EasyEd
Platinum Hoya (over 5000 posts)
Posts: 7,272
|
Post by EasyEd on Dec 11, 2013 13:42:28 GMT -5
You need to make up your mind - is your argument that it is not getting warmer or that it is getting warmer but that is normal cyclical change? Because pointing out that it is still very cold in Antarctica was an example of the former, but then when that was easily discredited as evidence of anything, you refuted it yourself by making the cyclical argument. To answer your question, I believe it is cyclical. As for my posting of various stories about hot and cold, like the coldest temperature on record story, are for the sole purpose of getting a ride out of those who do not believe it is cyclical and natural. The postings I make always seem to incur a myriad of responses by serious people who ignore the cyclical evidence and who feel obligated to deride anyone who dares disagree with them. We've had the ice age, followed by warming, followed by cooling and so on. The oceans have risen and receded. I live in an area that, along with a wide swath of surrounding territory, was once underwater and is now above the ocean level and home to many people. These things have all happened with no man-made influence. A proper scientific approach uses all available data, not some selected findings. It also openly solicits opposing views.
|
|
quickplay
Silver Hoya (over 500 posts)
Posts: 733
|
Post by quickplay on Dec 11, 2013 14:02:20 GMT -5
I like how you talk about this as if it's censorship. The scientific process considers views, and then accepts or rejects them based on evidence. What you're talking about doesn't bolster your point, it's merely regurgitating the basics of the scientific process, which HAS been running on this.
I'm fairly certain that the overwhelming scientific majority that believes in the human effect on climate change (even using the word majority is too soft, 97% is a bit more than a majority) know about the fact that the earth's climate has changed many times. Pointing that out has nothing to do with anything.
|
|
SirSaxa
Blue & Gray (over 10,000 posts)
Posts: 15,620
|
Post by SirSaxa on Jan 23, 2014 23:38:33 GMT -5
Industry Awakens to Threat of Climate ChangeExcerptsWASHINGTON — Coca-Cola has always been more focused on its economic bottom line than on global warming, but when the company lost a lucrative operating license in India because of a serious water shortage there in 2004, things began to change.
Today, after a decade of increasing damage to Coke’s balance sheet as global droughts dried up the water needed to produce its soda, the company has embraced the idea of climate change as an economically disruptive force.
“Increased droughts, more unpredictable variability, 100-year floods every two years,” said Jeffrey Seabright, Coke’s vice president for environment and water resources, listing the problems that he said were also disrupting the company’s supply of sugar cane and sugar beets, as well as citrus for its fruit juices. “When we look at our most essential ingredients, we see those events as threats.”
Coke reflects a growing view among American business leaders and mainstream economists who see global warming as a force that contributes to lower gross domestic products, higher food and commodity costs, broken supply chains and increased financial risk. Their position is at striking odds with the longstanding argument, advanced by the coal industry and others, that policies to curb carbon emissions are more economically harmful than the impact of climate change.
|
|
Boz
Blue & Gray (over 10,000 posts)
123 Fireballs!
Posts: 10,355
|
Post by Boz on Mar 2, 2014 19:50:28 GMT -5
F you, Al Gore.
F you right in the ear.
Lousy Smarch weather!
|
|
|
Post by rustyshackleford on Mar 3, 2014 23:18:23 GMT -5
I like how you talk about this as if it's censorship. The scientific process considers views, and then accepts or rejects them based on evidence. What you're talking about doesn't bolster your point, it's merely regurgitating the basics of the scientific process, which HAS been running on this. I'm fairly certain that the overwhelming scientific majority that believes in the human effect on climate change (even using the word majority is too soft, 97% is a bit more than a majority) know about the fact that the earth's climate has changed many times. Pointing that out has nothing to do with anything. An overwhelming majority of the most worthwhile skeptics believe that much of the warming right now is due to human actions. Stephen McIntyre, Will Happer, John Christy, Pielke Sr., Petr Chylek, Roy Spencer, Lindzen, Shaviv, Legates, Stott and William Gray all agree on a human contribution to global warming. Now there are some credible scientists who have advocated solar cycle and cosmic ray hypotheses for the variation we've seen but they're work is widely disputed and certainly less substantial than a CO2 link. If you want a reasonable 'skeptics' blog EasyEd that also converses with mainstream scientists I suggest you look at Lucia Liljegren's though she too believes some warming is attributable to human activities even if she disagrees with many IPCC projections.
|
|
quickplay
Silver Hoya (over 500 posts)
Posts: 733
|
Post by quickplay on Mar 8, 2014 21:50:15 GMT -5
|
|
SirSaxa
Blue & Gray (over 10,000 posts)
Posts: 15,620
|
Post by SirSaxa on Mar 30, 2014 23:21:58 GMT -5
IPCC Panel’s Warning on Climate Risk: Worst Is Yet to ComeExcerpts YOKOHAMA, Japan — MARCH 30, 2014 -- Climate change is already having sweeping effects on every continent and throughout the world’s oceans, scientists reported Monday, and they warned that the problem is likely to grow substantially worse unless greenhouse emissions are brought under control.
The report by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, a United Nations group that periodically summarizes climate science, concluded that ice caps are melting, sea ice in the Arctic is collapsing, water supplies are coming under stress, heat waves and heavy rains are intensifying, coral reefs are dying, and fish and many other creatures are migrating toward the poles or in some cases going extinct.
The oceans are rising at a pace that threatens coastal communities and are becoming more acidic as they absorb some of the carbon dioxide given off by cars and power plants, which is killing some creatures or stunting their growth, the report found. Organic matter frozen in Arctic soils since before civilization began is now melting, allowing it to decay into greenhouse gases that will cause further warming, the scientists said.
And the worst is yet to come, the scientists said in the second of three reports that are expected to carry considerable weight next year as nations try to agree on a new global climate treaty. In particular, the report emphasized that the world’s food supply is at considerable risk — a threat that could have serious consequences for the poorest nations.
“Nobody on this planet is going to be untouched by the impacts of climate change,” Rajendra K. Pachauri, chairman of the intergovernmental panel, said at a news conference here on Monday.
|
|
Nevada Hoya
Blue & Gray (over 10,000 posts)
Posts: 18,416
|
Post by Nevada Hoya on Apr 2, 2014 15:35:54 GMT -5
www.nature.com/news/brace-for-impacts-1.14965?WT.ec_id=NATURE-20140403Each report brings worse news. A little irony is that carbon dioxide has a global warming potential of 1 (by definition) and there are hundreds and even thousands of compounds with much greater global warming potentials. For example, sulfur hexaflouoride (SF6) has a global warming potential of 22,800. Many compounds used in the electronics industry have high GWPs. Of course, none of these compounds as released into the atmosphere in any quantities like CO2. But on a cumulative basis all these compounds might have an effect on the total global warming. GWPs are determined by three factors: molecular weight, radiative forcing, and atmospheric lifetime. Radiative forcing indicates how much IR radiation that a molecule absorbs and consequently how it contributes to heating up the atmosphere. Atmospheric lifetime depends on the sinks in the atmosphere that remove the molecule. Compounds with hydrogren in their formula can react with hydroxyl radicals (OH). Compounds such as SF6 have no such sinks and rely on other mechanisms to remove them, and again as in the case of SF6 these mechanisms are sometimes not very effective.
|
|
Nevada Hoya
Blue & Gray (over 10,000 posts)
Posts: 18,416
|
Post by Nevada Hoya on Apr 2, 2014 17:05:59 GMT -5
|
|
tashoya
Blue & Gray (over 10,000 posts)
Posts: 12,319
|
Post by tashoya on Apr 2, 2014 19:27:44 GMT -5
What do Stanford scientists know anyway? Hacks.
|
|
EasyEd
Platinum Hoya (over 5000 posts)
Posts: 7,272
|
Post by EasyEd on Apr 7, 2014 18:33:31 GMT -5
|
|
hoyainspirit
Platinum Hoya (over 5000 posts)
When life puts that voodoo on me, music is my gris-gris.
Posts: 8,392
|
Post by hoyainspirit on Apr 8, 2014 11:26:01 GMT -5
|
|
Nevada Hoya
Blue & Gray (over 10,000 posts)
Posts: 18,416
|
Post by Nevada Hoya on Apr 22, 2014 18:25:44 GMT -5
|
|
SaxaCD
Diamond Hoya (over 2500 posts)
Posts: 4,401
|
Post by SaxaCD on Apr 22, 2014 22:36:53 GMT -5
"simple" being the operative term.
|
|
Boz
Blue & Gray (over 10,000 posts)
123 Fireballs!
Posts: 10,355
|
Post by Boz on Apr 23, 2014 7:47:15 GMT -5
A) Don't you presume to tell me what I will understand, Mr. Science Person!! I understand things with pictures of Kate Upton in them. That article had none of that. None!! Anything without Kate Upton is a crap shoot. B) If we are supposed to be "training" for climate change, then why are we not building nuclear power plants? Why are environmentalists doing pretty much everything in their power to prevent bringing more natural gas to market? As many of you know, for full disclosure, I work in the energy industry. And we (meaning my company) are heavily, heavily investing in cleaner technologies including wind, solar, fuel cell technologies and more. This is a wise investment, both for the company and the consumer, and there is a market for it. But you know what none of those things can do right now? Keep a million plus people warm during a cold winter. Let alone more people in even larger markets. You want to "train" for climate change? Well, let's do it right. Because I don't think an MLB team (and really, can we substitute the NHL or NBA? You know, where the REAL athletes are? ) trains for and during the season by walking on the treadmill or warming up on the stationary bike. Nothing wrong with those things, but they are not going to get you in the shape you need. Professional athletes who want to compete at the highest level also train at the highest level, using the best and most proven technology, lifting heavy weights, not 5-lb. dumbbells. (Anyone who wants to make a nuclear power = PED joke, please feel free. I wanted to, just couldn't think of a good one.) Oh, and it would also help if the loudest environmentalists didn't keep shooting themselves in the foot by making outlandish and unscientific predictions that virtually never happen. $0.02.
|
|
|
Post by rustyshackleford on Apr 30, 2014 10:38:51 GMT -5
A) Don't you presume to tell me what I will understand, Mr. Science Person!! I understand things with pictures of Kate Upton in them. That article had none of that. None!! Anything without Kate Upton is a crap shoot. B) If we are supposed to be "training" for climate change, then why are we not building nuclear power plants? Why are environmentalists doing pretty much everything in their power to prevent bringing more natural gas to market? As many of you know, for full disclosure, I work in the energy industry. And we (meaning my company) are heavily, heavily investing in cleaner technologies including wind, solar, fuel cell technologies and more. This is a wise investment, both for the company and the consumer, and there is a market for it. But you know what none of those things can do right now? Keep a million plus people warm during a cold winter. Let alone more people in even larger markets. You want to "train" for climate change? Well, let's do it right. Because I don't think an MLB team (and really, can we substitute the NHL or NBA? You know, where the REAL athletes are? ) trains for and during the season by walking on the treadmill or warming up on the stationary bike. Nothing wrong with those things, but they are not going to get you in the shape you need. Professional athletes who want to compete at the highest level also train at the highest level, using the best and most proven technology, lifting heavy weights, not 5-lb. dumbbells. (Anyone who wants to make a nuclear power = PED joke, please feel free. I wanted to, just couldn't think of a good one.) Oh, and it would also help if the loudest environmentalists didn't keep shooting themselves in the foot by making outlandish and unscientific predictions that virtually never happen. $0.02. Fair enough - but take this for an example - it doesn't seem like Moyer would have been outlandish or unscientific: blogs.scientificamerican.com/observations/2014/04/30/my-experience-on-fox-friends-regarding-climate-change/?WT.mc_id=SA_sharetool_TwitterThere's clearly a right wing bubble on climate change.
|
|
hoyainspirit
Platinum Hoya (over 5000 posts)
When life puts that voodoo on me, music is my gris-gris.
Posts: 8,392
|
Post by hoyainspirit on May 15, 2014 1:56:37 GMT -5
|
|
TC
Platinum Hoya (over 5000 posts)
Posts: 9,442
|
Post by TC on May 15, 2014 10:58:18 GMT -5
Rubio's climate change comments have shown he's a total lightweight. He vacillates between stupid talking points of climate change not being man made and the challenge of getting the BRIC countries on board with reigning in their carbon consumption. If you don't believe it's man made, you don't care about the second. Inhofe is a corporate stooge for the oil industry, but at least he can keep his ridiculous talking points straight. Rubio's not even that adept a denialist.
BTW kudos to Rob Portman for writing an actually halfway useful efficency bill that got sabotaged by his idiotic party in the Senate.
|
|
EasyEd
Platinum Hoya (over 5000 posts)
Posts: 7,272
|
Post by EasyEd on Jun 23, 2014 18:29:09 GMT -5
|
|
|
Post by Problem of Dog on Jun 23, 2014 19:30:48 GMT -5
I don't read random WordPress articles, especially not about something as settled as climate change. This is the stupidest crusade that the right has.
|
|