volunteer tester
Avatar
Send message
Joined: 27 Oct 00
Posts: 1201
Credit: 2,891,635
RAC: 0
Canada
Message 1304299 - Posted: 10 Nov 2012, 4:55:15 UTC - in response to Message 1304186.


So, when the North Atlantic currents (Gulf Stream) stops flowing, and the UK and the near continent starts to cool (same latitude ad Newfoundland and Moscow). Then winter will set in, and, on the same scare mongering prediction as the warmists, within 100 years we will have permanent 9-10 month winters, and start to starve as crop growing cycles are too short...


it s already happening :P

summer was late.... started to be cold too soon .... stupid winter.

i wish so much a pole shift lol. it s our turn to be place at equatorial :P
j/k
____________

Profile ML1
Volunteer tester
Send message
Joined: 25 Nov 01
Posts: 8376
Credit: 4,104,510
RAC: 1,058
United Kingdom
Message 1305367 - Posted: 12 Nov 2012, 14:45:01 UTC - in response to Message 1304208.

No, there were studies in the 60's indicating that increased CO2 was having an effect. Think smog in CA.

And there have been studies, rejected at the time, that the greenhouse effect was increasing back in the 1930's.

... And others stretching right back the start of the Industrial Revolution.

One recently in the press from 40 years ago which was 'swept under the political carpet' back then for not being 'immediate enough' was:

Moynihan, as Nixon aide, warned of global warming

... There is widespread agreement that carbon dioxide content will rise 25 percent by 2000, Moynihan wrote in a September 1969 memo.

"This could increase the average temperature near the earth's surface by 7 degrees Fahrenheit," he wrote. "This in turn could raise the level of the sea by 10 feet. Goodbye New York. Goodbye Washington, for that matter."...



Do we really have to wait until too late to clean up our latest biggest industrial pollution?

Or is this all a cruel political and Marketing game with our planet?


All on our only planet,
Martin

____________
See new freedom: Mageia4
Linux Voice See & try out your OS Freedom!
The Future is what We make IT (GPLv3)

Profile Chris SProject donor
Volunteer tester
Avatar
Send message
Joined: 19 Nov 00
Posts: 31430
Credit: 12,112,579
RAC: 27,734
United Kingdom
Message 1305375 - Posted: 12 Nov 2012, 15:17:36 UTC

Todays UK daily Express

Profile ML1
Volunteer tester
Send message
Joined: 25 Nov 01
Posts: 8376
Credit: 4,104,510
RAC: 1,058
United Kingdom
Message 1305425 - Posted: 12 Nov 2012, 18:00:52 UTC - in response to Message 1305375.

Todays UK daily Express ...

All well and so...

Anything in there as to "why" and "how"?...

Or should we guess that the focus will be on sensationalism and profiteering by the fossil fuels companies?


All on our only planet,
Martin

____________
See new freedom: Mageia4
Linux Voice See & try out your OS Freedom!
The Future is what We make IT (GPLv3)

Profile Gary CharpentierProject donor
Volunteer tester
Avatar
Send message
Joined: 25 Dec 00
Posts: 12391
Credit: 6,692,653
RAC: 8,774
United States
Message 1305432 - Posted: 12 Nov 2012, 18:08:00 UTC - in response to Message 1305367.

... There is widespread agreement that carbon dioxide content will rise 25 percent by 2000, Moynihan wrote in a September 1969 memo.

"This could increase the average temperature near the earth's surface by 7 degrees Fahrenheit," he wrote. "This in turn could raise the level of the sea by 10 feet. Goodbye New York. Goodbye Washington, for that matter."...

Did it happen? No. Why should anyone listen to chicken little?

The CO2 is rising ... The CO2 is rising ... The CO2 is rising ...

Just plain obvious to anyone with a functioning brain that the models that call for this have serious significant errors in them, or garbage inputs are being applied, or BOTH!

____________

Profile Es99Project donor
Volunteer moderator
Volunteer tester
Avatar
Send message
Joined: 23 Aug 05
Posts: 8839
Credit: 250,274
RAC: 132
Canada
Message 1305437 - Posted: 12 Nov 2012, 18:14:26 UTC - in response to Message 1305432.

... There is widespread agreement that carbon dioxide content will rise 25 percent by 2000, Moynihan wrote in a September 1969 memo.

"This could increase the average temperature near the earth's surface by 7 degrees Fahrenheit," he wrote. "This in turn could raise the level of the sea by 10 feet. Goodbye New York. Goodbye Washington, for that matter."...

Did it happen? No. Why should anyone listen to chicken little?

The CO2 is rising ... The CO2 is rising ... The CO2 is rising ...

Just plain obvious to anyone with a functioning brain that the models that call for this have serious significant errors in them, or garbage inputs are being applied, or BOTH!

You've been duped Gary.

The climate change deniers: influence out of all proportion to science
____________
Are you a feminist? Take the test

Profile ML1
Volunteer tester
Send message
Joined: 25 Nov 01
Posts: 8376
Credit: 4,104,510
RAC: 1,058
United Kingdom
Message 1305439 - Posted: 12 Nov 2012, 18:18:36 UTC - in response to Message 1305432.

... There is widespread agreement that carbon dioxide content will rise 25 percent by 2000, Moynihan wrote in a September 1969 memo.

"This could increase the average temperature near the earth's surface by 7 degrees Fahrenheit," he wrote. "This in turn could raise the level of the sea by 10 feet. Goodbye New York. Goodbye Washington, for that matter."...

Did it happen? ...

Yes it has... The various consequent effects are following on. Note the no Arctic summertime ice just for one significant example?...

Can you please give some real world substance as opposed to your manic desperation to scream "no change" and "not our fault"?...


Or are you just an old contrary troll denying over 200 years of industrialization?

All on our only planet,
Martin



____________
See new freedom: Mageia4
Linux Voice See & try out your OS Freedom!
The Future is what We make IT (GPLv3)

Profile Es99Project donor
Volunteer moderator
Volunteer tester
Avatar
Send message
Joined: 23 Aug 05
Posts: 8839
Credit: 250,274
RAC: 132
Canada
Message 1305443 - Posted: 12 Nov 2012, 18:24:18 UTC

How about an actual peer reviewed paper?
Expert credibility in climate change

and Everything you need to know about climate change - interactive

If you are still a climate change denier you are on the wrong side of history and the consequences are too devastating to ignore.

The same people that ran a huge campaign to confuse the issue on whether smoking is safe on behalf of the tobacco industry are at work here, this time working for the oil companies.
____________
Are you a feminist? Take the test

Profile Gary CharpentierProject donor
Volunteer tester
Avatar
Send message
Joined: 25 Dec 00
Posts: 12391
Credit: 6,692,653
RAC: 8,774
United States
Message 1305448 - Posted: 12 Nov 2012, 18:29:21 UTC - in response to Message 1305439.

... There is widespread agreement that carbon dioxide content will rise 25 percent by 2000, Moynihan wrote in a September 1969 memo.

"This could increase the average temperature near the earth's surface by 7 degrees Fahrenheit," he wrote. "This in turn could raise the level of the sea by 10 feet. Goodbye New York. Goodbye Washington, for that matter."...

Did it happen? ...

Yes it has..

10 foot rise in sea level happened?

____________

Profile ML1
Volunteer tester
Send message
Joined: 25 Nov 01
Posts: 8376
Credit: 4,104,510
RAC: 1,058
United Kingdom
Message 1305484 - Posted: 12 Nov 2012, 19:13:34 UTC - in response to Message 1305448.

... There is widespread agreement that carbon dioxide content will rise 25 percent by 2000, Moynihan wrote in a September 1969 memo.

"This could increase the average temperature near the earth's surface by 7 degrees Fahrenheit," he wrote. "This in turn could raise the level of the sea by 10 feet. Goodbye New York. Goodbye Washington, for that matter."...

Did it happen? ...

Yes it has..

10 foot rise in sea level happened?

Rather than wild goose chase silly out of context glib silliness, can you get real?

Can you look up thermal expansion of the oceans and sea level rise for yourself and then you critically tell us? With reliable references? Note that wild claims of "It ain't going to happen any time soon" is not a useful answer unless you really can tell the whole world of science otherwise.

Meanwhile, ocean rise looks to be a distraction from the more immediate shifts in weather and climate that are getting to be ever more noticeable and disruptive...


Any other diversionary tactics from you?

Or are you just on a troll's game of words?

Your lack of any substance is most noticeable. Or are you just too old to care?


All on our only planet,
Martin


____________
See new freedom: Mageia4
Linux Voice See & try out your OS Freedom!
The Future is what We make IT (GPLv3)

Profile Gary CharpentierProject donor
Volunteer tester
Avatar
Send message
Joined: 25 Dec 00
Posts: 12391
Credit: 6,692,653
RAC: 8,774
United States
Message 1305490 - Posted: 12 Nov 2012, 19:22:40 UTC - in response to Message 1305484.

... There is widespread agreement that carbon dioxide content will rise 25 percent by 2000, Moynihan wrote in a September 1969 memo.

"This could increase the average temperature near the earth's surface by 7 degrees Fahrenheit," he wrote. "This in turn could raise the level of the sea by 10 feet. Goodbye New York. Goodbye Washington, for that matter."...

Did it happen? ...

Yes it has..

10 foot rise in sea level happened?

Rather than wild goose chase silly out of context glib silliness, can you get real?

Can you and the catastrophists get real?

The model failed.

____________

Profile ML1
Volunteer tester
Send message
Joined: 25 Nov 01
Posts: 8376
Credit: 4,104,510
RAC: 1,058
United Kingdom
Message 1305496 - Posted: 12 Nov 2012, 19:27:36 UTC - in response to Message 1305443.

How about an actual peer reviewed paper?
Expert credibility in climate change


PHEW!

THAT is the first scientific paper that I've seen of that type! Unprecedented, for all aspects represented.

Note that Science is a 'continuous argument' and the very nature of Science is that you can never completely know or agree on anything. You can even argue about our very existance and soon dive deep into great thinkers such as Plato and Socrates and so on...

And now for the stunner:

(ACC: anthropogenic climate change)

... Here, we use an extensive dataset of 1,372 climate researchers and their publication and citation data to show that (i) 97–98% of the climate researchers most actively publishing in the field support the tenets of ACC outlined by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, and (ii) the relative climate expertise and scientific prominence of the researchers unconvinced of ACC are substantially below that of the convinced researchers.

The only "climate deniers" are the paid shills?


and Everything you need to know about climate change - interactive

If you are still a climate change denier you are on the wrong side of history and the consequences are too devastating to ignore.

That's a good interactive to navigate through the huge amount of material that interest in our forced climate change is generating. Unfortunately, I suspect few people have the patience or interest to follow far through all that... Still a good compendium from that publisher.


The same people that ran a huge campaign to confuse the issue on whether smoking is safe on behalf of the tobacco industry are at work here, this time working for the oil companies.

All with the same unscrupulous callousness to kill people for their own profit.


Not all is fair in business, and there are no excuses.

All on our own world,
Martin

____________
See new freedom: Mageia4
Linux Voice See & try out your OS Freedom!
The Future is what We make IT (GPLv3)

Profile Gary CharpentierProject donor
Volunteer tester
Avatar
Send message
Joined: 25 Dec 00
Posts: 12391
Credit: 6,692,653
RAC: 8,774
United States
Message 1305574 - Posted: 12 Nov 2012, 22:04:23 UTC - in response to Message 1305443.

How about an actual peer reviewed paper?
Expert credibility in climate change


First, though the degree of contextual, political, epistemological, and cultural influences in determining who counts as an expert and who is credible remains debated, many scholars acknowledge the need to identify credible experts and account for expert opinion in technical (e.g., science-based) decision-making


Such a shock. Pro global warming publications publish lots of pro global warming articles. Therefor we conclude that man caused global warming is true.

I'm shocked, shocked to find that gambling is going on in here!


Man caused global warming may be true, but this isn't an argument for it. A stupid decision made by millions of scientists, is still a stupid decision.

____________

Profile Es99Project donor
Volunteer moderator
Volunteer tester
Avatar
Send message
Joined: 23 Aug 05
Posts: 8839
Credit: 250,274
RAC: 132
Canada
Message 1305589 - Posted: 12 Nov 2012, 22:26:00 UTC - in response to Message 1305574.

How about an actual peer reviewed paper?
Expert credibility in climate change


First, though the degree of contextual, political, epistemological, and cultural influences in determining who counts as an expert and who is credible remains debated, many scholars acknowledge the need to identify credible experts and account for expert opinion in technical (e.g., science-based) decision-making


Such a shock. Pro global warming publications publish lots of pro global warming articles. Therefor we conclude that man caused global warming is true.

National Academy of Sciences? Really Gary? Are you going to pick and chose what science you believe in what you don't? Based on what criteria? If you get liver cancer would you believe what an oncologist tells you or a dermatologist? Those pesky oncologists with their bias, posting scientific journal articles about stuff they actually know about.

I'm shocked, shocked to find that gambling is going on in here!


Man caused global warming may be true, but this isn't an argument for it. A stupid decision made by millions of scientists, is still a stupid decision.

Listen to yourself. You're not even making sense anymore.
____________
Are you a feminist? Take the test

Profile Gary CharpentierProject donor
Volunteer tester
Avatar
Send message
Joined: 25 Dec 00
Posts: 12391
Credit: 6,692,653
RAC: 8,774
United States
Message 1305599 - Posted: 12 Nov 2012, 22:49:40 UTC - in response to Message 1305589.

Listen to yourself. You're not even making sense anymore.

It isn't an argument. A good editor should have rejected this paper. The paper is better suited to a social science publication than a hard science publication. There is no discussion of how they know the "experts" they picked are "expert." Popular, yes, expert no. No discussion of possible biases in the data set, such as a requirement to profess a belief in ACC to even have a paper considered for publication in climate change journals. No discussion about how the 20 published papers requirement may skew their data set, if the editors believe in ACC themselves. It isn't good science; it comes closer to circular logic than science. Unfortunately it is what passes for science today.

____________

Profile ML1
Volunteer tester
Send message
Joined: 25 Nov 01
Posts: 8376
Credit: 4,104,510
RAC: 1,058
United Kingdom
Message 1305612 - Posted: 12 Nov 2012, 23:14:10 UTC - in response to Message 1305599.
Last modified: 12 Nov 2012, 23:15:00 UTC

Listen to yourself. You're not even making sense anymore.

It isn't an argument. A good editor should have ...

... according to you a "good editor" should have rewritten the science?! Change reality to fit your unreal dreams?

Looks like you're a confirmed devout denier of the world around you. Either that or you are a paid shill here to troll and spread FUD.


Please take your noise elsewhere. You're very welcome to start your own fantasy thread.

Meanwhile, on the real world we still have industry adding to the CO2 pollution and all the consequences of that. Less FUD noise could well let our politics catch up with that sooner rather than later and for the better for all.

Next step is better education to help all with the next pollution problem of too many people... But contrary to the Gary Charpentier world view, no nukes are needed for that.


All on our only planet,
Martin
____________
See new freedom: Mageia4
Linux Voice See & try out your OS Freedom!
The Future is what We make IT (GPLv3)

Profile Intelligent Design
Avatar
Send message
Joined: 9 Apr 12
Posts: 3626
Credit: 37,520
RAC: 1
United States
Message 1305613 - Posted: 12 Nov 2012, 23:17:48 UTC

Why don't you try reading some ice cores taken at the poles and Greenland. They tell a story of CO2 going up and down. Sometimes with the water level and others without water levels moveing at all. Yet, the whole time---life went on.

Previous · 1 . . . 8 · 9 · 10 · 11 · 12 · 13 · 14 . . . 29 · Next

Message boards : Politics : Climate Change, 'Greenhouse' effects, Environment, etc part III

Copyright © 2014 University of California