Started by somatichypermutation, November 22, 2013, 07:22:22 AM
Quote from: FightTheFuture on January 07, 2014, 04:04:02 AMCO2= plant foodMore CO2= healthy plantsCO2 = goooodNext?
Quote from: FightTheFuture on January 07, 2014, 04:44:11 AMMy scientists and THEIR extensive 20 year study says your science is full of shit. [url]http://www.climatecentral.org/news/study-finds-plant-growth-surges-as-co2-levels-rise-16094]http://www.climatecentral.org/news/study-finds-plant-growth-surges-as-co2-levels-rise-16094] [url]http://www.climatecentral.org/news/study-finds-plant-growth-surges-as-co2-levels-rise-16094 [/url]
Quote from: SciFiAuthor on January 07, 2014, 05:08:09 AMThat assumes that the "original" climate is desirable. In fact we're still in an ice age, and the climate we have now is a recent change from an earth that before the late Pliocene had significantly higher C02 than we have now. Life did fine before the late Pliocene and was actually more diverse. However, the earth before the industrial age was doing strange things, such as converting much of North Africa into a desert whereas it was historically arable land.I read the synopsis and I would wonder one thing: The sun already varies in luminosity thusly impacting both the water cycle and the atmosphere simultaneously. The current pause in warming itself has been chalked up to that. That would imply that it that they can and are being compensated for at the same time right now I would think.Oh I don't think it will ever get so far as to need shields or high albedo spraying. The earth has shown itself to be a remarkably self-correcting system across its history. It has sustained multiple catastrophes that make climate change look like tinker toys in comparison. If it can recover from an asteroid impact, actually several of them apparently, without losing ALL life then that's one hell of a robust system. Rising C02 doesn't even present an unusual state for Earth, instead we've been living in the unusual state.The sad truth of the matter is that somewhere along the lines climate science went wacky. If you apply the same burdens of proof that are used in physics to climate science, you don't get the same reaction. If we did, the large Hadron Collider could not have been switched on due to a few scientists suggesting that it could go badly. We called them alarmist quacks and fired her up anyway. Yet when that same alarmism crops up in climate science, which it seems clear at this point that the earth is not reacting as they predicted, we don't seem to hold them to the same standards. Instead we do the freak out and at worst spend billions on potentially nothing and restrict human development, or at best mitigate something that may have ended up beneficial. Where did the idea that climate change is bad actually come in?Well, it came in because of the anti-humanist movement decided it was a good thing to scare the shit out of everyone. Malthus started that garbage, scared the hell out of everyone that we would run out of land to grow food for an increasing population, the ideas were cited in every atrocity from the Irish Potato Famine to Nazi Germany, and . . . well . . . um . . . we invented better agricultural practices and Malthus' concept appears to have been a gross oversimplification. Yet that same anti-humanist ideology is still with us today, scaring the piss out of people.But the proof is in the pudding. Greenpeace is opposing ITER. Now, why is that? It promises to be the saving grace as far as alternate energy. But they oppose it. They're not so stupid as to be scared of words like thermonuclear. No, they oppose it because they oppose human development and progress. The green movement wants a downgrade of human civilization. You will see a day where the question "What is the Keck Telescope's carbon footprint? Is it worth it?" is asked if we keep going down this road.Well, if that's how things are, then I want a damned solid chunk of real proof that the problem exists and I want a damned solid chunk of proof that the human brain can't fix it with engineering before we start talking about slowing down progress. I have yet to be given that damned solid chunk of proof here in -4 Missouri with 12 inches of snow on the ground.
Quote from: Agent : Orange on January 07, 2014, 05:33:46 AMThanks for this well thought out and stated response. I have never heard of the Greenpeace movement against ITER. That's... wow.
Quote from: West of the Rockies on January 07, 2014, 09:27:41 AMOh, man, Yorkie, I think you should change your name to York B. Wells! What you say is all too true, but that was not a post that put me in my happy place this morning. 😩
Quote from: Yorkshire pud on January 07, 2014, 09:44:50 AMHave I spoiled your day mate? Sorry. Not sure about the Wells connection though...
Quote from: West of the Rockies on January 07, 2014, 09:57:45 AMJust that your words had a Wellsian doom and gloom tone, Yorkie, that's all. Man, we never should have shut down Eureka: Henry, Zane and Fargo could fix this.
Quote from: SciFiAuthor on January 07, 2014, 05:08:09 AM...The sad truth of the matter is that somewhere along the lines climate science went wacky. If you apply the same burdens of proof that are used in physics to climate science, you don't get the same reaction. If we did, the large Hadron Collider could not have been switched on due to a few scientists suggesting that it could go badly. We called them alarmist quacks and fired her up anyway...
Quote from: Paper*Boy on January 07, 2014, 12:25:20 AMI probably do, since I included this in my post:Which you almost immediately confirmed, thanks.
Quote from: RealCool Daddio on January 07, 2014, 07:05:58 PMOh, I have no doubt that you are aware of the words, can even spell them correctly, it is their actual meaning that seems to elude you.
QuoteWhat Al got rightRetreating Himalayan GlaciersContrary to James Taylor's article, the American Meteorological Society's Journal of Climate never said growing glaciers are "confounding global warming alarmists" - that's a quote from the Heartland Institute website written by... James Taylor. He's actually quoting himself and attributing it to the AMS! To put the Himalayas in context, the original AMS study is not refuting global warming but observing anomalous behaviour in a particular region, the Karakoram mountains. This region has shown short term glacier growth in contrast to the long term, widespread glacier retreat throughout the rest of the Himalayas due to feedback processes associated with monsoon season. Overall, Himalayan glaciers are retreating - satellite measurements have observed "an overall deglaciation of 21%" from 1962 to 2007. In essence, the Karakoram glaciers are the exception that proves the rule.Greenland gaining iceRe Greenland, a big clue is the study's title: Recent Ice-Sheet Growth in the Interior of Greenland. The study finds increasing ice mass in the interior due to heavier snowfall - an expected side-effect of global warming - and doesn't factor in all the melting that occurs at the edges of the ice sheet. Overall, Greenland is losing ice according to satellite measurements here, here and here.Antartica cooling and gaining iceAntarctic cooling is a uniquely regional phenomenon. The original study observed regional cooling in east Antarctica. The hole in the ozone layer above the Pole causes increased circular winds around the continent preventing warmer air from reaching eastern Antarctica and the Antarctic plateau. The flip side of this is the Antarctic Peninsula has "experienced some of the fastest warming on Earth, nearly 3Â°C over the last half-century". While East Antartica is gaining ice, Antartica is overall losing ice. This is mostly due to melting in West Antarctica which recently had the largest melting observed by satellites in the last 30 years.HurricanesThe dispute isn't that global warming is causing more hurricanes but that it's increasing their severity and longevity.What Al got wrongMount KilimanjaroIndeed deforestation seems to be causing Mount Kilimanjaro's shrinking glacier so Gore got this wrong. In his defence, the study by Philip Mote came out after Gore's film was made. But Mote puts it in perspective: "The fact that the loss of ice on Mount Kilimanjaro cannot be used as proof of global warming does not mean that the Earth is not warming. There is ample and conclusive evidence that Earth's average temperature has increased in the past 100 years, and the decline of mid- and high-latitude glaciers is a major piece of evidence."Dr Thompson's thermometerAl Gore refers to a graph of temperature, attributing it to Dr Thompson . The graph is actually a combination of Mann's hockey stick (Mann 1998) and CRU's surface measurements (Jones 1999). However, the essential point that temperatures are greater now than during the Medieval Warm Period is correct and confirmed by multiple proxy reconstructions. More on Dr Thompson's thermometer.
Quote from: Paper*Boy on January 07, 2014, 08:22:04 PMWell, you know, it's the 'settled science' quacks that use the weather to further their climate agenda, not me. I just point it out.The thing is, they can't seem to even predict that accurately. So not only are the climate projections they've been making since at least Al Gore's book flat out wrong, so are their weather predictions. On top of that they keep revising their 'facts' - and the revisions never seem to be in their favor.These people are the 'Green' branch of the 'Progressive' Fascists, just as 'Occupy' is the militant branch. They hate Capitalism and Liberty. This 'green' front is about denying us the energy we need.Look, I'm for the environment, against pollution, concerned (very) about things like the plastic bits in the ocean and the poisoning of our groundwater, but lying about drastic climate change then lying about it being man made in an attempt to further a Socialist one-world government agenda is not going to address any of that.
Quote from: Paper*Boy on January 07, 2014, 09:55:37 PMThe people with the data are the so-called scientists at East Anglia. That's where nearly all the data goes to be analyzed. They are the ones collecting and analyzing the data and reporting it. Everyone else is repeating what they say second hand.The thing I just can't get past is all those hacked emails at East Anglia just before the Copenhagen Conference. They were caught red handed lying about it - those emails were chock full of questions between them about how to distort information, how to amplify data that supports their position, how to bury data that doesn't. They flat out made up certain data in order to bridge gaps they needed bridged. On top of that, the people who developed their software said they aren't using it correctly. They had some resignations and reassignments, and got some of their cronies to come 'audit' their work and tell everyone it was all ok after all, but the damage is done. None of it is to be trusted, in my opinion. Especially when so many predictions have been so wrong - no matter what they claim. But hey, if you like your policy you can keep it.
Quote from: Ruteger on January 07, 2014, 08:58:42 PMYou have to be mentally ill to be a Democrat. Everything these diseased animals have advocated has been proven a detriment to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness.
Quote from: RealCool Daddio on January 07, 2014, 10:34:32 PMNo, it is a department of a small English University, not some global clearing house for climate data. In fact, only 160 gig of data was hacked, most of it e-mails between four guys. And they didn't make stuff up, and weren't fired, etc., etc. Don't you have google where you live?http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Climatic_Research_Unit_email_controversyAlso, any luck finding a single scientific body of national or international standing that refutes human driven climate change? Just one?But hey, if you let politicians do your thinking for you, why bother educating yourself, right?
Quote from: RealCool Daddio on January 07, 2014, 10:34:32 PMNo, it is a department of a small English University, not some global clearing house for climate data. In fact, only 160 gig of data was hacked, most of it e-mails between four guys. And they didn't make stuff up, and weren't fired, etc., etc. Don't you have google where you live?http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Climatic_Research_Unit_email_controversy
Quote from: RealCool Daddio on January 07, 2014, 10:34:32 PM... Also, any luck finding a single scientific body of national or international standing that refutes human driven climate change? Just one?...
Quote from: analog kid on January 07, 2014, 11:50:14 PMYeah, the controversy over those hacked emails was thoroughly debunked. I was surprised to see someone still referring to them recently, but it's apparently still a thing. Same with the "Oregon Petition."
Quote from: Paper*Boy on January 07, 2014, 11:54:18 PMNope, lies are still considered lies, even with Obama in office. An organization doesn't get to have their cronies 'investigate' them, then declare all is well. Why is that so easy for Libs to understand if it happens on Wall St, but never when it's the government involved?
Quote from: Paper*Boy on January 07, 2014, 11:50:56 PMYou don't like science to be political - me either, but guess what - sometimes it's political. Especially when it comes to furthering the anti-capitalist, anti-West agenda and it's defended practically until the death when it is another link in the step-by-step one-world-government agenda.
Quote from: Paper*Boy on January 08, 2014, 05:17:41 AMAre there any problems out there -real or imagined - where the answer is NOT some form of Marxism?Seriously.
Quote from: analog kid on January 07, 2014, 11:50:14 PMYeah, the controversy over those hacked emails was thoroughly debunked. I was surprised to see someone still referring to them recently...
Quote from: West of the Rockies on January 08, 2014, 02:14:34 PMI swear that the regular posters here on these god-forsaken political threads could all be standing on the street together... Has anyone here ever really and truly changed your views based on something you read here?
Quote from: onan on January 08, 2014, 05:29:29 AMEither or conditions rarely lead to adequate solutions.